When it comes to those in the country illegally, due process is absolutely circumstantial.
Due process isn’t fungible. If a child came up to me with ice cream all over his shirt and face and sputtered “Due process is circumstantial” it would be slightly more credible than your post insisting the same.
Aren’t you making the argument that it is fungible
No, I’m not. If due process is fungible from person to person. It’s not a process.
Judges first and foremost use a basis of comparison, or series of questions to adjudicate the scenario of a person standing in front of them. The questions don’t change. The “if this, then that” tree doesn’t change.
The Trump admin has tried to argue, and keeps losing, that essentially whatever it declares as due process is the process in and of itself. That’s unconstitutional.
That's not what fungible means. Fungible means that one thing is equally interchangeable with another thing.
Like how US dollars could be exchanged for Euros, gold, or stocks. Those are all fungible and can be equated.
You seem to be arguing that due process is supposed to be equally applied in all circumstances, which would make it a fungible concept.
Are you suggesting that all judges, in all types of civil and criminal proceedings, rely on the same script to all defendants?
That's not correct. The IIRAIRA has been settled for nearly 30 years now.
Lmao, the “kid” who is a 20 year old ADULT and who is now charged with punching a federal official? Yeah, they were following the law.
On the other hand, he wasn’t, which is why he’s now facing a felony. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Funny that you left out his little act of impeding and punching a federal agent. It’s almost as if you’re not making honest posts on purpose…
You’re so close. The government is arguing anything they label as a process is the process necessary. They are saying it’s fungible. I am saying it’s not, as that’s not how due process works.
Judges first and foremost use a basis of comparison, or series of questions to adjudicate the scenario of a person standing in front of them. The questions don’t change. The “if this, then that” tree doesn’t change.
Are you suggesting that all judges, in all types of civil and criminal proceedings, rely on the same script to all defendants?
No, I am not suggesting judges do that even a little.
Regardless of what the government is doing and what they are calling it, what is your position? Are you saying that due process should or should not be fungible? You appear to be rushing through your posts and, as a result, what you're trying to say is unclear and it's coming across like you're contradicting yourself in multiple parts of the discussion.
For example, as far as judges go, you said this:
So I asked this:
And then you said this:
Without slowing down and engaging in a more thorough explanation of your position, it's very unclear, and it doesn't help that you're misapplying multiple terms (i.e. fungible, abjudicate, which means "to reject or prohibit" so they aren't "abjudicating the scenario of a person standing in front of them" because one cannot "reject or prohibit" someone else's scenario).
Once again, why should I believe what you say?it’s not. You don’t have a foundational understanding of due process, or the constitution’s position on it. You cannot get around “all persons” and there is no case law you can cite that would provide a revocation of that.
Like he said.The evidence shows it was due to an operation somewhere else
Other than most of the vehicles departing except a couple left behind... for a picnic?with no evidence of car trouble.
Are you under the laughably false impression that it was necessary for them to break into dodger’s stadium and take private property in order to protect the border?No, just asking a question that would seem to have stumped you.
Due process just means there’s a formal legal process where they can defend themselves.When it comes to those in the country illegally, due process is absolutely circumstantial. I've provided a cite that proves this. Let's see your evidence to the contrary.
Once again, why should I believe what you say?
No.Are you under the laughably false impression that it was necessary for them to break into dodger’s stadium and take private property in order to protect the border?
Like he said.
Other than most of the vehicles departing except a couple left behind... for a picnic?
Due process just means there’s a formal legal process where they can defend themselves.
If anyone can be accused and robbed of the right to defend themselves, then no one has due process.
It’s unconstitutional and a gross violation of rights. Why do you think cops need to break the law?
Oh good then you debunked your silly argument that it was their job to raid dodger’s stadium.
Your posts are becoming even more irrational.When it’s as important to me as it is to you, you’ll have your answer.
Where did I make that claim? Be specific.Oh good then you debunked your silly argument that it was their job to raid dodger’s stadium.
Perfectly confused, yes.Perfect post on the topic.
When it comes to those in the country illegally, due process is absolutely circumstantial. I've provided a cite that proves this. Let's see your evidence to the contrary.
Feds say man punched agents at Pico Rivera Walmart - security footage shows no punches
Federal agents arrested Adrian Martinez outside a Pico Rivera Walmart after they said he punched two agents. Security footage from the store doesn't appear to show Martinez throwing punches.www.foxla.com
My position is the government has been acting unconstitutionally and denying due process to most of the individuals it’s kidnapping off city streets.
s I said before, play stupid games, win stupid prizes. This "kid" is prime evidence that Neanderthal DNA continues to exist in human bloodlines
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?