|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3..9~10~11 | ||||||||||
tommy Eternal Order Devil's Island 16544 Posts |
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy |
|||||||||
Magnus Eisengrim Inner circle Sulla placed heads on 1053 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-07-29 02:20, balducci wrote: Your Partisan-to-English translator is broken, Balducci. By "crony" he meant "a judge who made a decision with which I disagree on political grounds". Glad to help. John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats |
|||||||||
NicholasD Inner circle 1458 Posts |
Is it really political to want to secure our borders and protect our country?
And, I don't care who appointed her or who recommended her, she was sucking up to the current administration. |
|||||||||
balducci Loyal user Canada 227 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-07-29 10:33, NicholasD wrote: So let the end justify the means? If a judge believes that a law created to do so is unconstitutional, he / she should let it stand?
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
|
|||||||||
NicholasD Inner circle 1458 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-07-29 10:43, balducci wrote: Well, I guess that's still to be determined. Arizona's Governor is willing to take it to the Supreme Court. |
|||||||||
Magnus Eisengrim Inner circle Sulla placed heads on 1053 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-07-29 10:33, NicholasD wrote: This is disingenuous. 1. It is trivially political to secure borders. But there is nothing wrong with that. 2. The issue here is not whether borders should be secure, but whether this particular legislation is an appropriate tool for the job. 3. How is it clear that she is sucking up to anybody? She interpreted the law in her legitimate jurisdiction. There will be an appeal and who knows what the outcome will be? Like it or not, she did her job. Whether her judgment will agree with the ultimate judicial opinion, only time will tell. But rest assured that a lot of people will disagree with any decision made by higher courts. John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats |
|||||||||
NicholasD Inner circle 1458 Posts |
Jan Brewer is trying to give us the tools for the job and she's getting shot down.
At least she's doing SOMETHING, unlike the Federal Government. Maybe I'm simplifying this too much, but I can't understand why anyone except an illegal would oppose stricter laws to keep or get illegals out of our country. Oh, wait a minute, someone who wants votes might want to. |
|||||||||
MagicSanta Inner circle Northern Nevada 5841 Posts |
The judge never said it was unconstitutional the basis was that it was redundant. The problem is the enforcement would not be redundant.
|
|||||||||
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts |
Constitutionally, this is an extremely unusual case. Preemption is generally invoked when a state passes a law that is INCONSISTENT with federal law in an area in which the federal government fully occupies the field. The notion of the federal government getting involved in a lawsuit in which the state/local agency is mirroring the federal law is bizarre and atypical (possibly unique; I didn't read the briefs in this case).
Even more unusual is that other jurisdictions have "Sanctuary City" laws which not only pertain to immigration law, but they contravene federal law. So the general timeline of bizarreness looks like this: 1. Some cities pass immigration laws inconsistent with federal law 2. AZ passes an immigration law consistent with federal law 3. The federal government takes the position "Only the federal government can pass immigration laws," and applies it to Arizona's consistent laws, but NOT to the sanctuary cities' inconsistent laws. Constitutionally, I don't think it's as simple as either side would have you believe. A key issue may be the distinction between a law's being inconsistent with a federal law passed by Congress (clearly preempted), vs. a law's being inconsistent with the executive branch's desire not to enforce a federal law passed by Congress.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
MT Elite user 414 Posts |
I don't think it will get better soon. But it shouldn't discourage us magicians from trying to do magic. I don't think it necessarily has to affect your bottom line. Sometimes going out there to do magic probono can lead to other gigs. Just keep working at it.
|
|||||||||
landmark Inner circle within a triangle 5194 Posts |
Very interesting animated map of US unemployment by county. Pretty shocking:
http://cohort11.americanobserver.net/lat......nal.html
Click here to get Gerald Deutsch's Perverse Magic: The First Sixteen Years
All proceeds to Open Heart Magic charity. |
|||||||||
tommy Eternal Order Devil's Island 16544 Posts |
It was posted a few times before but thanks for the update. The trend is still the same....darker.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Unemployment rate (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3..9~10~11 |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.03 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |