- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The U.S. Supreme Court blocks President Trump from deporting Venezuelan Aliens
Posted on 5/17/25 at 9:00 am to Grumpy Nemesis
Posted on 5/17/25 at 9:00 am to Grumpy Nemesis
Again, you're over-extrapolating an example of how communication is imprecise.
Language is a much larger concept.
This isn't just limited to the law, or something much more broad like philosophy. Take the Bible. How many different denominations exist based on differing interpretations of the Bible?
If your argument about language was correct there would be very few Christian denominations, and the differences would be from non-Bible works/outputs (like Mormons and their silliness).
Language is a much larger concept.
This isn't just limited to the law, or something much more broad like philosophy. Take the Bible. How many different denominations exist based on differing interpretations of the Bible?
If your argument about language was correct there would be very few Christian denominations, and the differences would be from non-Bible works/outputs (like Mormons and their silliness).
1
Posted on 5/17/25 at 9:03 am to the808bass
quote:
With each of your proposed solutions above: detention centers and immigration judges, there would be 18 lawyers telling you what you could and couldn’t do. And delay is inaction.
Such lawyers would be wrong and easily dismissed. The fly in the ointment is "asylum." As to (otherwise) illegal aliens, that's typically the only issue that needs to be adjudicated.
I don't have time to track down the basis for it, but could Congress write a law revoking asylum as a defense against deportation? Should it?
Posted on 5/17/25 at 9:12 am to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
Such lawyers would be wrong and easily dismissed.
This really is your first rodeo.
Posted on 5/17/25 at 9:15 am to the808bass
quote:
This really is your first rodeo.
Our regular immigration-deportation system has not been neutered during the Trump admin.
Posted on 5/17/25 at 9:18 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Our regular immigration-deportation system has not been neutered during the Trump admin.
Whatever this means.
Posted on 5/17/25 at 9:20 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
What is your alternative to a society based on [reality regulations], exactly?
The best societies are based on shared values. Laws are only buttresses for values. Not foundational.
Posted on 5/17/25 at 9:22 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
SlowFlowPro
It's hilarious that you genuinely think this shite works. Your Bible example is worse than your telephone example. And now we're talking definitions over 2,000 years. Across translations. If you think that's relevant to my point then you're stupider than you pretend to be. You got anything else worthwhile? Maybe this crap works on dumb jurors and you used to having dumb juries. Well I'm not on a jury sorry. Your example is spurious to say the least
Posted on 5/17/25 at 9:22 am to the808bass
quote:
Whatever this means.
It means IvoryBill's comment is correct and your dismissive response wasn't really fruitful.
The system he's proposing using has been ongoing without issue during the Trump admin. There has been no substantial judicial intervention (referenced in a prior post of your's, quoted below).
He's saying we need to just use that system at higher levels and this
quote:
With each of your proposed solutions above: detention centers and immigration judges, there would be 18 lawyers telling you what you could and couldn’t do. And delay is inaction.
Would not be a concern.
Posted on 5/17/25 at 9:23 am to Grumpy Nemesis
quote:
Maybe this crap works on dumb jurors and you used to having dumb juries.
He's a strip mall lawyer. He doesn't see juries.
Posted on 5/17/25 at 9:23 am to the808bass
quote:
The best societies are based on shared values. Laws are only buttresses for values. Not foundational.
And how does your society of shared values litigate disputes among the value-sharing population? How does this shared values authorize government to act?
Posted on 5/17/25 at 9:25 am to Grumpy Nemesis
quote:
Your Bible example is worse than your telephone example.
...why?
quote:
And now we're talking definitions over 2,000 years. Across translations.
Yes, I already covered this in an earlier post about language. I'll re-post for you:
quote:
So in your society where judicial review doesn't exist, how do we deal with the flaws of language in a society based on laws written with that flawed language? More importantly, how can you build a legal system for some form of permanence for a society that's constantly changing (including language) with societal and technological developments that could never have been intended at the original writing (what my contracts professor used to call the "Pink Elephant problem"), without some form of judicial review?
Posted on 5/17/25 at 9:25 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
He's a strip mall lawyer. He doesn't see juries.
Posted on 5/17/25 at 9:26 am to SlowFlowPro
Do you think I’m arguing against the existence of a legal system?
I’m not. I noted that already.
I’m not. I noted that already.
Posted on 5/17/25 at 9:29 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Yes, I already covered this in an earlier post about language. I'll re-post for you
Reposting your stupid argument doesn't make it less stupid. Not a single thing you've posted has invalidated even a single word you responded to. The only person you're convincing is yourself and I'm not even sure you're doing that.
You and I both know that the reality is exactly as I described it. In the overwhelming majority of supposed cases where there's a lack of understanding there's no lack of understanding at all. It's just that one side doesn't like what it says so tries to twist it. It's pretty much what you stupid fricks study to do in law school. I think you think it makes you smart to be able to twist the language.
It doesn't it just makes you unethical. Which is why your profession is pretty much rooted in a lack of ethics
Posted on 5/17/25 at 9:29 am to the808bass
quote:
Do you think I’m arguing against the existence of a legal system?
You shite on judicial systems quite often and are quite critical of the actual process of how a legal system works pretty much universally.
You avoid actually discussing the issue by just proclaiming sophistry and then continue the Motte-Bailey fallacy to retreat to your motte of "morality".
Then you try to frame the argument from that bailey and pretend that people disagreeing with you don't want morality in society....when you're not debasing yourself and going for purely emotional-irrational attacks (like the ones earlier this morning implying support for crimes against women).
Posted on 5/17/25 at 9:32 am to Grumpy Nemesis
quote:
In the overwhelming majority of supposed cases where there's a lack of understanding there's no lack of understanding at all.
Again, you've yet to respond to me describing the specific language issue in this specific case.
Note: there is still no invasion, predatory incursion, or declared war to rely upon to use the AEA. In an educated, intelligent society this shouldn't be controversial and everyone should agree. The language is quite clear and there is no real lack of understanding, just emotional thinkers mislead by charlatans.
Agree?
Posted on 5/17/25 at 9:55 am to the808bass
quote:
This really is your first rodeo.
I can't imagine the basis upon which you would organize a rodeo. Would there be rules announced beforehand? Would Bass just choose the winner in each competition based on what Bass felt was right?
Posted on 5/17/25 at 9:58 am to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
I can't imagine the basis upon which you would organize a rodeo. Would there be rules announced beforehand? Would Bass just choose the winner in each competition based on what Bass felt was right?
No he'd based it in "morality" so he didn't even have to take responsibility
Posted on 5/17/25 at 10:04 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Note: there is still no invasion, predatory incursion, or declared war to rely upon to use the AEA.
SFP, I am going to leave this to you. To try to discuss in good faith what the law means with this board is like playing chess with a pigeon.
It reminds me of the time a judge responded to my objection by saying "Counselor, you're arguing semantics." I replied: "The law is written in words not signalled through interpretive dance. EVERY legal argument is based on semantics."
Posted on 5/17/25 at 10:39 am to John Barron
its getting close to the time that real americans have to do what real americans need to do and handle all of this ourselves!
Page 18 of 21
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News