I finally broke free... [from the Democrat's mental framework] (Page 5/6)
BingB AUG 05, 03:05 PM

quote
Originally posted by cliffw:

When the Supreme Court makes a decision their is a written exclamation as of why. Post it to support you bullzhit of what rules SCOTUS enacted into law.






quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:


You've got more stamina than I do. You're wasting your time with him... it's not actually about a discussion. He'd sooner take a sabbatical than admit to being wrong in something.



Here is a link to the order. I have posted it multiple times. If you deny it exists then you deny reality.

https://www.supremecourt.go...20CA%20DC%206.20.pdf

They ruled the case became "moot" when the Covid pandemic ended. That is because you can't use title 42 to control immigration without a medical emergency.

Everyone gets it except you two. The ruling was freaking 9-0.
82-T/A [At Work] AUG 05, 05:17 PM

quote
Originally posted by BingB:

Here is a link to the order. I have posted it multiple times. If you deny it exists then you deny reality.

https://www.supremecourt.go...20CA%20DC%206.20.pdf

They ruled the case became "moot" when the Covid pandemic ended. That is because you can't use title 42 to control immigration without a medical emergency.

Everyone gets it except you two. The ruling was freaking 9-0.





Ok, I'm honestly getting tired of this. You've been wrong for like 6 ****ing months on this, and Cliff is trying to get you to actually ****ing read, but you seem oblivious to that. First of all... your link is for the Supreme Court which merely remanded it back to the prior Appeals court decision, and ordered the decision as "moot" ... meaning that there was nothing for them to rule on.


The case was basically that the Biden Administration NO LONGER wanted to use the specific language within Title-42 to slow illegal immigration. They did this because I think we all know the Biden administration is effectively for open borders, or they have a really weird way of showing otherwise. Anyway, several states (specifically, the state of Arizona) sued to prevent the Biden Administration from changing their stance and asked the court to intervene and maintain the Title-42 provisions that prevent illegal immigration under COVID guidelines. But the states really have no authority to tell the president what he can do with immigration laws that area already on the books. Biden can choose to declare an emergency and use that language in Title-42 again if he wanted to. It's plain as day here in the annotated review from Cornell: https://www.law.cornell.edu...emecourt/text/22-592

The part that you seem to keep arguing about was a ridiculous ruling by a DC court which said that Title-42 should have never existed. That was totally overruled on appeal... so PLEASE stop repeating that, because it's totally incorrect. From Cornell Law:

"...in 2022, the States turned to this Court seeking two things. First, they asked for expedited review of the appellate court’s order denying their motion to intervene. Second, they asked for a stay of the D. C. district court’s decree vacating the Title 42 orders. The Court granted both requests. In doing so, the Court effectively extended the Title 42 orders indefinitely."


What you've referenced above is the Supreme Court's decision stating that the order is moot... literally meaning there's nothing to do, because:

"Now, almost five months later, the Court puts a final twist on the tale. It vacates the appellate court’s order denying the States’ motion to intervene and remands with instructions to dismiss the motion as moot. Why the sudden about-face? Recently, Congress passed and the President signed into law a joint resolution declaring that the COVID–19 emergency is over.8 The Secretary of Health and Human Services, too, has issued his own directive announcing the end of the public-health emergency underlying the Title 42 orders.9 Apparently, these developments are enough to persuade the Court that the Title 42 orders the government wished to withdraw a year ago are now as good as gone and any dispute over them is moot."


Title-42 CAN STILL BE USED... if the President wishes it (and they declare an emergency).
cliffw AUG 05, 06:42 PM

quote
Originally posted by BingB:
Here is a link to the order. I have posted it multiple times. If you deny it exists then you deny reality.



Where in that link does it say SCOTUS ordered that the use of Title 42, Section *** on immigration matters could not be used, as you keep contending, ? After all this time since you invented it, you have been denying reality !


quote
Originally posted by BingB:
They ruled the case became "moot" when the Covid pandemic ended. That is because you can't use title 42 to control immigration without a medical emergency.



You claimed SCOTUS invented that legilature. News flash ... a medical emergency does not need to to exist to use Title 42, Section ***. A pandemic is not needed.


quote
Originally posted by BingB:
Everyone gets it except you two. The ruling was freaking 9-0.



9-0 ?

[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 08-05-2024).]

BingB AUG 06, 07:02 PM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
Title-42 CAN STILL BE USED... if the President wishes it (and they declare an emergency).



Since there is no emergency to declare Biden can not use Title 42 to regulate immigration. I have been trying to tell you this for months.

So you finally admit that I have been correct all along?

BingB AUG 06, 07:08 PM

quote
Originally posted by cliffw:

Where in that link does it say SCOTUS ordered that the use of Title 42, Section *** on immigration matters could not be used





There is no Section *** to Title 42.

That is a make believe defense mechanism that you use because I embarrassed you so badly.

If it really existed you would post the real number instead of letting me repeatedly mock your ignorance.
82-T/A [At Work] AUG 06, 07:24 PM

quote
Originally posted by BingB:

Since there is no emergency to declare Biden can not use Title 42 to regulate immigration. I have been trying to tell you this for months.

So you finally admit that I have been correct all along?




Nope... you are backtracking again, and trying to change the narrative. You said for 6 months that the Supreme Court took away his authority to use Title 42. They did absolutely no such thing. The president can declare an emergency for literally anything he wants to. https://www.brennancenter.o...powers-and-their-use

Biden could declare a state of emergency "too many illegals crossing the border" ... period. He could do this right now.
cliffw AUG 07, 10:26 AM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
Nope... you are backtracking again, and trying to change the narrative. You said for 6 months that the Supreme Court took away his authority to use Title 42. They did absolutely no such thing. The president can declare an emergency for literally anything he wants to.

Biden could declare a state of emergency "too many illegals crossing the border" ... period. He could do this right now.



All a President would need to use Title 42, Sec *** is by exclaiming that he is stopping a potential threat of a disease.
cliffw AUG 07, 10:32 AM

quote
Originally posted by BingB:
There is no Section *** to Title 42.

That is a make believe defense mechanism that you use because I embarrassed you so badly.

If it really existed you would post the real number instead of letting me repeatedly mock your ignorance.



As I said, you are the on detached from reality. You can not embarrass me for my being correct. You never did embarrass me, ever. Your so detached from reality you do not even realize you embarrassed yourself and are doing more so every time you make your claim.
williegoat AUG 07, 11:16 AM

quote
Originally posted by cliffw:

All a President would need to use Title 42, Sec *** is by exclaiming that he is stopping a potential threat of a disease.


This is a fact.

The section that mr toothbrushhead is coyly referring to does not mention emergency, only communicable disease.

"Where's the big kaboom?" - Marvin
82-T/A [At Work] AUG 07, 11:44 AM
To be fair, you guys could have just proven him wrong like 6 months ago... haha. Sorry I had to break the cycle, but it was starting to get annoying.

Now we get to watch him come up with all the different ways about how he's not wrong, and how he meant something else... but I guess that was the point of why you guys dragged this out, so he'd have so many instances of saying the same wrong thing, so you could point to 15+ situations in which he explicitly said something.

The most shocking thing to me, would be if he said... "You guys are right, I misunderstood."

Then I'd have to eat crow... but I know this would probably be the most difficult thing in the entire world for him to do.