BANNED USER: /comment/321754
>Unban in 0d 12h 19m
anon_
No bio...
User ID: 2642
Banned by: @netstack
Did the voters turn out for the school board election or state level representatives? Or did they just turn out for a single position and then got confused out of ignorance that there's more positions to vote for with their own different appointed powers, many of which are local?
One pattern that's come up with a particular strain of reactionary thought is that there is an ingrained helplessness (punctuated of course with an occasional going-off-meds incident) with regards to actually learn about the structural elements of governance. It's true at the local level and the national level and everywhere in between.
It is true that liberals have a natural advantage here in the sense of being active in politics as opposed to being based & grillpilled, but it's become so pronounced that it goes beyond merely believing that being active in political causes is cringe. It's gotten so bad you cannot even explain to some of these folks black-letter facts like (just for example) "if the federal government wants to condition grants on cities dropping sanctuary policies, there has to be specific language by congress creating the condition".
anon_
12hr ago
If someone decided to base their sex education around the theme "how Mary and Joseph had sex and Jesus was conceived"
And here I was thinking it was a Roman auxiliary marching from the coast to Syria to put down a riot that stopped over and popped a baby in her.
anon_
12hr ago
You skipped from "a couple bucks" and "illegal to drive it in". That's a lot of distance.
anon_
1d ago
It's one thing to say legally I must travel to this office and I cannot reach it by car.
Cannot? That's a bit exaggerated eh?
anon_
1d ago
What benefit? Less congestion? We won't see such a benefit.
That is obviously false as seen by the actual massive drop in traffic after the congestion pricing scheme went on.
The major beneficiaries were the tradesmen that bill $150/hr and more than saved paying the fee and chopping 20-40minutes of driving off their day.
anon_
2d ago
the absence is notable. Were this an evangelical push we could expect some evangelical bashing.
Shopping for sympathetic plaintiffs is just part of the process.
anon_
4d ago
One could imagine a process that would have prevented the issue, but none such process was due him, and even if there was, as I keep saying, a mistake could have happened after that process was completed.
Well, I guess I disagree that he isn't due some kind of notice and chance to leave in an orderly fashion.
But even then, if a mistake happens after some kind of process, even a minimal one, then you can point to the process and at least say that an attempt was made. It's no argument to say that because we can't prevent every mistake, we shouldn't try to prevent any mistake.
For example, imagine he got a notice he is getting deported to Venezuela, tried to appeal it, failed, and then on the deportation day there is a mix up and he accidentally gets put on a bus that gets people onto a plane to El Salvador.
Yes, that might happen. So what? Again, the fact that you can't prevent every mistake doesn't mean we must be totally indifferent to every mistake imaginable.
Sure, but in my opinion, the process is already very excessive. For example, I think that the standard procedure should be that people who never had valid immigration to begin with, should only get to appeal their deportation after already being deported.
Is it excessive? Or did the 2019 adjudication simply come to the wrong conclusion?
anon_
4d ago
My money is on Pope Pizzaballa 👌
anon_
5d ago
No: this was a violation of Garcia’s right, but it was not a due process violation. Whether error is egregious or not is orthogonal to whether it’s a due process violation.
I'm not sure how this is so. For one, had he been given any kind of notice and chance to challenge his removal, one imagines he could have raised the issue of his procedurally-valid and as-yet-not-revoked withholding.
Most of them, certainly. My point is that there is a trade off here between error rate and your effectiveness. The more efforts you take to prevent any and all errors, the harder it will be to actually get the job done. Democrats understand this very well: that’s how they effectively banished almost all of death penalty in US. That’s why I oppose excessive concern for due process, because I know that it’s not principled stance, but rather instrumental, only to achieve a specific nefarious political purpose.
This is surely so. That doesn't mean that, as a matter of negative polarization, those that oppose those efforts should be against these arguments in all possible configurations.
One can look at a death penalty case that has received a full trial and multiple appeals and decide that is (more than) enough process. One can also look at someone detained and removed in the middle of the night and conclude that this is not enough process. I'm not an idiot that thinks that if Democrats say the sky is blue, it must instead be green.
Yes, but even so, the glaringly obvious mistakes will nevertheless occasionally happen, and sometimes there will be little legal remedy available too. I’m willing to consider proposals to make errors less likely, but only if they are paired with proposals to make the whole process faster and more effective. Of course, Democrats won’t entertain deals like that.
Of course they wouldn't. But given that they don't control any branch of the Federal Government, we don't need their assent to anything either.
anon_
6d ago
I mean, the IRS can look at my tax paperwork and begin enforcement proceedings against me. That doesn't require a judge either (until I take them to tax court).
That doesn't imply that they can just freeze my bank accounts while skipping that step. The step is important, even if it wouldn't change the outcome in this specific case.
anon_
6d ago
the ONLY substantive difference between the present situation and the one where the government didn't make the error is that maybe Garcia's deportation to El Salvador would have been briefly delayed.
Sure. And the only difference between executing Tim McVeigh in 1997 after his conviction instead of 1995 after his arrest was a delay. It's not like there was any chance of him being acquitted.
The withholding order was based on threats that no longer exist.
This claim is probably true, but it doesn't matter because that argument was never actually brought up.
The only real argument here is
That is not the only real argument.
Unfortunately, the scale of this problem is so huge that only swift and aggressive action can possibly address it
I think you are going to quickly find that there are between 0-2 votes on the Supreme Court for that, and that the only way to actually tackle the problem is to have a competent and diligent program of enforcement. One that I have consistently been in favor of (which is a nice thing about posting histories) for years before this administration decided to do it in a spectacular incompetent fashion.
What folks like you fail to comprehend is that trying to achieve a goal incompetently is not directionally correct -- by negative association is makes the goal even further away. You are just delaying (if not destroying) any ability to actually reckon with the scale of illegal and temporary immigrants.
anon_
7d ago
Your link quotes things like
The 17 Year-2 States found that half of the cases with improper authorization for payment errors were due to missing or insufficient documentation.
Yeah, if you fill out your documentation wrong, it causes it to be denied. That's hardly the kind of error we're talking about
The IRS makes mistakes when taxing people less than 1% of the time... which is still 50 times worse than your "unacceptable" rate for "deporting people who were definitely supposed to be deported, but missing a step in the paperwork".
You mean removing people to a country for which they had a legally binding order withholding removal.
That's not a "step in the paperwork" kind of mistake.
There's too many cites to bother linking them all, but I'm seeing false conviction rates ranging from 1-12%... including a purported 4% rate of executing innocent people
Are you seriously quoting some left wing boogeyman that 1/25 executions being of the innocent? That's absurd enough not to even merit further investigation.
anon_
7d ago
I think we agree on a number of things: this was incompetence and that due legal process will not prevent all incompetence-based errors.
I think where we disagree is that this particular error was incompetence of such degree as to be a violation of due process (all but conceded by the government anyway) and that violations of this kind (ignorance of a duly entered legal order that they had a legal duty to know about) are the kind of things that can be prevented. One doesn't need to think that every error can be prevented to believe that such a glaringly obvious one can be.
Maybe, but I suspect that what happened here is that they wanted to actually execute their core function before activist judges tarpit them, and rushed things so much that they missed an order that someone failed to input properly into database back in 2019, or something like that. This is not meant to imply that they didn’t do anything wrong, it’s just operating in hostile legal environment will cause mistake rate to be higher.
I think they are quickly going to learn that this strategy. And the sooner they internalize that if they don't do so, they are going to be restrained from doing anything, the sooner that lesson gets passed up the chain that if their leadership wants anything done, they better do it properly.
anon_
7d ago
I would happily concede this is all fine if the error rate is indeed 1/100K. Will you concede that it's unacceptable to be 1/5k?
And yes, I think the CBP does not incorrectly turn away more than 1/10K people at the border.
anon_
7d ago
In the Garcia case, the government made a mistake by not complying with that withholding. There is an implication here that if Garcia’s due process rights were met, he would not have been deported to El Salvador.
That's not true, there was certainly a way to meet his rights and still deport him to ES. At the very least, the executive ought to dissolve its own order.
There is no amount of due process that will prevent government from ever making mistakes of this sort
Seriously? There is no amount of due process that will prevent the government from not following its own orders?
I feel like "there is a reliable central database run by a group half as competent as the dude responsible for delivering burritos" isn't even an amount of due process, it's a basic measure of government competence.
and excessive efforts of judiciary and activists using the judiciary to prevent mistakes meaningfully detract from the Executive’s ability to execute its core function.
I'm not sure a case about the judiciary restraining a dysfunctional government is really meaningfully detracting the government from getting its shit together. If anything, a kick in the ass might actually help them realize that in order to execute their core function, they first need to achieve operational competence.
anon_
7d ago
But because some braindead or politically captured bureaucrat rubber stamped his paperwork where he claimed he'd be in danger if he returned to his own country they granted a targeted stay of deportation, which precipitated this entire clusterfuck.
Another Art II bureaucrat would have rubber stamped the dissolution of that order had this government had their shit together enough to even know it existed.
It's not the minor procedural error that stings, it's the not even knowing.
like Boasberg or Xinis, who override the determinations of Article II examiners at will, making it effectively impossible to enforce law at scale
What in the world are you talking about? In the Garcia case (that's in front of Xinis), it was the Article II examiner (in 2019, under Trump!) that signed the order withholding removal.
I really don't comprehend how you character this as overriding that determination. If anything, Boasberg is doing the polar opposite -- enforcing it.
anon_
7d ago
The historical Anglo-Saxon judicial tradition upon which the Common Law is based always afforded judges the right, and indeed in many cases implicitly obligated them, to respect the people’s will.
They are required to respect the people's will as enacted by the legislature, not the people's will as reported in a pew opinion poll or an online forum.
anon_
7d ago
I feel revealing that they don't like sharing a bathroom with men doesn't have much bearing on whether they would, in a different world, share it with only the subset of men that are socially presenting as women.
You could easily imagine both categories.
Maybe? I don't have a solid prediction on that possibility, but it seems like you should mention your expectation on that so we know what the heck you're talking about.
If that never comes to pass, will you amend your position?
More options
Context Copy link