Featured We have a “young” Supreme Court, in that 8 of the 9 members are new since 2005

[Multicolored Lemur]

I hated seeing Dreamers being used like a political football or as some bargaining chip.

and 69% of 2016 Trump voters agree.

Maybe the best case for some kind of amnesty as part of a “Grand Bargain.” Yes, Dreamers can stay in the country. However, they need to start step-by-step on lawful residence status. In a sense, yes, get in the back of the line (start at the beginning), even though that might sound harsh.

The other side of “Grand Bargain” is some kind of guest worker program. This has maybe even bigger problems. Won’t this just be second-class wages? Yes, but likely an improvement on illegal second-class wages. And won’t risk-averse companies discriminate against Hispanic-Americans? Not if we make e-Verify the standard for due diligence and not if we bring legal action against companies that discriminate.

Yes, I think we can make our way through these issues . . . and make measurable progress.

 

[Multicolored Lemur]

plus, she was in a comedy improv group at Harvard, so not all book learning!

Ketanji Brown Jackson is the newest Justice. Confirmed by the Senate in early April 2022, she took the Oath of Office on June 30, 2022, at the end of that term and when the retirement of Justice Stephen Breyer took effect.

Ketanji Brown Jackson, a Daughter of Educators, Is Biden's Nominee for U.S. Supreme Court

Jackson, a federal appellate judge, would be the first Black woman to join the court. She ruled on education cases as a district judge.

www.edweek.org

‘ . . . reduction in force carried out in 2009 by then-D.C. Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee, who attracted nationwide attention for her sometimes-controversial efforts to improve public schools in the nation’s capital.

“The RIF … was quite contentious,” Jackson observed in her opinion in Willis v. Gray. “This was especially so because [the District of Columbia Public Schools] had hired more than 900 teachers in the preceding months, many of whom were under the age of 40 and new to teaching (unlike many of the veteran teachers who were terminated as part of the RIF).” . . . ’

—————————

As a district judge, Jackson ruled that the DC school district can do a Reduction in Force, but that they have to do it right.

Meaning, this man’s case can proceed. And he might win, and he might lose.

 

[Multicolored Lemur]

Yes, I’m looking for the good with each Justice. And next up with Justice Amy Coney Barrett who is the 2nd newest. And at 4 out of 9 Justices, that will probably be enough for the time being.

However, if anyone else wants to jump up and talk about another Justice, please, be my guest.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Maybe the best case for some kind of amnesty as part of a “Grand Bargain.” Yes, Dreamers can stay in the country. However, they need to start step-by-step on lawful residence status. In a sense, yes, get in the back of the line (start at the beginning), even though that might sound harsh.

I'd be easier on them than that if they've already been here for years. I think they've been through enough already and I'd grant that group amnesty and grant them citizenship. BUt in the meanwhile, I'd also want the immigration system patched up so that amnesty action is not made into an incentive for others to cross the border illegally and expect the same treatment.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Yes, I’m looking for the good with each Justice. And next up with Justice Amy Coney Barrett who is the 2nd newest. And at 4 out of 9 Justices, that will probably be enough for the time being.

I'm also curious about Justice Barrett. I know she's a Christian but she didn't strike me as a Fundamentalist one, and I was thinking that might mean she would be open to or even adopt some non-Conservative views. I'm reading up on some of her rulings from this site:

A look at Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s notable opinions, votes

Judge Amy Coney Barrett, President Donald Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court, has been on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals since 2017.

apnews.com

Edited to add:
From reviewing some of her decisions, I can say that Justice Barrett definitely is on the conservative side. If we are to talk about these justices being middle ground, then I'd want to see some semblance of rulings that aren't clearly aligned to the ideology/party that they subscribe to. I'd want to see evidence that any of the justices are willing to buck their party or even compromise. The only evidence I see of that is from Chief Justice John Roberts (has voted in favor of the Dreamers, and with liberals on some gun rights issues, although he went against gay marriage and Abortion), who is referred to as the "swing Justice".

From reading over her rulings, I do see that she tries to stick to the letter and intent of the law. Some of her decisions focus on process rather than the actual ruling. That can be a plus.

 

[Multicolored Lemur]

I think they've been through enough already and I'd grant that group amnesty and grant them citizenship. BUt in the meanwhile, I'd also want the immigration system patched up so that amnesty action is not made into an incentive for others to cross the border illegally and expect the same treatment.

I take a more conservative position.

Even a person who was brought to America by their parents at age 5. Who grew up in American schools and for all intents and purposes is as American as you and I.

Yes, they can get legal status such as resident alien or something of this sort. But—

1 step at a time.

Or else there’s no other way to avoid the incentive problem.

So, yes, they’ll have to later pass the citizenship test and all that. And probably put most of the rest of us to shame!

Although I bet you @AgnosticBoy will due pretty good at the number of Reps in the U.S. House of Representatives. The name of the appropriations committee in the House, which I think is called Ways and Means. I’d do okay on such a test, but I think you’d do really good!

 

[Multicolored Lemur]

From reading over her rulings, I do see that she tries to stick to the letter and intent of the law. Some of her decisions focus on process rather than the actual ruling. That can be a plus.

Yes, I’d like to find a representative case from Justice Barrett, and a good case without being too picky about it.

 

[Multicolored Lemur]

Amy Coney Barrett took the Oath of Office on Oct. 26, 2020.

When Justice Barrett was an appeals judge —

Affidavits: Just the Facts

Embellishing the truth on an affidavit is a good way to be held liable for damages in a lawsuit.

www.policemag.com

“On the afternoon of Nov. 19, 2013, the plaintiff went to his mother’s apartment and found her lying on the floor with a blanket partially covering her face and head. She was barely breathing and there was a circle of dried blood on the blankets and congealed blood on the floor by her head. William called 911, and when paramedics arrived, he explained that someone had “caved his mother’s head in.”

.

.

.

“According to the affidavit the phone records showed that the defendant made a call to his brother from the victim’s apartment an hour before he called 911. However, a phone expert at the police department had informed the detective that the time data on the cell site sheet was off one hour because the cell location was located in a different time zone. The phone call information actually depicted the call the plaintiff made to his brother after finding his mother on the floor.

“Rainsberger told the detective that he had purchased an iced tea on the way to his mother’s house. Police reviewed video surveillance that they claim showed the defendant “discarding a long straight object in the trash”—inferring that the defendant discarded a weapon in the trash. However, the court reviewed the video footage and determined the discarded object looked more like the iced tea can the plaintiff testified he had purchased.

“In the affidavit the detective claimed nothing was taken from the apartment and that a lockbox containing savings bonds was in plain view and untouched. However, the actual facts were that the victim’s pocketbook and medications were taken and the lockbox was hidden and did not contain any valuables.”

===============

Judge Barrett ruled that a police officer DOES NOT GET qualified immunity if he or she lies on the arrest affidavit.

And I’ll add as a comment . . .

For crying out loud—

The police jump to a conclusion and fixate on it, and they try to twist facts to make their 1st guess right.

In this case, they jump to the conclusion that the son killed his mother. Okay, fair enough, it’s possible it happened that way. But that should not be the only possibility they consider.

Maybe because pressuring the son for a “confession” during the 2 months he was in jail has the best chance to “solve” the case ? ?

And trying to find the low-level, scuzz-ball criminal who was responsible faces a lot longer odds ? ?

But you never know until you try. For example, criminals sometimes like to brag.

And one of the tragedies of this case, from the perspective of the family, is that the police didn’t really try to find out who did this.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Judge Barrett ruled that a police officer DOES NOT GET qualified immunity if he or she lies on the arrest affidavit.

The police jump to a conclusion and fixate on it, and they try to twist facts to make their 1st guess right.

I bet that the actions of the police in the case you brought up is common, and reckless, of course. Judge Barrett's made a good ruling there. It brings accountability and detectives will think twice.

 

[Multicolored Lemur]

common

Weirdly, doctors do this, too. They jump to a diagnosis, and they get impatient with the rest of what you have to say.

And they’ve done at least some formal studies — The doctor’s diagnosis changes depending on the order in which patient symptoms are presented.