The TREASONOUS Behavior by DEMOCRATS In The Nation Is Getting WAY OUT OF HAND.

[Drummond]

Yet with each Trump appointee, we hear the glees from all, (including myself) on how they will change the 'balance' of the court. Well slick, seems that bias doesn't bother a soul, as long as the judge's biases are the same as your own. Elections do have consequences. You wouldn't have heard all the happiness about SCOTUS picks, if they weren't reflective of this audience. Color me shocked that you feign ignorance after the past 2+ years of the applause for judicial appointments.

'Slick', eh ?

Should I be flattered ?

The system employed here isn't the same as yours. Your judicial system apparently has a political dimension to it, that the one I would naturally favour, DOES NOT.

I thought I'd made that clear ?

As for yours (which isn't mine) ... well, doesn't it follow that inbuilt biases will need to be countered ?

I'm not sure I understand you. Are you defending your previous appointees' status quo, on the basis that it has to be 'defended' from what Trump will do, from his own choice of appointees ?

If you somehow 'have' to have a judicial system in which POLITICAL appointments are the norm (and, do you ??), then it stands to reason that anyone injecting balance into all that, to correct a previous and proven IMbalance, is doing a GOOD thing, and therefore doesn't deserve censure because of it !

Imbalances require counterbalances, to effect a remedy to them.

On what basis do you think that censure is deserved, Kathianne ?

[Kathianne]

'Slick', eh ?

Should I be flattered ?

The system employed here isn't the same as yours. I thought I'd made that clear ?

As for yours (which isn't mine) ... well, doesn't it follow that inbuilt biases will need to be countered ?

I'm not sure I understand you. Are you defending your previous appointees' status quo, on the basis that it has to be 'defended' from what Trump will do, from his own choice of appointees ?

If you somehow 'have' to have a judicial system in which POLITICAL appointments are the norm, then it stands to reason that anyone injecting balance into all that, to correct a previous and proven IMbalance, is doing a GOOD thing, and therefore doesn't deserve censure because of it !

On what basis do you think that censure is deserved, Kathianne ?

Umm, the court doesn't bend to 'the current tide,' as it were. With Trump it looks like he's had at least one more than normal and likely more to come. The appointments on the lower court are even more impressive. Now, will the people decide the courts have become 'too conservative' over time? Perhaps. It could influence future elections, though no elected executive is guaranteed many or any judicial vacancies.

The systems are NOT the same, you claim not to understand ours, thus probably not a good choice to interject so forcefully.

[Drummond]

Hmmm, who would have ever thought the Radical Republicans would be called liberals over 150 years later?

... sorry ... what ?

Judge Brennan is a 'radical Republican', now ??

[STTAB]

And I say TREASONOUS, but if this ISN'T treasonous, then PLEASE, TELL ME WHAT IS... and what in the HELL is going on in TEXAS? I thought Texas was CONSERVATIVE! But the anti American CRAP just keeps coming from TEXAS...

===========

UNREAL: Texas School Board Votes To FIRE Teacher For Reporting ILLEGAL ALIEN Students


The war on illegal immigration heated up today after a controversial decision by the Fort Worth Independent School Board, who unanimously decided to fire a teacher for attempting to report students that were not in the country legally.

One could see how the teacher, Georgia Clark, could have thought she was well within her rights after comments by U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy Clark stating that schools can make the decision to report, or not report students and their families.

Breibart reported on the story:

At a hearing of the House Education and the Workforce committee, former illegal immigrant Rep. Adriano Espaillat pressed DeVos to explain her views on immigration enforcement.

“Inside the school,” the New York Democrat asked, “if a principal or a teacher finds out that a certain child is undocumented, or his or her family members are undocumented, do you feel that the principal or teacher is responsible to call [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] and to have that family reported?”

“Sir, I think that’s a school decision,” DeVos responded. “That’s a local community decision. And again, I refer to the fact that we have laws and we also are compassionate, and I urge this body to do its job and address or clarify where there is confusion around this.”

Still, the Fort Worth teacher was not given any mercy.

As reported by NBC:

A Texas school board unanimously voted to fire a teacher who tried to report undocumented students in her school district to President Donald Trump through a series of public tweets — that she thought were private messages to the president.

The Fort Worth Independent School District voted 8-0 to terminate the employment of Georgia Clark at a special meeting Tuesday.

The unanimous vote of 8-0 is not surprising when you consider that the majority of the school’s population is made up by the Hispanic community.

When “nearly 90 per cent of the students are Hispanic” at your school, that means that there is probably a similar racial makeup of the parent/teacher community that would be voting against you.

Also, NBC Dallas Fort-Worth reported that this isn’t the first time that Clark had been investigated for racially-motivated comments, such as asking a student to prove that they were legal before they could use the restroom.

If that weren’t enough, Clark accidentally made her comments publicly on Twitter in an attempt to communicate directly with President Trump, according to NBC:

Clark, an English teacher at Amon Carter-Riverside High School, tweeted that the school she worked at had been “taken over” by “illegal students from Mexico” and that Trump was elected “on the promise that a wall would be built to protect our borders.” She also referred to “illegals” in her tweets.

The tweets started gaining attention on social media last week, and Clark’s account was deleted May 29. She was placed on administrative leave after the school district became aware of them.

According to district documents, Clark told an investigator she thought the tweets were direct messages to Trump and didn’t know they were public.

Although things look pretty dire for the newly fired teacher, isn’t there a light at the end of the tunnel? I mean, she works for the teacher’s union, for crying out loud!

As reported by Time:

Clark has 15 days to choose to seek an appeal with the state, according to the outlet.

Clark’s attorney, Brandon Y. Brim, told TIME in an email that she “intends to request a hearing for the purpose of contesting the proposed action against her contract.”

https://ilovemyfreedom.org/unreal-te...medium=twitter

First, Twitter is the damn devil, When will people learn this

Second, this woman deserves to be fired just being too stupid to figure out the difference between a public Tweet and a private DM

Third, this wasn't her first situation like this

Fourth, she wasn't reporting suspected criminal activity to the government, she was tweeting to the President.

Fifth, you will never ever ever find an example a child being prosecuted for being in this country illegally, so that argument doesn't hold water.

Sixth, the reality is this woman is a racist, she's running around asking brown kids if they are citizens? My wife is brown, our two kids are brown. Everyone is a citizen of this country and NO ONE better ask one of my kids such a question.

Seventh, The Supreme Court has already ruled on this issue, teachers do NOT enjoy their full Constitutional rights pursuant to their jobs. This woman was speaking to the President AS A TEACHER, IE pursuant to her job.

She will not win her appeal, and she will not win in court if she sues.

[Kathianne]

... sorry ... what ?

Judge Brennan is a 'radical Republican', now ??

14th amendment.

[Drummond]

Umm, the court doesn't bend to 'the current tide,' as it were. With Trump it looks like he's had at least one more than normal and likely more to come. The appointments on the lower court are even more impressive. Now, will the people decide the courts have become 'too conservative' over time? Perhaps. It could influence future elections, though no elected executive is guaranteed many or any judicial vacancies.

The systems are NOT the same, you claim not to understand ours, thus probably not a good choice to interject so forcefully.

People deciding - if in fact they do - that courts have become 'too conservative' over time - will no doubt be a product of who puts what case, and how, and the success or otherwise of propagandist efforts to sway opinion in one direction or another.

The people COULD decide (?) that the courts have been far too liberal, and a counterweight to that was long, and badly, overdue.

All of these shenanigans, mercifully, our British system is devoid of. Our courts have the perfectly simple duty to administer justice, using ONLY the law, as those laws stand, for the basis of judgments.

So tell me, Kathianne, do I have no right, in your view, to observe a comparison, and draw conclusions ?

Perhaps, since I'm not American, therefore not 'expert' on all things American, I shouldn't even be on this forum, daring to express any viewpoints ?

H'mm .. ?

[Kathianne]

People deciding - if in fact they do - that courts have become 'too conservative' over time - will no doubt be a product of who puts what case, and how, and the success or otherwise of propagandist efforts to sway opinion in one direction or another.

The people COULD decide (?) that the courts have been far too liberal, and a counterweight to that was long, and badly, overdue.

All of these shenanigans, mercifully, our British system is devoid of. Our courts have the perfectly simple duty to administer justice, using ONLY the law, as those laws stand, for the basis of judgments.

So tell me, Kathianne, do I have no right, in your view, to observe a comparison, and draw conclusions ?

Perhaps, since I'm not American, therefore not 'expert' on all things American, I shouldn't even be on this forum, daring to express any viewpoints ?

H'mm .. ?

LOL! What color is your sky?

If one doesn't bow to your superior intellect, one is just wrong. Yet, you act as though those that disagree with you are intolerant. Look in a mirror.

You do not ask questions for knowledge, but rather to preserve your self-image of superiority. There is no backing down for you, quite a feat. Not even when you choose to feign ignorance of our system-one you follow better than most of our citizens.

[STTAB]

People deciding - if in fact they do - that courts have become 'too conservative' over time - will no doubt be a product of who puts what case, and how, and the success or otherwise of propagandist efforts to sway opinion in one direction or another.

The people COULD decide (?) that the courts have been far too liberal, and a counterweight to that was long, and badly, overdue.

All of these shenanigans, mercifully, our British system is devoid of. Our courts have the perfectly simple duty to administer justice, using ONLY the law, as those laws stand, for the basis of judgments.

So tell me, Kathianne, do I have no right, in your view, to observe a comparison, and draw conclusions ?

Perhaps, since I'm not American, therefore not 'expert' on all things American, I shouldn't even be on this forum, daring to express any viewpoints ?

H'mm .. ?

Oh please , no one - save me - is an expert on everything and I've never seen ANYTHING from Kathianne to suggest that she believes you shouldn't have an opinion . That's just lame Drummond.

[STTAB]

LOL! What color is your sky?

If one doesn't bow to your superior intellect, one is just wrong.

To be fair to Drummond, this is EXACTLY how I feel, if you disagree with ME you are wrong LOL . It's usually true as well

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Yet with each Trump appointee, we hear the glees from all, (including myself) on how they will change the 'balance' of the court. Well slick, seems that bias doesn't bother a soul, as long as the judge's biases are the same as your own. Elections do have consequences. You wouldn't have heard all the happiness about SCOTUS picks, if they weren't reflective of this audience. Color me shocked that you feign ignorance after the past 2+ years of the applause for judicial appointments.

That is very true, and I can only say that as a conservative, I view conservative judge appointees to do a better job of interpreting the law without bias, and more times than not I see leftist judges interpret the law to suit their liberal agenda. Good example of that is the ultra leftist 9th circus in CA, of which 90% of their injunctions are overturned. Most see them as activists that meddle in affairs they have no business meddling with and legislating from the bench, and immigration is a good example of that. Of course, that goes without saying that any judgement made by a leftist judge, the left views that as "fair," regardless of what the law actually is, and judgments made by conservative judges to be "biased." Then it's the same way with the way conservatives view conservative judgments.

It's what it is. It's America and all we got. It's served us rather well so far, but I don't think there's any denying that political and ideological bias has infected it. The judiciary has become as big of a political weapon as the executive and legislative branches.

[Kathianne]

That is very true, and I can only say that as a conservative, I view conservative judge appointees to do a better job of interpreting the law without bias, and more times than not I see leftist judges interpret the law to suit their liberal agenda. Good example of that is the ultra leftist 9th circus in CA, of which 90% of their injunctions are overturned. Most see them as activists that meddle in affairs they have no business meddling with, and immigration is a good example of that. Of course, that goes without saying that any judgement made by a leftist judge, the left views that as "fair," regardless of what the law actually is, and judgments made by conservative judges to be "biased." Then it's the same way with the way conservatives view conservative judgments.

It's what it is. It's America and all we got. It's served us rather well so far, but I don't think there's any denying that political and ideological bias has infected it. The judiciary has become as big of a political weapon as the executive and legislative branches.

and liberals feel the same about liberal judges. The right wanted to impeach Obama-even heard more than once, "If someone were to off him..." and now the left wants to impeach Trump and there are all sorts of wishes for his demise.

A real conundrum. LOL! Everyone thinks they are unbiased and clear thinking.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

and liberals feel the same about liberal judges. The right wanted to impeach Obama-even heard more than once, "If someone were to off him..." and now the left wants to impeach Trump and there are all sorts of wishes for his demise.

A real conundrum. LOL! Everyone thinks they are unbiased and clear thinking.

Couldn't agree more. It's America today. Very polarized. Maybe more so than even before the first Civil War. It's a shame everything has turned into a battle and working together has been thrown out the window. Comprise is nonexistent.

[Drummond]

LOL! What color is your sky?

Currently, a sort of a murky grey (possibly threatening rain). How about yours ?

@Kathianne ...

Just to let you know I was right, Kathianne. The murky grey sky did threaten rain. We've since had a downpour.

And now, it's getting dark .. evening, where I am.

.... whew !!! I SO BADLY NEEDED to PROVE MYSELF RIGHT ... MY EGO CLAMOURED FOR IT, BY JINGO !!

... eh, Kathianne .. ??

... ok. I feel so much better, now ... venting my self-esteem was SO vital to me !!

Isn't that right ?

.... eh, Kathianne .. ??

[Kathianne]

Currently, a sort of a murky grey (possibly threatening rain). How about yours ?



... eh ??

I'm not even sure I need answer that one. Still, as I'm here ...

I've said this repeatedly on this forum: a forum such as this, is here (- surely ?? -) for its participants to express views, then have them countered by (if they're offered) countering views !! The success of one or the other is decided by the merits of each view when tested against the other.

That is how I see all this, and I've said that for a rather long time. So ... to what extent is your personal attack uncalled for ??



In your comment, you're essentially claiming I'm just driven by egotism .. when my approach, the one I've just described to you, is one devoid of all that. If you choose not to believe me, do some research ... you'll find I've stated what my approach to debate is, at least several times in the past.

You therefore KNOW that your judgmentality against me is uncalled for.

I'm sorry that you see such a need to personalise this debate against me. If you make good points, better ones than mine, it stands to reason that they should prevail over my own. The sheer strength of your argument SHOULD carry you through. And if by chance it doesn't .. why not ?

See my point ?

As for 'feigning ignorance' of your system, I fail to see how I could even do that with any credibility, since to do that implies a comparison between what is typically known by an American, and what is not, and how what I know compares against all that.

... And, how would I judge any of that with any accuracy ? Please ... tell me.

I'm 100% sure that there are big, gaping voids in my knowledge of your American judicial system. But HOW big they are, and how to quantify them ... I've no means of judging.

Do I ?

Personalised attacks aren't helpful, Kathianne. Stating opinions and positions, then testing them through debate ... IS.

Agreed ?

Hmmm, Drummond, I think you doth protest too much. Eh, Drummond?

[Kathianne]

Couldn't agree more. It's America today. Very polarized. Maybe more so than even before the first Civil War. It's a shame everything has turned into a battle and working together has been thrown out the window. Comprise is nonexistent.

Compromise takes at least two. Bottom line is, those that don't agree with one, deserve death and destruction. Everything is 'nuclear now.'