• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Come January 1, 2026 do you Think ICE will Follow California Masks Law?

Come January 1, 2026 do you Think ICE will Follow California Masks Law?

  • YES

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • NO

    Votes: 4 100.0%

  • I don't care

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    4
  • This poll will close: .
VySky

VySky

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 12, 2019
Messages
51,240
Reaction score
20,199
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Providing it stands in the courts.

Its a simple Yes or No question.

I'll go first by voting NO.

What say you?
 
My guess is that more, not fewer, federal agents will don masks so that the law can be challenged in court and, ultimately, thrown out as either a First Amendment violation or an attempt by CA to usrup federal authority.
 
No. We are a lawless nation at the moment.
 
And BTW, you show me someone who supports this law and I'll show you someone with shit for brains. The objective of this law is clear, in an environment where there is open hostility to immigration law enforcement, the opponents of that enforcement are seeking to dox ICE agents so they and their families can be more effectively threatened. This bill serves no other purpose.
 
NatMorton said:
And BTW, you show me someone who supports this law and I'll show you someone with shit for brains. The objective of this law is clear, in an environment where there is open hostility to immigration law enforcement, the opponents of that enforcement are seeking to dox ICE agents so they and their families can be more effectively threatened. This bill serves no other purpose.
Click to expand...

You are just regurgitating Republican talking points.
 
VySky said:
Providing it stands in the courts.

Its a simple Yes or No question.

I'll go first by voting NO.

What say you?
Click to expand...

Hell no......now we just need to get football crowds to start cheering "F*** Newsome", over and over.
 
No, my suspicion is the federal government will rush to the courts arguing supremacy clause or something to that end.
 
OrphanSlug said:
No, my suspicion is the federal government will rush to the courts arguing supremacy clause or something to that end.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Thats why I referenced the courts.

If it does pass muster, I don't expect the Feds to recognize it.
 
OrphanSlug said:
No, my suspicion is the federal government will rush to the courts arguing supremacy clause or something to that end.
Click to expand...

As I said we are a lawless nation so the Supreme Court will do what it feels like but that aside, what federal law does this usurp? The Supremacy Clause has a definite meaning and that meaning isn’t the President can do whatever the **** he wants in the Several States.
 
Bok Tuklo said:
As I said we are a lawless nation so the Supreme Court will do what it feels like but that aside, what federal law does this usurp? The Supremacy Clause has a definite meaning and that meaning isn’t the President can do whatever the **** he wants in the Several States.
Click to expand...

Hysterics aside, that is not what I argued.

As a practical matter, there is no state law that on its own entirely governs federal agencies. The lines get slightly blurry on a few subjects but not near enough to establish a legal precedence where the Supreme Court would agree that federal agencies are limited by targeted state legislation.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Hysterics aside, that is not what I argued.

As a practical matter, there is no state law that on its own entirely governs federal agencies. The lines get slightly blurry on a few subjects but not near enough to establish a legal precedence where the Supreme Court would agree that federal agencies are limited by targeted state legislation.
Click to expand...
He is not the least bit interested in what you argued.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom