US Politics Mega-thread - Page 6942

On February 22 2017 10:08 Plansix wrote:

So what exactly are you trying to say here?

On February 22 2017 09:13 On_Slaught wrote:
Bestseller? Lol what non fan is going to buy "that Pedophile guy's book"?

On February 22 2017 11:03 ticklishmusic wrote:


eh, he'll release it on amazon for $5 and a bunch of people will buy copies so it can temporarily be top of the hot new releases list.

On February 22 2017 08:56 xDaunt wrote:

I'd be very surprised if this was the end for Milo. He's a creature of his own creation with his own massive following. He's not dependent upon Breitbart or any other media platform. He's going to get his book out, and it's going to be a bestseller. Milo's free speech message is too important and too alluring for him to simply fade away. This is only the beginning for him.

On February 22 2017 10:57 Slaughter wrote:
I wonder if Trump will leave office early but not due to impeachment or scandal but because he just doesn't like it and becomes bored with it.

On February 22 2017 11:09 LegalLord wrote:

Status quo is finished. Trump being elected means there is no status quo no more. Now the name of the game is "defeat Trump no matter the cost."

On February 22 2017 09:48 Danglars wrote:

He hardly even trolled her. Like, you could've done a better shitpost than Milo. Teases her spelling and grammar, victimhood peddling ...

You're better off staying on the age of consent laws being too hot to discuss. --Obligatory "it's 2017" and people are still throwing fits about mean things being said to them on the internet.

With security at the U.S.-Mexico border at the center of a seething controversy, the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court seemed torn at oral arguments on Tuesday — torn between their sense of justice and legal rules that until now have protected U.S. Border Patrol agents from liability in cross-border shootings.

In the summer of 2010, 15-year-old Sergio Hernández and his friends were playing chicken, daring each other to run up to the border fence between Juárez, Mexico, and El Paso, Texas. Border Patrol Agent Jesus Mesa Jr. arrived on the scene and grabbed one of the kids, while others ran past him, crossing the invisible border into Mexico and hiding behind a railroad trestle. Cellphone videos show Sergio peeking out from his hiding place, as agent Mesa points his gun and fires three shots, killing the unarmed boy 60 feet away.

After an investigation by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Mesa was neither prosecuted nor disciplined. Mexico charged him with murder, but the U.S. refused to extradite him. So the dead boy's parents sued agent Mesa for damages, claiming that he had acted in violation of the U.S. Constitution by killing their son.

On the steps of the Supreme Court Tuesday, agent Mesa's lawyer, Randolph Ortega, said the Constitution does not extend across the Mexican border.

"Borders are real and finite, and borders determine where the primacy of one country ends and the other begins," Ortega said.

Bob Hilliard, the lawyer representing Hernández's family, countered that the roughly 44,000 Border Patrol agents are domestic law enforcement officers who should be constrained by the Constitution.

"Right now, while they're in the United States, their boots never leave the country, and it's the government's position that the Constitution turns off like a light switch at the border, and they are unconstrained by our U.S. Constitution," said Hilliard.

Inside the Supreme Court chamber, Hilliard had some difficulty selling his counterargument to the court's four conservative justices.

"How do you analyze the case of a drone strike in Iraq where the plane is piloted from Nevada?" Chief Justice John Roberts asked. Could the family of those who are killed or injured sue for damages?

Hilliard fumbled, until Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg observed dryly that under the argument Hilliard had put forth in his brief, neither military nor intelligence personnel could be sued.

Justice Stephen Breyer commented that Hilliard has "a very sympathetic case," but he added that the court has to write an opinion that doesn't cause confusion and doesn't affect drone strikes and the like.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, potentially the deciding vote in the case, held his fire until about halfway through Hilliard's argument. And then he let loose.

"[T]his is one of most sensitive areas of foreign affairs where the political branches should discuss with Mexico what the solution ought to be," he said. Kennedy added, "It seems to me this is an extraordinary case for us to use in expanding damage suits against federal law enforcement agents when we have not done so since 1988."

Lawyer Hilliard replied that "there is no alternative remedy for the family." There have been 283 cross-border shootings, Hilliard said, despite the government's stated policy barring a Border Patrol agent from using deadly force if there is no imminent peril.

"If we assume the officer was completely at fault, there should be some relief, but that's up to the executive and legislative branches" to craft some sort of compensation, Kennedy replied.

Lawyer Hilliard shot back that that would mean the largest law enforcement group in the country would be, for all practical purposes, immune to punishment for its actions.

On February 22 2017 13:06 TheTenthDoc wrote:
So could a private citizen just set up on the border and start sniping into Mexico with no repercussions from U.S. law? Or the opposite, with a Mexican gunman just plinking away at U.S. agents with no legal repercussions? That seems absolutely absurd to me.

Or is this a case where they're seeking punishment in addition to what the U.S. is already doing to punish the guy?

On February 22 2017 13:47 Nyxisto wrote:
Or an even weirder example, could an American should another American citizen across the border without any repercussions? This seems absurd.