Top DOJ Official Defends New Memorandum on Targeting Parents

[GummyVitamins]

the US Constitution, second paragraph of article 2 of the second amendment:

[emphasis added by bubba to make the law more visible to those who do not know it]

That speaks to the President's responsibility, not the Senate.

 

[justabubba]

That speaks to the President's responsibility, not the Senate.

then you only read the portion that was emphasized
go read it again and look for references to the senate. those references are in the same quote
smh

 

[GummyVitamins]

then you only read the portion that was emphasized
go read it again and look for references to the senate. those references are in the same quote
smh

I understand the whole portion, but again the portion you highlighted is about the President's responsibility. But, okay, let's go for your second attempt. Are you referring to "and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate?" The Senate didn't consent.

 

[justabubba]

I understand the whole portion, but again the portion you highlighted is about the President's responsibility. But, okay, let's go for your second attempt. Are you referring to "and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate?" The Senate didn't consent.

ah, but surely - ??? - you noticed there is a Constitutional obligation of the senate to offer its advice, and then its consent or the withholding of its consent
now, see if you can figure out which of the parties failed to act upon its Constitutionally provided duties in the garland nomination
... and failing that, flip a coin, and your chances of getting it right will exceed your efforts thus far

 

[GummyVitamins]

ah, but surely - ??? - you noticed there is a Constitutional obligation of the senate to offer its advice, and then its consent or the withholding of its consent
now, see if you can figure out which of the parties failed to act upon its Constitutionally provided duties in the garland nomination
... and failing that, flip a coin, and your chances of getting it right will exceed your efforts thus far

Hold up. You actually believe the Senate is legally required to hold hearings on nominees? Let me catch my breath. Okay..

Show me where the Constitution says that.

 

[pamak]

So, nothing at all that supports what Comrade Garland is trying to do.

I was responding to your claim that this wave of violence passed unnoticed. When I responded to other posters I addressed what Garland is trying to do and argued in support of it. So, you chose the wrong post of .mine to quote.

 

[justabubba]

Hold up. You actually believe the Senate is legally required to hold hearings on nominees? Let me catch my breath. Okay..

Show me where the Constitution says that.

apparently you did not read the part that charges the senate with providing advice and consent
time to pull out that coin to flip; the chances that your answer will be right are much better than is the case thus far in this thread

 

[Ikari]

"The Department takes these incidents seriously and is committed to using its authority and resources to discourage these threats, identify them when they occur, and prosecute them
when appropriate."

I won't be holding my breath for your apology for calling me a liar.

The only way to get thrown into federal prison would be to break federal laws. He's not saying they're just arbitrarily going to start throwing folk into federal prison, only that they'll pursue prosecution WHEN APPROPRIATE.

Do you think people should be able to break federal law with little to no consequence? Seems to be the argument you're making.

 

[Anthony60]

apparently you did not read the part that charges the senate with providing advice and consent
time to pull out that coin to flip; the chances that your answer will be right are much better than is the case thus far in this thread

If that were true, the Obama administration would have brought a case to the Supreme Court asking them to compel the Senate to fufill their Constitutional duties. Why didn't they just do that?
I'll answer for you. The SC would have ruled that by not holding hearings, they were not giving their consent, thus fulfilling their duties.

 

[pamak]

Sorry, I got so distracted with @Hamish Howl's fascist post history that I missed this. So you want the FBI to assume a grand conspiracy was involved and open investigations when someone reports feeling "intimidated" at a school board meeting? And you don't find this to be weaponizing the FBI? This would undoubtedly have the net effect of chilling speech and you're basically making the argument for me. Citizens have the right to harshly protest their school board members. They also have the right to use harsh dialogue which could make someone feel "intimidated." That's not necessarily a crime. That's the first amendment. You shouldn't want to sic the FBI on people and their friends/family just because of a claim that someone felt intimidated. This is a matter for local law enforcement.

Another strawman. I do not want the FBI to assume anything. I want the FBi to investigate whether there was conspiracy. And it is important here to notice that this investigation does not come randomly against lawful citizens who happen to have ridiculous views about the masks and the vaccines. It comes against citizens who have already been arrested for a crime.

So, I see zero danger of investigating political opponents as you try to argue. If political opponents do not beat of threaten school officials, then they should not be investigated by the FBI. But if they choose to act like thugs, then they should not complain about imaginary political persecutions.

And finally, do not try to argue now that we are talking about cases of teachers who feel unreasonably that they have been threatened. We have seen cases and arrests which show that we do not deal with mass psychosis by teachers who unreasonably think that they have been victimized.

 

[Anthony60]

The only way to get thrown into federal prison would be to break federal laws. He's not saying they're just arbitrarily going to start throwing folk into federal prison, only that they'll pursue prosecution WHEN APPROPRIATE.

Do you think people should be able to break federal law with little to no consequence? Seems to be the argument you're making.

I think you relied to the wrong post.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Yes, they are. Just because parents are angry and loud doesn't mean they're right.

The boards have explained CRT is not taught in their schools.
The boards have explained the CDC recommendations and why they are valid for student safety.

The parents at those meetings may not like those answers, but it doesn't give them the right to shut down the boards' business or make threats.

The school boards are absolutely pushing to teach CRT in public schools, however there are a multitude of other issues they are also ignoring parents on. You are right that the parents have no right to make threats of harm, however the school boards are largely exaggerating the number of such threats. They are just shitting their pants over any opposition from parents. They simply want complete control with no input from the parents of the children they are teaching. Next step from the parents may be a mass exodus from the public school system in favor of the private schools.

 

[Ikari]

I think you relied to the wrong post.

....shit, I did. Sorry.

 

[eohrnberger]

The school boards are absolutely pushing to teach CRT in public schools, however there are a multitude of other issues they are also ignoring parents on. You are right that the parents have no right to make threats of harm, however the school boards are largely exaggerating the number of such threats. They are just shitting their pants over any opposition from parents. They simply want complete control with no input from the parents of the children they are teaching. Next step from the parents may be a mass exodus from the public school system in favor of the private schools.

I wonder what percentage of students departing from the public schools it would take for those schools and teachers to stop pushing their social agenda onto the kids?
20%? 40%? 60%?
Each student leaving a public school represents less financial support from the state for that school, does it not?

 

[Rawley]

Agreed, good thing its not happening at this time.

The Attorney General tasking the FBI to get involved in every single judicial district in the country and threatening to throw folks in Federal prison seems rather political.

 

[Rawley]

I wonder what percentage of students departing from the public schools it would take for those schools and teachers to stop pushing their social agenda onto the kids?
20%? 40%? 60%?
Each student leaving a public school represents less financial support from the state for that school, does it not?

depends on the state

 

[MAGAnificent]

I wonder what percentage of student departing from the public schools it would take for those schools and teachers to stop pushing their social agenda onto the kids?
20%? 40%? 60%?
Each student leaving a public school represents less financial support from the state for that school, does it not?

My bet is that they will feign toughness at first, but will flinch somewhere between 15 and 20%. I think there will also be a massive public push for expanding the school voucher system.

 

[GummyVitamins]

apparently you did not read the part that charges the senate with providing advice and consent
time to pull out that coin to flip; the chances that your answer will be right are much better than is the case thus far in this thread

The Senate isn't "charged" with anything. Let's recap the conversation:

1. You claimed that the Senate had a "legal obligation to hold a confirmation hearing for Garland in 2016."
2. It was pointed out to you that they didn't and you were asked to cite the law.
3. You then cited a portion of the constitution with "emphasis added by bubba to make the law more visible to those who do not know it."
4. I pointed out to you that the portion you cited speaks to the President's responsibilities, not the Senate.
5. You told me the answer you were trying to provide is in the part of the passage you didn't emphasize.
6. Cool. The part you emphasized says the President cannot appoint someone to the Supreme Court without consent of the Senate. The Senate didn't consent. I pointed this out to you.
7. You told me I was wrong.

The problem is I'm not wrong. Again, the passage you cited pertains to the President's authority and the checks and balances of the Senate for Supreme Court/Judicial nominees. An opposing Senate not holding Supreme Court confirmation hearings during an election year is pretty standard and has happened throughout our nation's history. McConnell definitely stretched that timing, but it was his right to do so.

 

[eohrnberger]

My bet is that they will feign toughness at first, but will flinch somewhere between 15 and 20%. I think there will also be a massive public push for expanding the school voucher system.

"massive public push for expanding the school voucher system."
Sure. I can certainly see that, along with parents pulling their kids out of public school to escape the schools and teachers pushing their social agenda onto their kids.

 

[Rawley]

The only way to get thrown into federal prison would be to break federal laws. He's not saying they're justarbitrarily going to start throwing folk into federal prison, only that they'll pursue prosecution WHEN APPROPRIATE.

Do you think people should be able to break federal law with little to no consequence? Seems to be the argument you're making.

I think you are responding to the wrong post again. I have never argued he was "just arbitrarily going to start throwing folk into federal prison" and I have never argued "people should be able to break federal law with little to no consequence"

 

[Chainsawmassacre]

Yeah, one insurrection, one foiled plot to kidnap & prob'ly kill a Governor, one teacher being punched, humorous threats to kill persons advocating masks.
I know there is some BS rule that mention of Hitler automatically voids your argument, the rule perpetuated by fans of authoritarian rule, but there was many isolated incidents leading up to “Kristallnacht”. I think that the Feds formulating a strategy to but a damper on school board potential violence is an ounce of prevention. IMO.

A drop in the bucket compared to teachers hitting and ****ing students. Where’s the FBI?
Any extremely rare actual act of violence by rightfully enraged parents can easily be dealt with by local authorities. Feds are doing nothing but intimidation and attempting to criminalize dissent

 

[Ikari]

I think you are responding to the wrong post again. I have never argued he was "just arbitrarily going to start throwing folk into federal prison" and I have never argued "people should be able to break federal law with little to no consequence"

No, it's the right one. You keep saying they're threatening to throw people into Federal prison. But they're not doing that, they merely said they'd prosecute when appropriate. Which would mean that someone violated federal law. Want to stay out of federal prison? Don't break federal laws.

 

[Chainsawmassacre]

My source is not Marxist. So, it is obvious that since you lack the ability to refute it, you make shi# up.

Also, the article makes it clear that the source of harassment and violence is anti-maskers and antivaxers who have the nerve to play the victim of the federal government. Do not act like a thug motivated by a political ideology and the feds will not come after you.

Yes, Marxist call anyone who doesn’t follow the party line a thug. Mao loved the word and used it

 

[Chainsawmassacre]

If those parents aren’t the majority in whatever school district, then thems the brakes. They’re just going to have to be mad about life.

If they are, they can vote in people they prefer

I’m confident these Marxist will be voted out now that they have been exposed. Until then they have to be resisted.

 

[pamak]

Yes, Marxist call anyone who doesn’t follow the party line a thug. Mao loved the word and used it

And those who cannot counter a claim and its source, love to call the other side names to cover their intellectual void