It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

More "black" robed insanity from the "Supremes"

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 05:48 AM
link   
"The Supreme Court yesterday let stand a lower court ruling that a California company could not inquire about the immigration status of a group of Hispanic and Southeast Asian women who filed a lawsuit against the firm for job discrimination.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, in an opinion by Judge Stephen Reinhardt, had agreed with a federal magistrate who barred the questioning, saying many of the millions of illegal aliens now in the country were reluctant to report discriminatory employment practices.

www.washtimes.com...

So now you can't even ask an illegal if they are illegal? Time to take back the country from the "Black" robe bunch. The "court" has ruled from the "bench" illegally since 1803 and its time to make them accountable.




posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 06:30 AM
link   
Yeah, and you can't even shoot them on sight at the border, eh Doc.

Oh, sorry, wrong DrHoracid thread. My bad.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 06:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
Yeah, and you can't even shoot them on sight at the border, eh Doc.

Oh, sorry, wrong DrHoracid thread. My bad.




Why not it still fits just about everything I post in the illegal immagration issue.

PS, I don't actually want to shoot anyone, just what them to think twice before crossing illegally. It seems that threat of overwhelming violent death is the only thing that will stop the invasion.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 06:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid
So now you can't even ask an illegal if they are illegal?


Sure you can...before you hire them. But not after the fact as an attempt to get them deported simply because they've filed suit against you for discriminatory practices.

You can't reward employers that hire illegals and abuse them with intent with a deportation scapegoat to their corporate misconduct.

The rest of the article makes that pretty clear.


Time to take back the country from the "Black" robe bunch. The "court" has ruled from the "bench" illegally since 1803 and its time to make them accountable.


No. It's time to take back context from those that seek to infuse noise, half truths, lies, and propaganda as relevant public discourse. It's time to make them accountable.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by RANT

Originally posted by DrHoracid
So now you can't even ask an illegal if they are illegal?


Sure you can...before you hire them. But not after the fact as an attempt to get them deported simply because they've filed suit against you for discriminatory practices.

You can't reward employers that hire illegals and abuse them with intent with a deportation scapegoat to their corporate misconduct.

The rest of the article makes that pretty clear.


Time to take back the country from the "Black" robe bunch. The "court" has ruled from the "bench" illegally since 1803 and its time to make them accountable.


No. It's time to take back context from those that seek to infuse noise, half truths, lies, and propaganda as relevant public discourse. It's time to make them accountable.


Rant are you not familiar with the 1803 marbry v madison bastardization of the role of the supreme court?



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 07:01 AM
link   
okay, so you would rather have the illegals, deported, then have the company prosecuted for hiring the illegals.....
I say, they should ask the question. But then, if it was found that he was discriminating against these employers, and they were indeed illegal. THE EMPLOYER SHOULD PAY FOR BOTH CRIMES!!!



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
okay, so you would rather have the illegals, deported, then have the company prosecuted for hiring the illegals.....
I say, they should ask the question. But then, if it was found that he was discriminating against these employers, and they were indeed illegal. THE EMPLOYER SHOULD PAY FOR BOTH CRIMES!!!


If they weren't here illegally how could they have been hired in the first place? And yes, the company should be punished for it's wrong doing.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 07:42 AM
link   
good, because although I agree that the kid shouldn't have been in your orchard, picking your apples, well, I would disagree that that would give you the right to shoot the kid!!

If the employer knew that they were illegals, he should have giving whatever information he had about them to the proper officials. not hire them thinking that they were a automatic guarentee that he wouldn't be prosecuted for discrimination.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
good, because although I agree that the kid shouldn't have been in your orchard, picking your apples, well, I would disagree that that would give you the right to shoot the kid!!



If the "kid" is tresspassing and stealing then I'd shoot................



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid
Time to take back the country from the "Black" robe bunch. The "court" has ruled from the "bench" illegally since 1803 and its time to make them accountable.


Actually, it's been illegal since 2000, before that it was varying intepretation. But absolutely, after the "Clowns in Gowns " raped America in 2000, they should have been shot for treason.





posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bout Time

Originally posted by DrHoracid
Time to take back the country from the "Black" robe bunch. The "court" has ruled from the "bench" illegally since 1803 and its time to make them accountable.


Actually, it's been illegal since 2000, before that it was varying intepretation. But absolutely, after the "Clowns in Gowns " raped America in 2000, they should have been shot for treason.





Well that is the closest we will ever come to agreeing on something. The "Clowns" actually did have the right to review a state court issue. That is exactly why the actually is a US Supreme Court. To settle issues between the states and the feds........not make law or "select' a leader. The Florida supreme court should have never been involved in the first place..........



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid
Rant are you not familiar with the 1803 marbry v madison bastardization of the role of the supreme court?


I always wondered exactly which days conservatives longed for, now I know.

So America was already "bastardized" within the first few thousand days, huh?


Yeah, that third branch can be a bitch when you've got some unconstitutional laws you want to pass beyond the scope of the original Constitution. That must suck for moral authoritarians like yourself.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 08:13 AM
link   
ummm. when I was a kid, we lived next to pastures that a local dairy farmer would keep his cows in..
occasionally they would get out, and well, then they'd be in all our yards, eating the apples, and getting drunk because most were rotten. Gee, now I see the error of our ways!! Our parents shouldn't have just called the owner and sent us kids out to herd them back home....they should have grabbed their guns, and shot a few first..
would have saved alot on the groceries!!!

just wondering where in the world is all this "morality" you are always spewing out.

[edit on 9-3-2005 by dawnstar]



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
eating the apples, and getting drunk because most were rotten

I didn't know cows could get drunk eating apples!
HA! You made me smile and laugh. FUNNY! I wonder if
the poor critters got hang overs!


Anyways -

9th Circut Court -
Should all be fired.
They've been overturned again and again and ....

Employers hiring illegals ... should all be prosecuted.

Employers hiring illegals and abusing them ... double prosecution.
The illegals can stay long enough to make a statement, then ship
'em out. Just takes a few days. Or, they can stay long enough for
the sting operation. If cooperation is there - perhaps a green card
can be arranged. I have to think about that one though, because
it could cause FALSE accusations against legitmate employers.

Illegals ... tag 'em and ship 'em back. The microchip will keep track
of them and if they come back we will get them, and we will know
how they arrived because we can track it.




[edit on 3/9/2005 by FlyersFan]



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Good Illegal story... A truck full of Mexians is found by the INS. A INS guy goes in and asks does anyone speak english. None respond. He says "Fine, I'll just start shooting people wearing brown shoes first." The ones wearing brown shoes all of a sudden knew english....

Anyways, first, prosecute the company for hiring illegals, then ship the illegals to Antartica or Africa. Not back home, send them somewhere worse. WHy? Gee, if I get caught, I get sent to a place that makes home look like the Garden of Eden. And still need a wall, first a fence with barb wire, 50 feet of mines, another fence with barb wire, then 50 feet of open space, all rocks and trees transplanted to a dif. area, and then a cement wall with US troops doing what they should be doing, protecting AMERICA!!!! I swear, Russia, China, any country in the ME and most in Asia, most South/Central American countries, and Mexico all use the army to guard the border, and shoot on sight, no questions asked, just see you, bam, dead. But America even says they gonna put more border patrol on the border, RACIST! EVIL! RACIST! MURDERERS!



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT

Originally posted by DrHoracid
Rant are you not familiar with the 1803 marbry v madison bastardization of the role of the supreme court?


I always wondered exactly which days conservatives longed for, now I know.

So America was already "bastardized" within the first few thousand days, huh?


Yeah, that third branch can be a bitch when you've got some unconstitutional laws you want to pass beyond the scope of the original Constitution. That must suck for moral authoritarians like yourself.


Sorry Rant, but there really is no such thing as "uncontitutional" law. The court does not have that right of review. It simply does not exist. If the legislation passes it and the executive signs it, then it is law. The court does not have "veto" powers in the consitution. If you look at marbry v madison you will find a "politcal" decision by the court to "take" the power. Jefferson went nuts when they did that.

here are two links

en.wikipedia.org...

usinfo.state.gov...

Here is a snip from the first link

It should be noted that when Jeffersonian Republicans and Jacksonian Democrats launched attacks on the Court, they did so with a belief that congressional or presidential interpretations of the Constitution were entitled to as much respect as those of the Court. It was not until Cooper v. Aaron (the Little Rock school desegregation case) in 1958 that the Court interpreted Marbury v. Madison to provide justification that it is "supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution," effectively equating the Court’s own interpretations with the Constitution itself. Since 1958, the Court has used Marbury v. Madision at least ten times to declare itself the exclusive interpreter of the Constitution.

The court "took" the power..................


[edit on 10-3-2005 by DrHoracid]



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
Yeah, that third branch can be a bitch when you've got some unconstitutional laws you want to pass beyond the scope of the original Constitution. That must suck for moral authoritarians like yourself.


That's awesome RANT.


To Horacid, there is a clear difference between law and policy. It is silly to think that any actual laws are being passed in this day. The only laws that exist are the constitution and natural law. What our legislative and executive branch does is establish policy, the policy of the United States corporation. The way I see it is that the courts decide whether this policy is inline with true law.

So, if you want to get rid of a "bastardized" judicial system, you will need to go ahead and get rid of the entire "bastardized" federal, corporate, de facto government.

[edit on 10-3-2005 by Jamuhn]



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn

Originally posted by RANT
Yeah, that third branch can be a bitch when you've got some unconstitutional laws you want to pass beyond the scope of the original Constitution. That must suck for moral authoritarians like yourself.


That's awesome RANT.


To Horacid, there is a clear difference between law and policy. It is silly to think that any actual laws are being passed in this day. The only laws that exist are the constitution and natural law. What our legislative and executive branch does is establish policy, the policy of the United States corporation. The way I see it is that the courts decide whether this policy is inline with true law.

So, if you want to get rid of a "bastardized" judicial system, you will need to go ahead and get rid of the entire "bastardized" federal, corporate, de facto government.

[edit on 10-3-2005 by Jamuhn]


read this I'll post it again.

It should be noted that when Jeffersonian Republicans and Jacksonian Democrats launched attacks on the Court, they did so with a belief that congressional or presidential interpretations of the Constitution were entitled to as much respect as those of the Court. It was not until Cooper v. Aaron (the Little Rock school desegregation case) in 1958 that the Court interpreted Marbury v. Madison to provide justification that it is "supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution," effectively equating the Court’s own interpretations with the Constitution itself. Since 1958, the Court has used Marbury v. Madision at least ten times to declare itself the exclusive interpreter of the Constitution.

See links above.



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid

Since 1958, the Court has used Marbury v. Madision at least ten times to declare itself the exclusive interpreter of the Constitution.


I'm not disagreeing with you about the illegality of these admiralty courts. I just wanted to point out that "law" is no longer passed, but rather corporate policy. And it is the bastardization of the American government as a whole that has let such events occur. The centralization of power allows power struggles between small groups of individuals, the specific dynamics of which allow one to weild a significant amount of power at any time. No longer are the days of a checked federal government as a whole.

But yes, it is interesting how the Supreme Court is a virtually unchecked brach of government, but I do not think simply getting rid of it is the answer.

[edit on 10-3-2005 by Jamuhn]



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn

Originally posted by DrHoracid

Since 1958, the Court has used Marbury v. Madision at least ten times to declare itself the exclusive interpreter of the Constitution.


I'm not disagreeing with you about the illegality of these admiralty courts. I just wanted to point out that "law" is no longer passed, but rather corporate policy. And it is the bastardization of the American government as a whole that has let such events occur. The centralization of power allows power struggles between small groups of individuals, the specific dynamics of which allow one to weild a significant amount of power at any time. No longer are the days of a checked federal government as a whole.

But yes, it is interesting how the Supreme Court is a virtually unchecked brach of government, but I do not think simply getting rid of it is the answer.

[edit on 10-3-2005 by Jamuhn]


Actually it can be reduced a single justice.............and reduced to law cases not "constitutional" cases. But yes, the entire current "system" is both corrupt and broken. I would cut all the congressional budgets and perks to $0 except for $1 salry for the actually elected.........




top topics



 
0

log in

join