SCOTUS rules we follow law of TPS for Haitians

@Suzianne said
Then tell me exactly how long 'temporary' is.

I feel like Jules Winfield asking Brett "Does he look like a bitch?"

@Suzianne said
Try Googling how many Africans will die by 2030 because of the cuts to USAID.

You simply don't give a damn. ALL you care about is your selfish tax cuts and getting brownskins deported.

Suzianne
By your standard then, any country that reduces foreign aid is personally responsible for every resulting death.



I agree that foreign aid can save lives and that cutting effective programs may cost lives. Where I disagree is jumping from ‘some programs were cut’ to ‘the U.S. is responsible for millions of deaths.’ This puts a burden on you to show us the evidence. I don’t think you can. The causation in global humanitarian crises is far more than what we do. If Italy decides to reduce Foreign aid that they give out, are they gonna be responsible for any deaths which occur thereafter? That is what you are saying. This is an example of liberals with no common sense. You seem to avoid how complicated it really is. Just blame the US. Blame Trump!!
Just how much are we supposed to feed the rest of the world? Do we have more of a duty than the charitable giving that we already do? Does any country do as much as the United States does?
And for the record, whether I give a damn or not it’s quite irrelevant . I am just quoting a fact

@Suzianne said
Then tell me exactly how long 'temporary' is.

Analogy: If Apple says they are going to be 'off-line temporarily', that dam corporation should say EXACTLY how long that will be!

Anyway.......
Temporary isn't measured by the calendar; it's measured by whether the emergency still exists. If the emergency is over, temporary should remain temporary.. Go back.
Put another way, if temporary last forever, which you seem to think it should, temporary is defined as long enough to solve the emergency that justified it. Stay with me here....... It is not long enough to become permanent by inertia. You probably should look up inertia.
But dont stop here.....tell us your endgame........make it Permanent ?!?!?!?!??? Would that be faaaaaaiiiirrr? There really are other wretches in the world, you know. You pickin and choosin are you??

@Suzianne said
Try Googling how many Africans will die by 2030 because of the cuts to USAID.

You simply don't give a damn. ALL you care about is your selfish tax cuts and getting brownskins deported.

Google how many Christians will Africans kill by 2030

@no1marauder said
They are supposed to read in the context of which it was written to give effect to the entire law Congress wrote.

IF the Executive Branch follows the requirements of the preceding paragraph, then the determination can't be reviewed. But what if they don't? Does that turn "shall" into "if they feel like it"?

Did the same people that wrote “shall” also write “no judge shall review”?
Damn what a 🤡

@Mott-The-Hoople said
Did the same people that wrote “shall” also write “no judge shall review”?
Damn what a 🤡

Yes and judges are supposed to give effect to both provisions.

The next paragraph doesn't override the prior one when they were both put in the law at the same time.

@no1marauder said
Yes and judges are supposed to give effect to both provisions.

The next paragraph doesn't override the prior one when they were both put in the law at the same time.

The law explicitly forbids that clown.

Congress can act, but judges are forbidden…per the law as written.

You claim to be a lawyer…I will ask you again, are you a lawyer?

@Mott-The-Hoople said
The law explicitly forbids that clown.

Congress can act, but judges are forbidden…per the law as written.

You claim to be a lawyer…I will ask you again, are you a lawyer?

No, the law doesn't explicitly forbid its own provisions from being put into effect. Only an imbecile or right wing SCOTUS justice would even claim such an absurdity.

I already gave you an explanation that would reconcile the two provisions, which is what pretty much all the lower court judges ruled in line with standard methods of statutory interpretation accepted for hundreds of years.

This is a lawless court overturning long tried and true legal theories at a whim.

EDIT: A reminder from page 3:

no1: They are supposed to read in the context of which it was written to give effect to the entire law Congress wrote.

IF the Executive Branch follows the requirements of the preceding paragraph, then the determination can't be reviewed. But what if they don't? Does that turn "shall" into "if they feel like it"?

When Congress by law says the Executive "shall" do something, what does that mean to you?

@Mott-The-Hoople said
The law explicitly forbids that clown.

Congress can act, but judges are forbidden…per the law as written.

You claim to be a lawyer…I will ask you again, are you a lawyer?

From Congress.gov:

"For instance, the rule against surplusage tells courts to give each word and clause of a statute operative effect, under the assumption that Congress chooses words meaningfully."

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R45153

@no1marauder said
No, the law doesn't explicitly forbid its own provisions from being put into effect. Only an imbecile or right wing SCOTUS justice would even claim such an absurdity.

I already gave you an explanation that would reconcile the two provisions, which is what pretty much all the lower court judges ruled in line with standard methods of statutory interpretation accepted for ...[text shortened]... ke it"?

When Congress by law says the Executive "shall" do something, what does that mean to you?

“IF the Executive Branch follows the requirements of the preceding paragraph, then the determination can't be reviewed”

😂 no, you can’t write law, only congress can, and they didn’t write what you posted.


What about the question of being a lawyer?

@Suzianne said
Try Googling how many Africans will die by 2030 because of the cuts to USAID.

You simply don't give a damn. ALL you care about is your selfish tax cuts and getting brownskins deported.

Try googling who ‘caused’ the deaths. Showhouse will say the US has caused the deaths. Sue gonna say that?

@Mott-The-Hoople said
“IF the Executive Branch follows the requirements of the preceding paragraph, then the determination can't be reviewed”

😂 no, you can’t write law, only congress can, and they didn’t write what you posted.


What about the question of being a lawyer?

I quoted the section of the law on page 1 that you are ignoring and refusing to answer questions about:

"(A)Periodic review
At least 60 days before end of the initial period of designation, and any extended period of designation, of a foreign state (or part thereof) under this section the Attorney General, after consultation with appropriate agencies of the Government, shall review the conditions in the foreign state (or part of such foreign state) for which a designation is in effect under this subsection and shall determine whether the conditions for such designation under this subsection continue to be met. The Attorney General shall provide on a timely basis for the publication of notice of each such determination (including the basis for the determination, and, in the case of an affirmative determination, the period of extension of designation under subparagraph (C)) in the Federal Register.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1254a

at (b)(3)(A)

That's a lot of "shalls".

Congress wrote those "shalls"; can the Executive ignore them?

@no1marauder said
I quoted the section of the law on page 1 that you are ignoring and refusing to answer questions about:

"(A)Periodic review
At least 60 days before end of the initial period of designation, and any extended period of designation, of a foreign state (or part thereof) under this section the Attorney General, [b]after consultation with appropriate agencies of the Governm ...[text shortened]... (3)(A)

That's a lot of "shalls".

Congress wrote those "shalls"; can the Executive ignore them?

Thank God we have a right-thinking majority Supreme Court!

@no1marauder said
I quoted the section of the law on page 1 that you are ignoring and refusing to answer questions about:

"(A)Periodic review
At least 60 days before end of the initial period of designation, and any extended period of designation, of a foreign state (or part thereof) under this section the Attorney General, [b]after consultation with appropriate agencies of the Governm ...[text shortened]... (3)(A)

That's a lot of "shalls".

Congress wrote those "shalls"; can the Executive ignore them?

ignoring or following...the judicial is barred from any decisions regarding this.

"There is no judicial review of any determination of the Attorney General with respect to the designation, or termination or extension of a designation, of a foreign state under this subsection.”"

congress would have to enforce

Are you really this dense? lawyer man (not)

@Mott-The-Hoople said
ignoring or following...the judicial is barred from any decisions regarding this.

"There is no judicial review of any determination of the Attorney General with respect to the designation, or termination or extension of a designation, of a foreign state under this subsection.”"

congress would have to enforce

Are you really this dense? lawyer man (not)

Congressional laws are binding on the Executive; Congress need take no further action to punish violations if they don't care to. When Congress says the Executive "shall" do something, they are required to do so.

The right wing's majority erasure of the provision just before the one you keep quoting is completely lawless and contrary to established rules of statutory interpretation. ALL the words of Congress mean something, not just the ones Alito likes.

There's a reason why multiple lower courts, every single one that reviewed this case, rejected such a novel and unreasonable interpretation effectively annulling an entire section of a law.