All Things Trump

[Scot Dutchy]

Do you have to be over 50 to register? Anything of course is possible. Well it is not democratic is it? Was there not a nice bit of gerrymandering going on there?

[Scot Dutchy]

Who needs friends?

Trump says Germans ‘turning against their leadership’ over immigration

US president launches unprecedented attack on Angela Merkel’s government

[Tero]

Trump supreme court leaves gerrymandering in place
https://www.npr.org/2018/06/18/60601702 ... o-in-place
"studies show.... nothing, apparently

[Tero]

Now he's channeling Reagan (star wars)
https://www.npr.org/2018/05/21/61301747 ... ary-branch

[Forty Two]

Trump supreme court leaves gerrymandering in place
https://www.npr.org/2018/06/18/60601702 ... o-in-place
"studies show.... nothing, apparently

It's now a "Trump Supreme Court?" How many Justices has he appointed? 1. Obama's and Clinton appointed 4 of the current justices. The decisions in both of the gerrymandering cases were "unanimous." 9-0.

Also, one of the cases involved gerrymandering by Republicans, and the other involved gerrymandering by Democrats. Both 9-0 decisions against the complaining persons.

In the Maryland case, Republican voters argued that Maryland's Democratic-controlled government violated their constitutional rights by gerrymandering the state's congressional lines to oust a long-serving GOP congressman. They were denied a preliminary injunction by the district court (which found no "likelihood of success on the merits" and that they were not in a position to grant the relief requested, and that the plaintiffs did not act with reasonable diligence, etc.), and so the SCOTUS ruled 9-0 that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the injunction. Decision sounded reasonable when I scanned through it.

In the Wisconsin case, Democrat voters sued alleging the statewide redistricting violated their constitutional rights, and the SCOTUS found a lack of standing to sue (i.e., the particular plaintiffs in this case did not establish a justiciable injury to give them a sufficient interest in the case). However, the Court remanded (sent back) the case to the district court to allow the Plaintiff's to introduce evidence to prove their particularized, individual injury-in-fact on which to base their "standing" to sue. That also sounds fairly reasonable. My concern is that in cases involving constitutional issues, the court tends to be pretty hard on plaintiffs in establishing standing, such that sometimes it appears to be impossible to find a plaintiff who can challenge a given practice.

Of the two, the weaker case was the one in Maryland. However, the Wisconsin case is not dead, and may wind up coming back up the appellate ladder.

[Forty Two]

Who needs friends?

Trump says Germans ‘turning against their leadership’ over immigration

US president launches unprecedented attack on Angela Merkel’s government

Yes, criticism should always flow only one way. When Donald Tusk or Jean Claude-Juncker criticize and even mock him, that's perfectly reasonable. When Macron criticizes American policy on the Paris Climate Accord, and appeals to Americans as opposed to the President, that's fine too. Criticism German immigration policy, however, and that's just "unprecedented." Nobody criticizes American policy. That would be unprecedented. LOL.

[Svartalf]

You can't make a tortilla without breaking eggs..

..or can you?

depends, Spanish or Mexican style tortilla?

[Brian Peacock]

Trump supreme court leaves gerrymandering in place
https://www.npr.org/2018/06/18/60601702 ... o-in-place
"studies show.... nothing, apparently

It's now a "Trump Supreme Court?" How many Justices has he appointed? 1. Obama's and Clinton appointed 4 of the current justices. The decisions in both of the gerrymandering cases were "unanimous." 9-0.

Also, one of the cases involved gerrymandering by Republicans, and the other involved gerrymandering by Democrats. Both 9-0 decisions against the complaining persons.

In the Maryland case, Republican voters argued that Maryland's Democratic-controlled government violated their constitutional rights by gerrymandering the state's congressional lines to oust a long-serving GOP congressman. They were denied a preliminary injunction by the district court (which found no "likelihood of success on the merits" and that they were not in a position to grant the relief requested, and that the plaintiffs did not act with reasonable diligence, etc.), and so the SCOTUS ruled 9-0 that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the injunction. Decision sounded reasonable when I scanned through it.

In the Wisconsin case, Democrat voters sued alleging the statewide redistricting violated their constitutional rights, and the SCOTUS found a lack of standing to sue (i.e., the particular plaintiffs in this case did not establish a justiciable injury to give them a sufficient interest in the case). However, the Court remanded (sent back) the case to the district court to allow the Plaintiff's to introduce evidence to prove their particularized, individual injury-in-fact on which to base their "standing" to sue. That also sounds fairly reasonable. My concern is that in cases involving constitutional issues, the court tends to be pretty hard on plaintiffs in establishing standing, such that sometimes it appears to be impossible to find a plaintiff who can challenge a given practice.

Of the two, the weaker case was the one in Maryland. However, the Wisconsin case is not dead, and may wind up coming back up the appellate ladder.

You make it sound like gerrymandering is just a fact of life.

[Tero]

ICE is authorized to deport these immigrants

"Crimes of moral turpitude" are not well defined in U.S. immigration law. However, the Department of State has provided guidance, noting that the most common elements of a moral turpitude crime will include "fraud, larceny, and intent to harm persons or things." Crimes involving dishonesty and theft will almost always be considered crimes of moral turpitude. Other examples would be assault with the intent to rob or kill, spousal abuse, and aggravated driving under the influence ("DUI" or "DWI").

As there are too many examples of crimes that have been found to involve moral turpitude to list here, it is safest to take a certified disposition of your offense (obtained from the clerk of the court where your case was heard) to a criminal or immigration attorney in order to learn whether your particular type of conviction has been found to be one.

It may be possible to argue that your conviction should not be classified as a crime of moral turpitude, or that the statute that you violated contains elements that would not always pertain to a crime of moral turpitude. These types of defenses will be highly dependent upon the wording of the statute under which you were convicted. Criminal statutes almost always come from state law, so you may be raising brand new questions about how these statutes are interpreted under federal immigration law.

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia ... table.html
Not clear what the whole process is

[Brian Peacock]

If one holds the vast statutes of law to be inviolable then any crime or misdemeanor signifies an act of moral turpitude.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Legitimate criticism is one thing. Blatant lying about the internal conditions of an ally nation is another, but it's in keeping with a long history of self-serving mendacity.

President Trump claimed in a tweet Monday morning that “crime in Germany is way up,” ignoring statistics that prove the crime rate there has actually reached a historic low.

The president also claimed that migration was causing Germans to turn against their leaders, and that millions of asylum-seekers from Africa and the Middle East had “strongly and violently changed” Europe’s culture.

“The people of Germany are turning against their leadership as migration is rocking the already tenuous Berlin coalition,” he tweeted. “Crime in Germany is way up. Big mistake made all over Europe in allowing millions of people in who have so strongly and violently changed their culture!”

Like so many of the president’s tweets, Monday’s claim was both misleading and factually inaccurate.

Crime in Germany is not way up. Official figures from last month show that the national crime rate fell 5 percent since last year in Germany, dropping to the lowest levels since 1992. The number of crimes committed by non-German individuals fell 23 percent. The one area of crime which saw a 2.5 percent increase was antisemitic attacks — with 94 percent of them committed by far-right German nationals.

[Rum]

He has done this pretty consistently. He talked not long ao about cities in the UK where the police were afraid to go because of Muslims - amongst a few other utterly ridiculous lies.

Esquire estimates he has told over 3000 lies in fact: https://www.esquire.com/uk/latest-news/ ... -his-best/

[JimC]

In fact he needs an aide with a fire extinguisher with him at all times to douse his flaming pants...

[Tero]

White House says they have to arrest all illegal immigrants and put them in jail. Would it not be better for them to deport them immediately than keep them here? It does not get rid of them to jail them.

That was their reason for separating the kids, who are not criminals.

[Tero]

More
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... -explainer