I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
Rehnquist lives!
I can think of a couple of drunk drivers I'd like to see deported.
I know this is off topic but I just heard an ad on Air America for the Farenhype 911 DVD which slammed Michael Moore...Odd Franken would have this as an ad on his show...
Good for Rehnquist and even Scalia and Thomas were on this one.
OK, to be morbid.
What are the odds on Arafat and Rehnquist respectively?
I have to think Yassur remains a heavy favorite.
'winger money is green, too.
Arafat and Rehnquist die on the same day? I would have to buy some single malt scotch. And if Kissinger went also may a half hit of acid.
I heard that ad too. Bizarre.
Talk about falling on deaf ears.
Let em waste their money.
Attaturk,
Arafat, Rehnquist, AND the Peterson verdict on one day.
Now THAT would be a trifecta!
Guess Michael Phelps is safe, then.
GOOD NEWS!
This illegal immigrant - who pleaded guilty to a felony - won't be deported!
Oh, happy day!
Good for drunk drivers, maybe. Good for the Tavern League. But for the rest of us who have to deal with a violent crime that continues to be swept under the rug (here in Wisconsin it's not even a crime), not so warm and fuzzy.
This is a hard case making bad law in more ways than one. One does not become drunk by "mere negligence." Choosing to get behind the wheel is not an accident. Allowing such diminished capacity to be treated as mere negligence will be seized on by the drunk driving defense bar as preventing any charges of reckless endangerment or felony homicide by DWI. Gotta keep those drunks on the highways!
I believe the guy's a permanent resident (i.e., green card) not an illegal alien. If he were illegal I'd agree he should be deported but this guy's basically a citizen in all but name.
Aaaargh -A agree with you except for it being grounds to ship someone out of the country.
Anti-MM ad... Not so surprising. We're stupid enough to believe in the free marketplace of ideas. So we actually allow dissent. In the long run, such methods work in our favor; it's just in the short-term it looks silly. I guarantee you that you will never hear a F9/11 ad on the EIB network....but people can live in delusion for only so long. At some point, even Baghdad Bob had to go...
Firstly, the guy's a legal immigrant, not illegal. One wishes folks would read before commenting.
Secondly, he's still going to prison for the crime - he's just not being deported.
This is good news all the way around.
Glad he gets to stay. Hope he's tossed in jail for a long time 'cause of his crime. Deporting people because of a crime went out of fashion by about 1850, didn't it?
Or better yet, can WE get sent to Australia if we commit a crime like the Brits used to do? I hear it's nice on the other side of the world.
Ohio Diary
Is Rehnquist dead yet?
tomaig,
can you read? It's a permanent resident, not an illega alien. Can you imagine setting up a life in another country only to get booted because you fucked up one night?
god smarter monkeys please
Could someone please post a link to The Ward Report?
Damned liberal activists judges are the reason our justice system is breaking down.
the law should be amended to allow legal immigrants to be shipped out for this kind of callous disregard for public safety.
The decision is right, based on the law, but I don't uphold an immigrants right to remain in the country when they show such blatant disregard for the welfare of others.
Have they ruled on whether they can deport Democrats yet?
Have A Nice, Hot Cup O' Joe!
what about a permanent resident who has children who were born citizens here? Boot him/her out for drunk driving?
the law should be amended to allow legal immigrants to be shipped out for this kind of callous disregard for public safety.
Then you should agree that the law should be ammended to allow CITIZENS to be shipped out.
This illegal immigrant - who pleaded guilty to a felony - won't be deported!
Oh, happy day!
tomaig
tomaig, still too stupid to live and with the reading skills of a four year old.
Or better yet, can WE get sent to Australia if we commit a crime like the Brits used to do? I hear it's nice on the other side of the world.
Mate, they've got drive-thru bottle shops in Australia. Something I find terribly amusing, in an ironic kind of way.
Atrios,
You have to look at the whole picture and give the judge discretion based on the overall situation.
Some DUIs can be relativly accidental (first time, barely over the limit) and some can be more blatant. Also, there can be mitigating social factors.
Its not an either/or, but I certainly believe it should be an arrow in the quiver. Residency is a privelege for non-citizens and it comes with a certain amount of responsibities. This is one of them.
OT: A writer over at Human Events Online proposes that Jebusland kick the rest of us out of the Union.
http://tinyurl.com/3uqla
Bring it on, I say.
So true, so true. Kind of has been for longer than since 9/11, at least in Dallas courts.
But still, yes, it has increased and yes, this is good news.
The SCOTUS is a very strange institution.
Give tomaig a break. You know how antsy he gets after he's been a few days without burning a cross on anyone's lawn...
One more thing.
Two people were seriously injured by his actions. This wasn't a victimless crime.
And just whut kind of god durn name is Tomaig? God durn furriner...go back to Tomaigia!
Small correction: "...put the brakes on..."
This is what comes from your sort of reasoning, derek g.
Fine - when they start sending people who were born here out of the country for DUI,
I'll say that there is something to the idea of deporting people for it.
Oh, and when they stop granting immunity to the children of ambassadors and letting foreign nationals in on national secrets - like when an invasion is going to start.
There are many things the government should do to make life easier for immigrants, especially those fleeing places like Haiti. Coddling drunk drivers is not one of those things. This isn't a right/left issue; it's a simple issue of public safety. For Atrios to label this as "good news" is absurd.
All immigrants are illegal. Especially the not so white ones.
On my last visit to the homeland I was told that 'murcans don't like those spanish people who speak puertorican all the time.
people getting sent to jail are not being coddled. this is a *permanent resident*, not an illegal immigrant or a temporary visa holder. Frankly, I don't think deportation should be a punishment for almost any offense made by permanent residents. They aren't immmune from prosecution.
I am surprised by the occaional reactionary responses that appear in these comments from time to time. Just goes to show ya the righties don't have the monopoly on that kinda thing.
On my last visit to the homeland I was told that 'murcans don't like those spanish people who speak puertorican all the time.
Along a similar vein, why aren't we (or the DNC) trumpeting all the Patriot Act and Homeland Security abuses? I mean, we can complain about it all day long, but until we rally people around concrete examples it is sort of an empty argument.
Have they ruled on whether they can deport Democrats yet?
Oh, please. Do it. Watch the great brain drain begin. Watch the artists and cultural thinkers and creative folk depart. See American literature evolve to a cross between Jesus-centric romance novels, Tom Clancy and a tech manual. Have every channel become PAX. Let them have The Rod and Tod Flanders Show, and let it be their SpongeBob. Let overalls and NASCAR jackets replace the little black dress or whatever Jude Law wears in Alfie. Let Microsoft finally wipe out Apple.
I'll take Vancouver, London or New Zealand. Just let me bring my laptop, my cats, books, wife and Xbox.
Smitty:
That article was great, "The 12 states that must go: California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Maryland, and Delaware"
Of course no where in the whole piece does he indicate how the other 38 states would survive financially, simply put they would have their religion but they would also be bankrupt rather quickly.
Sorry about the double post. BTW, don't feed the troll.
more proof that law clerks write all the opinions
(Brownshirt T), can you read?
Only the blast faxes.
People, the point isn't that drunk driving is ok. It isn't, and Atrios said as much. What was at issue was whether an alien convicted of DUI under Florida law could be classified an "aggravated felon" and removed under the Immigration and Nationality Act, which defines "aggravated felony" to include a crime of violence as defined in 18 U.S.C. section 16. Reversing the 11th Circuit and remanding, the Supreme Court held that state DUI offenses such as Florida's, which either do not have a mens rea component or require only a showing of negligence in the operation of a vehicle do not meet the statutory definition of crime of violence. The good news is that the court, unanimously, did not over-react to the fact that this person was an alien. Which, in these times, it could easily have done.
A writer over at Human Events Online proposes that Jebusland kick the rest of us out of the Union.
http://tinyurl.com/3uqla
Bring it on, I say.
Smitty Werbenmanjensen
Gimme a week to get the hell out of Houston, I say. I'm only here for the cheap rent, anyway...
IMHO Atrios is not coddling DD's.
It is a good ruling because a DUI is not a crime of violence.
Serious crime YES, crime of VIOLENCE no.
If you injure/kill someone when behind the wheel then you have a crime of violence.
Anyway what happened to serving your time and moving on?
What I'm wonderign is why the slam on the STOLEN election for Atrios.
Jeebus go to www.buzzflash.com
This info is not from the alcoa sombrero crowd.
STOLEN. We have till December 12th to challence this election. Even if we can't overturn it we can cast enough doubt to fix the system in 06.
I have some good info on my blog.
Smitty Werbenmanjensen,
I'm all for it. Does it mean we'll be able to stop sending all these former 'red states' all of our tax dollars? That would be great.
Yours in science,
krsaz,
Yeah, let 'em go. Let them construct a theocracy. Let them try to get along without the contributor states, which happen to be the ones they aren't claiming.
Jesus, what a doofus.
But, Hecate, we don't want to "coddle" the brown folks.
I mean, we make tearjerker movies about reformed murderers, but they're always Murkins.
A dark-skinned DUI arrestee? Boot 'im!!
Meander,
Okey dokey. I gotta get some of my family members outta there, too.
This new pales in comparision to the news coming out about global warming this week. Scary shit....
Smitty Werbenmanjensen,
I'm all for it. Does it mean we'll be able to stop sending all these former 'red states' all of our tax dollars?
You could characterize it as foreign aid, and send money only to those states that permit abortion on demand and make birth control available to all . . .
More from Smitty's link:
GORE/KERRY USA is ethnically diverse; multi-religious, irreligious or nastily antireligious; more sexually liberated (if not in actual practice, certainly in attitude); awash with condo canyons and other high-end real estate bordered by sprawling, squalid public housing or neglected private homes, decidedly short of middle-class neighborhoods; both high tech and oddly primitive in its commerce; very artsy, and Babelesque, with abnormally loud speakers.
Sounds like WAY more fun, too. Where's my latte, dammit!
Have they ruled on whether they can deport Democrats yet?
Oh, please. Do it. Watch the great brain drain begin. Watch the artists and cultural thinkers and creative folk depart. See American literature evolve to a cross between Jesus-centric romance novels, Tom Clancy and a tech manual. Have every channel become PAX. Let them have The Rod and Tod Flanders Show, and let it be their SpongeBob. Let overalls and NASCAR jackets replace the little black dress or whatever Jude Law wears in Alfie. Let Microsoft finally wipe out Apple.
I'll take Vancouver, London or New Zealand. Just let me bring my laptop, my cats, books, wife and Xbox.
Love that post. As the dollar weakens Aus, NZ and Canada look even better.
I'm also thinking now is the time to try for "political asylum", I think we will have a better chance of gettign that status.
Then hello Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, France, Holland, Belgium, Finland etc.
I think the larger problem lies in defining non-citizens in a straightforward, positive way instead of relying on court decisions to slowly crystallize their legal status. My mother has been a permanent resident here for over 30 years, she speaks fluent English, owns a house, car, has a driver's license, bank accounts, credit cards, and pays all the same taxes citizens do. The only significant difference between her and a citizen is that the latter can vote. So on the one hand I agree that being a citizen should be meaningful and so citizens should be afforded rights and privileges that are denied to non-citizens. On the other hand the actual difference between citizens and permanent residents is in many cases trivial, which I think would render inappropriate such a drastic measure as deportation.
So if I have a martini and sit on my motorcycle, will they send me to Canada?
PLEASE!
So if I have a martini and sit on my motorcycle, will they send me to Canada?
PLEASE!
Yeah, let 'em go. Let them construct a theocracy. Let them try to get along without the contributor states, which happen to be the ones they aren't claiming.
Better yet, wait a couple years until it all falls apart and the red states become a battlefield for holier-than-thou infighting better splinter groups looking for yet-another scapegoat.
Cool!
I was in the Supreme Court that day and heard some of the oral arguments!
Surfdork and Atrios..
Atrios did not include the fact that this driver had caused serious injury to others when he was behind the wheel drunk.
So I guess Surfdork no disagrees with Atrios.
I don't know why Atrios did not include it in his post. Maybe he was trying to skew the story to fit his point in hopes that an ignorant readership wouldn't read the story.
I still want to know what "abnormally loud speakers" are.
Oh, and the bit about blue America not having middle-class neighborhoods. I live in D.C.'s Maryland suburbs, and you can't swing a cat without sending it into a middle-class neighborhood (and believe me, I do it all the time!). It's like this author never set foot in a city.
Did somebody say Gore/Kerry USA? I like the sound of that.
ARRRGHHH apology.
i am an idiot.
Atrios is not .
Take back everyhitng from that post.
I am now a BUSh voter because I am clearly so stupid!
Atrios - agreed. Put the guy in jail, just like they do with people who were born here. Take his damn license away.
But this wholesale deportation thing has gotten to the point where people who weren't born here are held to standards of behavior that noone who is born here even has to think about.
On topic: If you don't deport ALL drunk drivers, you can't deport ANY drunk drivers.
Lets see: extend this reasoning for deportation ad infinitum: Where do we send Gov. Bill Janklow?
This is where republicans win the ideological battle on personal responsibility.
People would really argue that a non-citizen has a right not to have his residency privelege revoked for a drunken driving incident that seriously injures two people?
Now, an arguement could be made that going to Haiti is just too severe, but if he were Argentinian, or English, or German, I would see no problem with revoking his residency privelege for his actions.
Residency is a privelege and not a right. And with the privelege comes responsiblity. One of those is to not seriously injur two other people by driving drunk.
Let me state again, I understand the courts decision and agree with it, but I would have no problem with the state having laws that revoke residency for non-citizens who seriously harm others through their illegal actions.
tomaig continues to demonstrate that retroactive abortion for massive stupidity needs to be made legal.
You can't get more dickheaded than tomaig. Even the fratboy coward can't get that dickheaded.
Here's the ruling, as reported in Newsday:
The Supreme Court... said the plain meaning of the statute suggests that the felony offense must require intent in causing harm -- not mere negligence as in Leocal's case -- before immigrants are subject to the drastic consequence of deportation.
"Drunk driving is a nationwide problem, as evidenced by the efforts of legislatures to prohibit such conduct and impose appropriate remedies," Rehnquist stated. "But this fact does not warrant our shoehorning it into statutory sections where it does not fit."
Leocal, 47, was sentenced to more than two years in prison in 2000 on the felony charge, but his lawyer had argued that he had never been arrested before during nearly 20 years in the United States, nor did he deliberately intend to cause harm...
I suggest the brownshirts quit playing Judd for the Defense and go back to jerking off to pretty explosions on CNN...
I'm depressed all over again!
Just called various Senate offices including my own (Wyden) regarding Harry Reid, ANTI-CHOICE DEMOCRAT, being selected as minority leader. How in the fuck can the dems select a guy that doesn't even support our party platform! Anyone selected as our "leader" should support every fucking plank including and especially a woman's right to choose! I called Reid's office and was very polite, asking them for his position on abortion. The fucking bitch refused to tell me. I was very nice, mind you. I asked her to tell him to re-consider his bid for minority leader since he can't bring himself to support our platform in full. Even though I'm now in Oregon, I voted for Feinstein while down there so called her office too since she is supporting Reid. Again, I pushed my talking points: he doesn't support our platform, fear of supreme court nominations, pressure on Reid representing a red state, etc. Their response: "Senator Feinstein believes Senator Reid has the leadership qualities needed". If this keeps up, I really WILL have to break out and join the Greens or someone else, because a party that elects someone who does not represent our VALUES is fucked! Back to the bottle for me.
He's going to jail for his crime. If the US starts deporting non-citizens for crimes, pretty soon the US is going to surrender its right to prosecute non-citizens in their courts for crimes committed in their country. Slippery slope. What if the US caught a non-citizen trying to blow up Dallas-Fort Worth? Would you want the terrorist just handed over to their home nation who might just let them go or to face our legal system where we will stop them from comiiting further crimes? Just askin'
hey, what did the gop senator get for killing off that motorcycle dude because he (gop senator) ran the stop sign?
This issue is very different than what y'all are talking about --
It is not about punishment, but is about collateral consequences of convictions. If a State (like Florida) finds a person guilty of possessing a smallish amount of marijuana, should the federal governemnt be allowed to deport them? The Supremes say no, unless 1) Congress specifically authorizes it and/or 2) the person intends to injure someone. This should not be difficult to support. It is, after all, a federalism/separation of powers issue, NO?
But for all you "bad people who do bad things should be deported" nuts, should anyone be deported for any crime? Why stop at violaent felonies? Why stop at non-residents, why not deport every drunk driver? If it is a punishment theory you are espousing, then why not ship evbery Florida drunk driver out of State fotrever? After all, isn't living in a State a privelege?
Or is something more important at work here, like the fact that we shouldn't be deporting people for non-intentional acts? That as a country of immigrants we should be a country of forgiveness or, dare I say, christian values? How many people taking the self-righteous road would have had grandparents or parents or other relatives deported under their version of what the law should be? That is why the Supreme Court's decision is good news, it puts some small limitation on the exercise of awesome federal government power.
The only things that really make me feel intolerant are intolerant bigots.
It seems to me that the drunk driver should be tried and convicted here, not deported. What purpose does deportation serve in this case?
I see San Francisco in my future if the red states sever themselves from the blue states. Just two more years and I'm free as a bird to go where I please ~ I've gotta get my daughter through high school and I can't exactly leave Michigan right now due to the child custody laws here (my ex would have to be in agreement for me to leave the state, and he isn't, so I'm stuck here for awhile).
Sure would be nice, though. Even though I went to college in the U.P. ~ loved the cold weather, white, flaky, dry snow and all of that ~ my bones just don't take to the cold any more. And it's cold here. Freakin' cold. Bone chillingly cold today.
No, derek, they win because they preach hate of immigrants. This guy is going to prison for the crime he committed. You act like he's getting off easy.
Atrios: We could use a post (and a thread) on Smitty's Human Events article.
sorry about the bad spelling -- sent it before spellchecking!
Bad monkey!
This is where republicans win the ideological battle on personal responsibility.
Bull hockey. No one's saying he shouldn't be held responsible.
we won't do it so they will
"The 12 states that must go: California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Maryland, and Delaware."
That gut is a classic RW nutjob. I LMAO reading that crap. Hell, he even misses Washington and Oregon, two classic "blue states." Anyway, can you imagine what would happen to red states without the blue states tax base? To quote Bugs Bunny, "what a maroon."
Anon (1:57)..it certainly appears that reading more than 15 or 20 words in a row will be a stretch, but I dedcided to copy this post from earlier so you'd understand. It was a decision particular to Florida's DUI law and others like it. If you choose not to read it, please keep your ignorance to yourself.
People, the point isn't that drunk driving is ok. It isn't, and Atrios said as much. What was at issue was whether an alien convicted of DUI under Florida law could be classified an "aggravated felon" and removed under the Immigration and Nationality Act, which defines "aggravated felony" to include a crime of violence as defined in 18 U.S.C. section 16. Reversing the 11th Circuit and remanding, the Supreme Court held that state DUI offenses such as Florida's, which either do not have a mens rea component or require only a showing of negligence in the operation of a vehicle do not meet the statutory definition of crime of violence. The good news is that the court, unanimously, did not over-react to the fact that this person was an alien. Which, in these times, it could easily have done.
Atrios finishes his post by puling: "the point here is not that I have a soft spot for drunk drivers, but that the threat of and actual deportation of legal immigrants for rather dubious reasons skyrocketed post-9/11 and anything which puts the brakes on that is a good thing. If we want to pass laws making a DUI offense reason for deportation, that's fine by me (I wouldn't advocate it, however), but lately any tangle with law enforcement seems to get people a one way ticket out of here."
What a bunch of limp-wrist crap. Who are you afraid of? What a pussy. The basic point is correct, but it's hard to imagine a weaker and more cringing way to say it.
Bush was a drunk driver. Let's deport him (to Iraq)....
a pussy and limp-wristed!
Atrios did not include the fact that this driver had caused serious injury to others when he was behind the wheel drunk.
How is this relevant? The drunk driver was here legally, and thus, should be tried here under the same laws as everyone else. And he should face the same penalties. There are no laws that I am aware of that say a legal immigrant should be deported if he commits a crime here in the States.
Drunk driving, IMO, is pre-meditated murder, it is a violent crime. You KNOW when you are sober that you cannot reasonably hope to control a vehicle while inebriated; therefore, you know that getting drunk and choosing to drive is an act of knowledge aforethought.
Sorry, the Supremes fucked up again, and so did anyone else who wants to bullshit their way past the fact that a drunk driver does know better and is therefore totally responsible for what he or she causes to happen.
Oh, yeah. Another fucking illegal immigrant who can't control his drinking or his driving. This is a fucking victory? Explain how.
Ya know, I've spent a night or two in jail for different reasons. No more than 36 hours, but it wasn't pleasent. I'd imagine an extended sentence for drunk driving - as well as all the stuff that comes with the sentence, such as loss of driving privileges - has to be a real bummer. If the guy's deported, how in the hell do we know he'll be prosecuted for his crimes? Are we gonna threaten his home country if they don't?
Hey "be careful" -- I sure hope you are not in charge of anything because you are both ignorant and arrogant -- Great combo, Dude
Even Florida doesn't agree with you!
"Another fucking illegal immigrant who can't control his drinking or his driving."
I thought he was a legal immigrant?
blah blah blah.
Deportation is a pretty serious thing. This guy might have a wife and children here and no ties in his "home" country.
So everyone just get a grip. He's going to jail, which is pretty fucking serious when you consider what hell holes are jails are.
Where do you read that this guy wasn't held responsible for his actions, be careful? You did read the article, didn't you?
Another fucking illegal immigrant
Please read carefully and note that this was not an illegal immigrant.
be careful what you wish for, I doubt that a drunk driver any such thing. Some do it over and over again. How many times was Janklow stopped? How many times are repeat offenders stopped? This is not to say it's right, but we're not addressing the problem or finding real solutions. That much is obvious.
Now a sober driver? That's another story.
Have the comments always been this nasty and I just never noticed it? Seems like the last couple of days the self-righteous attacks on Atrios have just gone through the roof. WTF?
Am I the only one who missed having him around this weekend?
be careful, part 2,
OMG. READ THE GODDAMNED ARTICLE!!
The Nelson Report suggested that Sandra Day O'Connor is the front-runner for Chief Justice.
Too me, that is more good SC news.
This is a fucking victory? Explain how.
Step 1: Read post.
Step 2: Read article.
Repeat if necessary.
This is where republicans win the ideological battle on personal responsibility.
This is where republicans win the most utterly fucking hypocritical award for the most irresponsible leader in the history of this country.
Jeff K ~
No. I missed the blog and Atrios, too. There has been more vitriol as of late, in general. It kind of bugs me, to be honest.
Jeff K. sez: "Seems like the last couple of days the self-righteous attacks on Atrios have just gone through the roof. WTF?"
Better to have 'em gibbering here than running around out there killing random people for God.
Drunk driving, IMO, is pre-meditated murder, it is a violent crime
First off, its hard to have "premeditated murder" when no one died. Second, anyone's "opinion" is not relevant. Florida law, however, is. He was convicted of acting negligently. Congress says that isn't enough to deport. Atrios's point is that for once, it appears, the SCOTUS is not bending the plain meaning of the law (two of them actually, FLA and US) to act in the name of political expedience.
Hey Smarty ~
I have heard that Clarence Thomas is the front runner ~ Bork was talking about it yesterday on Hannity's (calm down, quit frothing) radio show, and I heard it on NPR.
Cheney, too, DUI - how many? wasn't it at least 2? Bush had 2?
We should deport this guy just as soon as Laura Bush gets her life sentence for running down and killing her boyfriend. Don't know if she was drunk, but she obviously wasn't competent to drive and shouldn't have been behind the wheel.
Or since it was in Texas, maybe she should fry. I'm sure George could come up with a replay of his "don't kill me" parody.
But I forgot. When something like this happens to a Republcan, it's a terrible personal tragedy and the person has suffered enough. When someone's poor and/or dark, it's an abomination and they deserve to be thrown into the deepest dungeon.
Jeff K. it appears that some people want to blame everyone else for what happened on Tuesday. Counter-productive and getting very old.
Turn that anger on the thugs in the White House and get over yourselves. Yes, it was huge. Life sucks sometimes. Grow up and decide what you can do to make things better.
Vicki Stein, according to Josh, Scalia wouldn't get past the dems and some moderate repubs. Sandra Day O'Connor's name has come up.
All talk, I realize.
We are very fortunate that drunken immigrants can once again hold their heads high.
Re: The next Chief Justice. Part 1
Thomas would be a very bad chief, a very divisive fight and if confirmed would not help the right's agenda at all. He is not a very smart or productive Justice and the Chief's job is actually quite hard. It includes being the spokesperson for the whole of the federal judiciary before Congress and, frankly, the world. Scalia himself has commented that Thomas was "not ready to join the bench," although Nino will take his vote every time.
Historically, Chiefs are much more likely to be chosen from outside the court because of the problem of non-confirmation. Imagine Thomas was put forward and NOT confirmed (ala Fortas in the late 60's) This would be a sure way to expend just about every drop of Bush's craven "capital."
Hmmm, maybe we should all support Thomas?
We are very fortunate that drunken immigrants can once again hold their heads high.
Large Marge | Email | Homepage | 11.09.04 - 2:28 pm | #
Hey, if it's good enough for drunken presidents and sons of the rich, it should be good for all within America's shores.
Trollz - too stupid to live.
Reading comprehension numbers hover around a second grade level.
pie ~
I actually think they were just tossing Thomas' name out there because he is an African American and Bush is trying to look like the "inclusive" president that he isn't. You know how Hannity is ~ always bloviating and telling lies if it suits his agenda.
I think you're exactly right ~ I sure don't see Scalia being named Chief Justice. Too controversial.
Sandra Day O'Connor ~ that's...ummm...interesting (not a big fan of hers after 2000), although I thought she was ready to retire?
Why should it matter whether you were born here or chose to immigrate? Sure send the non-resident illegals home... although in some cases they may get of easy this way. Better that everyone here, whether freshly arrived or the sons, daughters or grandkids of immigrants all get the same shake in the legal system. This anti-immigrant attitude is only another way we have allowed the fear inspired by terrorists to change who we are supposed to be.
Timaeus is not your real name, Timmy.
Therefore, you're a limp pussy. What do you do to keep your wrists so firm?
By the way, anyone who uses "it's hard to imagine" in their arguments is a shit brain, and should cease criticizing others' writing. Clear off.
Seems like the last couple of days the self-righteous attacks on Atrios have just gone through the roof. WTF?
Am I the only one who missed having him around this weekend?
Jeff, K.
I missed him this weekend, and the rest of this community. Not that he isn't entitled to a vacation, periodically! I think some people are still hurting pretty badly from the election and are turning that anger in an inappropriate direction. Happens sometimes.
And, then, there are the trolls, but we can just ignore them.
The S.Ct. decision in Leocal reverses an 11th cir. precedent from 1999, ie before Bush & before 9/11. In Leocal, the 11th cir was simply following the 1999 decision- it had no discretion to do otherwise. So the deportation decision was not a result of post-9/11 xenophobia. You may be right nonetheless that the effect will be to slow 9/11-related deportations.
Okay, let's try to make this clear.
The Supreme Court was interpreting the statute. That's one of the core functions of the Supreme Court, just as a state's highest court interprets the state's statutes.
The Supreme Court held that drunk driving did not fall in the definition of "violent crime" as set forth in the statute. They read the statute carefully and interpreted it carefully.
If people think that the Supreme Court should have pulled drunk driving under the mantle of the "violent crime" language of the statute, they are asking the Supreme Court to "make law," and I thought that was anathema in Bush's America.
If people think that drunk driving should be included in grounds for deportation, the thing to do is amend the law. It's not the Supreme Court's fault that the law was written the way it was written. Personally, I don't think a drunk driving conviction should be grounds for deportation, but if it's going to be, I would like to see the House and Senate debate the issue and vote on it.
Sandra Day O'Connor ~ that's...ummm...interesting (not a big fan of hers after 2000), although I thought she was ready to retire?
O'Connor would be Bush saying he didn't want to spend any political capital on the CJ appoitnment, probably because he was spending a lot on the new Justice he would be appointing.
Understand me here--I'm not advocating deportation for drunk driving.
But I do think it's an egregious error that will have unintended consequences for the Supremes to be referring to drunk driving that causes serious bodily injury to others as NOT a violent crime and was only "mere negligence." My daughter was killed by a drunk driver, who intentionally drank too much, intentionally got behind the wheel and intentionally drove between 80-90 mph, at which point he hit my daughter who was lawfully at a stop sign. When she died after months of suffering with horrific burns, you cannot tell me this is not a violent crime. It is. And it is NOT "mere negligence."
Should it result in deportation? Probably not. But don't go minimizing it as negligence or accidental. Because it isn't. And that kind of minimization is just what the liquor industry (Republicans all, I might add) is after, and it's exactly what Rehnquist et al handed them: a gift of exculpation from violent crime, through the back door of immigration. It's easiest to hand out things to your right wing friends when you're putting on the mask of liberalism.
it's exactly what Rehnquist et al handed them: a gift of exculpation from violent crime,
That is simply not true. The man was convicted and served prison time.
Mate, they've got drive-thru bottle shops in Australia. Something I find terribly amusing, in an ironic kind of way.
watertiger
watertiger,
They've got drive-thru bottle shops in OKLAHOMA. Plus, it is illegal to sell liquor by the drink. You have to bring your own bottle. Take it with you when you go. At least it was that way 25 years ago and knowing Okies, it ain't changed.
That is simply not true. The man was convicted and served prison time.
Read my post, kc. I was talking about the liquor industry and future DUI offenders, not the defendant in this case.
But don't go minimizing it as negligence or accidental.
Its not a matter of minimizing. Its a matter of a legal category, which is not necessarily related to severity. DUI, in and of itself, defined as Florida's law is, is not a crime of violence (vehicular manslaughter might be, even if it was a result of DUI), but one of negligence, and the court declined to shift the legal definitions around.
And that's the right thing to do, and the only sense in which "negligence" is used here.
Hey Aaargh, how exactly did Rehnquist, et al provide the man with an "exculpation." (whatever that might mean).
The guy was deported in 2002. He's lucky if he survived the hurricane. Thousands and thousands of Haitians did not.
Jeez, yer gonna hate me, but driving drunk IS intentional. I would have to agree with the Court of Appeals here. There's no such thing as driving unintentionally drunk.
I have been a permanent resident for 20 years. Most of you will never understand the stresses of permanent residency. I now have to get my green card renewed every 10 years. In my case that means a trip to Omaha........ I am also subject to the draft! Many legal residents serve in the US military.
I pay taxes but can't vote.
Every time I leave the country I never know what I will encounter at the border. My life is here even though I don't feel like an American because I was 23 when I first came here. When I make mistakes in my dealings with INS the answer is always the same: you should have known.......... But in the words of Nietsche:
Wass mich nicht umbringt, macht mich starker!
I think some of the people making arguments here are missing the point.
It's for the legislature to define what a "violent offense" is. I haven't read this particular statute, but usually the law will list what constitutes a "violent offense", or at least list the elements that make something a "violent offense".
If Congress wants to make drunk driving a deportable offense, they can do that; they clearly did not specifically include it in the language of the statute, and the Supreme Court read the statute on its face.
I'm not aware of any state law that makes drunk driving an "intentional" crime the way, say, murder is (where the kind of intent you have determines the degree of the crime). To the best of my knowledge, drunk driving is a crime in which just doing the act, regardless of your intent, is what is punished.
Nobody is saying that drunk driving is good, or that people should go out and drive drunk. What the Supreme Court said was that this particular statute did not contemplate drunk driving as a "violent crime." If Congress wants it to be a deportable offense, the remedy lies with Congress.
Calling this ruling "good news" is kind of amusing. What the fuck is great new?
Most comments here miss the point. It is a disgusting spectacle of low level thinking.
To the troll above who called me Timmy, fuck off. The name is Timaeus. And yes, this is the same Timaeus from DailyKos, if you read there too.
I'm capable of more reasoned discourse, but in these apocalyptic post-election-theft days, I don't rightly give a fuck.
Some of you want to take a man who has been legally present in this country for years, with a U.S. citizen wife and children, U.S. citizen neighbors and employer and co-worker and friends and fucking PUT HIM IN CHAINS and throw him out of this asshole of a country just because he got caught once driving outside the legal limit for drinking. Read the FUCKING DECISION you fucking morons!
Yeah, go ahead, be Republicans. Assholes!
Atrios was a total coward in his post on this. He is intimidated by the Republican onslaught. I hate to see it. I call what I see.
Wait until the Ashcroft cult discovers the joy of organ-legging.
Then you'll wish you had been deported for any old crime instead of having your liver and kidneys harvested for transplanting in some old legislator's carcass.
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
