re: NYC passes law: $250,000 fine for saying “illegal alien” outloud

quote:

---

No, Shorty, “trolling” is trying to drag me into an argument in which I would argue the merits of a position that I have never taken. I have no interest in that discussion.

I think that the memo is worse than the ordinances. I think that the memo goes far beyond the bounds of the ordinances. Period.

---

quote:

---

The actual ordinance is ill-advised and possibly unconstitutional for several reasons.

---

This is what you said, Skippy. I know you’re feverishly trying to crawfish on it, but you’re trying to do it your typical chickenshit way. If you don’t want to defend your own words, the way to do that is admit they were wrong.

ETA: Since you’ve read this groundbreaking ordinance, and apparently feel like it could possibly be Constitutional, why don’t you tell us how it could possibly be construed as Constitutional? Possibly you have found a qualifier on the right to free speech, if it is out of hate? I’m guessing it also says who gets to make that determination as well, right? Maybe everyone except you missed a whole section of the First Amendment. Lay it on us.

quote:

---

This is what you said, Skippy. I know you’re feverishly trying to crawfish on it, but you’re trying to do it your typical chickenshit way. If you don’t want to defend your own words, the way to do that is admit they were wrong.

---

"It might possibly be unconstitutional"

"WTF, it's OBVIOUSLY so"

"Why are you bitching...….I'm agreeing with you!"

quote:

---

Because I recognize that the process of Constitutional interpretation is not a black/white matter? What an odd world view

---

Oh for fricksake you're trolling hard

You had no issue passing summary judgment on Deblasio memo, but play this card

frick you man. Defend your position.

quote:

---

He's hated for spending page upon page acting like he DIDN'T do what he obviously did.

---

you have now convinced yourself that I took a position that the ordinances themselves were all constitutional. AGAIN, I said nothing of the sort. To the contrary, I OPINED that they are quite possibly UNconstitutional.

And then you tried to goad me into arguing that the damned things ARE Constitutional, when YOU (unlike these others) actually ARE bright enough to grasp that I never so-contended.

But on this forum, there are no gray areas. Only idiots refuse to see gray areas where they exist, and this place has more than its share of such persons. It is sometimes quite tiresome.

quote:

---

But on this forum, there are no gray areas.

---

Only if you choose to see it that way. I disagree with the majority narrative on occasion and rarely have to argue about it.

I disagree with a lot of stuff Trump does and don't have an issue discussing it.

quote:

---

you have now convinced yourself that I took a position that the ordinances themselves were all constitutional.

---

That’s a lie.

quote:

---

AGAIN, I said nothing of the sort. To the contrary, I OPINED that they are quite possibly UNconstitutional.

---

And yet you have yet to even attempt to say how the ordinance could possibly be Constitutional.

quote:

---

But on this forum, there are no gray areas. Only idiots refuse to see gray areas where they exist, and this place has more than its share of such persons. It is sometimes quite tiresome.

---

Idiots refuse to see gay areas where they exist, and leftist shitbags refuse to see black and white when it’s detrimental to their agenda.

quote:

---

I recognize that the process of Constitutional interpretation is not a black/white matter?

---

Except it often is.

Like in this instance, dumbass.

quote:

---

And yet you have yet to even attempt to say how the ordinance could possibly be Constitutional.

---

wrong yet again.

This is now the third instance in which I have pointed out that the Supreme Court has repeatedly addressed the question of public accommodation laws and protected classes. Are you actually taking the position that the Supreme Court has NOT ruled in favor of public accommodation laws very similar to the ordinances in question? If so, you are quite simply too uninformed to be involved in this discussion.

Again, the memo goes beyond the language of the ordinances. If the law were applied in a manner consistent with the memo, as opposed to the express language of the various ordinances, it seems far more likely to me that the application could be found to be unconstitutional.

Again, this is not rocket science, at least not for someone with any understanding whatsoever of constitutional law.

quote:

---

quote:

---

protected-class pabulum.

---

I said it would end up in the defense

---

You say this as if it were some great revelation.

Anyone reading the ordinances can see that they relate to protected classes.

quote:

---

Thus, if this matter where to go to the Supreme Court based entirely upon the ordinances themselves, it is quite possible that they would be found constitutional. This is not rocket science, you fricking moron.

---

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Maybe I am the moron here, but I don’t give a rats arse about what the Supreme Court finds Constitutional. If the City of New York has given themselves permission to fine people for calling someone an illegal immigrant, threatening to call ICE, whatever, it’s unconstitutional. Black and white. No probably. No possibly. Unconstitutional.

If being highly educated like the SC Justices is what makes for gray areas in the plain English of the Bill of Rights, then they, and you, are the highly educated morons. Morons who find the right to murder the unborn, and infringe on rights that the Constitution plainly says they have no authority to infringe upon.