Too much ice

Just an uneducated guess, but you didn't actually read the article you posted.

I read the decision, and Kavanaugh's follow up note in Trump v. Illinois, where he tried to back peddle because he got up set that the phrase "Kavanaugh Stop" was coined.

He cited United States v. Brignoni-Ponce 10 times in the Vasquez decision, but doesn't explain how "perceived country of origin" or "observed English language skills" are indicators of immigration status, or how they nullify a persons 4th amendment rights.

So now, there's a 4th amendment exception for "looking or sounding Mexican".
 
I read the decision, and Kavanaugh's follow up note in Trump v. Illinois, where he tried to back peddle because he got up set that the phrase "Kavanaugh Stop" was coined.

He cited United States v. Brignoni-Ponce 10 times in the Vasquez decision, but doesn't explain how "perceived country of origin" or "observed English language skills" are indicators of immigration status, or how they nullify a persons 4th amendment rights.

So now, there's a 4th amendment exception for "looking or sounding Mexican".
The article I read indicated that ethnicity only played a role when there were other factors to take into consideration and could not be used as the primary. Seemed clear to me with regards to that. While I grant that using it at all is fraught with potential problems, he never said it should or could be the primary factor or secondary for that matter.
 
The article I read indicated that ethnicity only played a role when there were other factors to take into consideration and could not be used as the primary. Seemed clear to me with regards to that. While I grant that using it at all is fraught with potential problems, he never said it should or could be the primary factor or secondary for that matter.
Well, if the person on the security camera that shot the cashier was clearly X race it's a bit silly to not eliminate everyone not of that race in the BOLO.

I realize that's a lowest common denominator example but it's not like such things can't be taken into account for purely pragmatic reasons. (though as you suggest hardly the only characteristic to consider)
 
The moment she inserted herself into their business she became their "purview". When she drove her car into the agent she opened the door for him to shoot her.

Really bad question on your part.
If you can’t really think critically about why the question is posed, or have cognitive dissonance answering it, I can see why you might not like that question.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BeardedVol
Only The Best People™
 
  • Like
Reactions: DuckInAPen
You voted for a guy in a basement. Might want to sit this one out.
Maybe ask yourself why people would vote for a demented guy in a basement over your spray tanned Don. It might be the same reason a lot of people voted for your STD over Satan's sister and a vapid gigglebox; they went with the slightly less repulsive choices.
 
The article I read indicated that ethnicity only played a role when there were other factors to take into consideration and could not be used as the primary. Seemed clear to me with regards to that. While I grant that using it at all is fraught with potential problems, he never said it should or could be the primary factor or secondary for that matter.

You should try reading the actual decision. Kavanaugh couldn't articulate how a person's "perceived ethnicity" or "perceived language skills" indicate their legal status, or what combination of factors would need to be included with those attributes, that would indicate their immigration status.

You guys are always willing to risk someone else's constitutional rights, while screaming about your own needing to be protected.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DuckInAPen
Maybe ask yourself why people would vote for a demented guy in a basement over your spray tanned Don. It might be the same reason a lot of people voted for your STD over Satan's sister and a vapid gigglebox; they went with the slightly less repulsive choices.
Seemed like a good idea at the time. Release Covid, shelter everyone and lock Joe up. The Boss is back in office for a reason. The party chirping racism voted for racist Joe if we asking ourselves.
 
And now you're just making things up because you got called out. If you're going to discuss hateful rhetoric, not bringing up Trump as a big part of the problem is a lack of intelligent objectivity. Hence the Trump stooge label
I can admit he is part of the problem. Don't think it started with him

It is a lack of intelligent objectivity to not admit the liberal politicians have caused violent extremism. Constantly demonizing people they don't like , calling them nazis and fascists has contributed heavily to nutjobs committing violent acts.

One big huge but Trump.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Majors
I can admit he is part of the problem. Don't think it started with him

It is a lack of intelligent objectivity to not admit the liberal politicians have caused violent extremism. Constantly demonizing people they don't like , calling them nazis and fascists has contributed heavily to nutjobs committing violent acts.

One big huge but Trump.
I am in absolute agreement with you about the progressive left extremism. I already acknowledged it. Your characterization of them is spot on but Trump has also constantly done the same thing.
 

Advertisement



Back
Top