Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.electronics.design > #447239 > unrolled thread

OT: Federal Judges

Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.design

Contents

  OT: Federal Judges Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-10 16:51 -0700
    Re: OT: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-10 15:56 -0800
      Re: OT: Federal Judges bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com - 2017-02-11 13:17 -0800
    Re: OT: Federal Judges amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-02-10 19:08 -0600
    Re: Federal Judges "Tom Del Rosso" <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> - 2017-02-10 21:20 -0500
      Re: Federal Judges Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-10 19:34 -0700
        Re: Federal Judges "Tom Del Rosso" <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> - 2017-02-10 21:43 -0500
          Re: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-10 19:06 -0800
          Re: Federal Judges Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-10 20:09 -0700
            Re: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-10 20:08 -0800
            Re: Federal Judges jurb6006@gmail.com - 2017-02-11 04:48 -0800
              Re: Federal Judges Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-02-11 16:05 +0000
                Re: Federal Judges Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-11 09:21 -0700
                  Re: Federal Judges "Tom Del Rosso" <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> - 2017-02-11 20:53 -0500
                    Re: Federal Judges Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-02-12 12:59 +1100
                      Re: Federal Judges krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-11 22:09 -0500
                Re: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-11 17:51 -0800
                  Re: Federal Judges Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-02-12 15:55 +0000
                    Re: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-12 18:57 -0800
              Re: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-11 17:39 -0800
                Re: Federal Judges Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-02-11 17:53 -0800
                  Re: Federal Judges krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-11 22:10 -0500
                    Re: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-11 20:37 -0800
                      Re: Federal Judges "dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> - 2017-02-12 06:13 -0800
                        Re: Federal Judges "Tom Del Rosso" <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> - 2017-02-12 15:10 -0500
                          Re: Federal Judges krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-12 17:06 -0500
                        Re: Federal Judges krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-12 17:06 -0500
                        Re: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-12 19:04 -0800
                  Re: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-11 20:30 -0800
                  Re: Federal Judges Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-02-12 15:58 +0000
                    Re: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-12 19:12 -0800
                  Re: Federal Judges dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-02-18 17:03 -0800
                    Re: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-18 17:15 -0800
                      Re: Federal Judges "dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> - 2017-02-18 17:27 -0800
                        Re: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-18 19:38 -0800
                          Re: Federal Judges "dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> - 2017-02-19 05:47 -0800
                            Re: Federal Judges dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-02-19 08:20 -0800
                            Re: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-19 08:29 -0800
                              Re: Federal Judges "dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> - 2017-02-19 11:41 -0800
                                Re: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-19 18:20 -0800
                                  Re: Federal Judges "dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> - 2017-02-19 19:00 -0800
                                    Re: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-20 03:38 -0800
                                      Re: Federal Judges "dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> - 2017-02-20 07:04 -0800
                                        Re: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-20 19:41 -0800
                                          Re: Federal Judges "dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> - 2017-02-21 05:26 -0800
                                            Re: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-21 06:50 -0800
                                              Re: Federal Judges "dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> - 2017-02-21 12:46 -0800
                                                Re: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-21 20:23 -0800
                      Re: Federal Judges dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-02-19 07:13 -0800
                        Re: Federal Judges Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-19 08:21 -0700
                          Re: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-19 09:04 -0800
                        Re: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-19 08:52 -0800
                Re: Federal Judges Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2017-02-19 05:53 +0000
                  Re: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-19 01:01 -0800
        Re: Federal Judges "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> - 2017-02-18 16:15 -0500
          Re: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-18 17:25 -0800
    Re: OT: Federal Judges Wanderer <wanderer@dialup4less.com> - 2017-02-11 06:21 -0800
      Re: OT: Federal Judges John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> - 2017-02-11 09:32 -0800
    Re: OT: Federal Judges dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-02-11 06:29 -0800
      Re: OT: Federal Judges Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-02-11 16:09 +0000
        Re: OT: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-11 20:41 -0800
      Re: OT: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-11 18:07 -0800
        Re: OT: Federal Judges "dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> - 2017-02-12 12:07 -0800
      Re: OT: Federal Judges "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> - 2017-02-18 16:21 -0500
      Re: OT: Federal Judges Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-18 23:45 +0000
        Re: OT: Federal Judges dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-02-18 17:01 -0800
          Re: OT: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-18 17:41 -0800
            Re: OT: Federal Judges dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-02-19 07:38 -0800
              Re: OT: Federal Judges Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-19 09:49 -0700
                Re: OT: Federal Judges dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-02-19 09:27 -0800
                  Re: OT: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-19 10:38 -0800
                  Re: OT: Federal Judges Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-19 16:41 -0700
              Re: OT: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-19 10:24 -0800
          Re: OT: Federal Judges whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 18:33 -0800
            Re: OT: Federal Judges dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-02-19 08:19 -0800
              Re: OT: Federal Judges bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-19 18:31 -0800
              Re: OT: Federal Judges whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 20:22 -0800
                Re: OT: Federal Judges dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-02-22 10:33 -0800
    Re: OT: Federal Judges Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2017-02-21 07:41 -0800
      Re: OT: Federal Judges Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-21 10:24 -0700

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#448444 — Re: Federal Judges

On Sunday, February 19, 2017 at 9:20:54 PM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
 
> > Why  not admit you were wrong.
> 
> I wasn't wrong. When I'm wrong I admit it
> 
> > Everyone that read you post already realizes that you were wrong.  Denying it just makes you look silly.
> 
> So far, the only person who has come to that conclusion seems to be you. It's a pretty silly conclusion, but you make that kind of mistake all the time.
> 
> -- 
> Bill Sloman, Sydney

The only person that says that you did not make a mistake is you.

                                  Dan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#448481 — Re: Federal Judges

On Monday, February 20, 2017 at 2:00:39 PM UTC+11, dca...@krl.org wrote:
> On Sunday, February 19, 2017 at 9:20:54 PM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>  
> > > Why  not admit you were wrong.
> > 
> > I wasn't wrong. When I'm wrong I admit it
> > 
> > > Everyone that read you post already realizes that you were wrong.  Denying it just makes you look silly.
> > 
> > So far, the only person who has come to that conclusion seems to be you. It's a pretty silly conclusion, but you make that kind of mistake all the time.
> 
> The only person that says that you did not make a mistake is you.

Really? Like to list the contrary opinions?

James Arthur doesn't like what I posted, but he seems to be as excited about my typo that put an apostrophe into "visa's" (which was a mistake) as he as he is about the legal issues - where he seems to think that the US constitution allows the president unlimited rights to to be arbitrarily unkind to non-citizens. The idea that the rule of law also protects non-citizens has escaped him.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#448501 — Re: Federal Judges

On Monday, February 20, 2017 at 6:38:18 AM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>
> > > 
> > > So far, the only person who has come to that conclusion seems to be you. It's a pretty silly conclusion, but you make that kind of mistake all the time.
> > 
> > The only person that says that you did not make a mistake is you.
> 
> Really? Like to list the contrary opinions?

> -- 
> Bill Sloman, 

I would be happy to list contrary opinions, but no one seems to be interested enough to post any opinions, pro or con.

                                     Dan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#448593 — Re: Federal Judges

On Tuesday, February 21, 2017 at 2:04:47 AM UTC+11, dca...@krl.org wrote:
> On Monday, February 20, 2017 at 6:38:18 AM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> >
> > > > 
> > > > So far, the only person who has come to that conclusion seems to be you. It's a pretty silly conclusion, but you make that kind of mistake all the time.
> > > 
> > > The only person that says that you did not make a mistake is you.
> > 
> > Really? Like to list the contrary opinions? 
> 
> I would be happy to list contrary opinions, but no one seems to be interested enough to post any opinions, pro or con.

So your conviction that I have made a mistake is your personal conviction, or - as it looks from where I sit - another of your silly misapprehensions.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#448631 — Re: Federal Judges

On Monday, February 20, 2017 at 10:41:12 PM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:


> So your conviction that I have made a mistake is your personal conviction, or - as it looks from where I sit - another of your silly misapprehensions.
> 
> -- 
> Bill Sloman, Sydney

Not my personal conviction.  You would see your mistake if you could   do joined up logic.

                                    Dan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#448637 — Re: Federal Judges

On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 12:26:46 AM UTC+11, dca...@krl.org wrote:
> On Monday, February 20, 2017 at 10:41:12 PM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote: 
> 
> > So your conviction that I have made a mistake is your personal conviction, or - as it looks from where I sit - another of your silly misapprehensions.
> 
> Not my personal conviction.

But you can't dig up any other person's conviction that supports your point of view.

> You would see your mistake if you could do joined up logic.

I've mastered as much logic as I needed to pass Theory of Computation 1, and to get sequential digital circuits to work, but clearly not the kind of crippled scheme you seem to be using to come to your bizarre conclusions.
 
Claiming that your silly ideas are "logical" is not any kind of proof that they are right. James Arthur uses logic to argue that if welfare provides enough to live on, nobody would bother working, but his logic ignores the fact that people work for a variety of different motivations, and getting enough money to live on is only one of them.

Logic is a particularly rudimentary form of mathematics, and people who rely on it do frequently turn out to have over-simplified the problem their "logic" claims to have solved.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#448681 — Re: Federal Judges

On Tuesday, February 21, 2017 at 9:50:54 AM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:

> > Not my personal conviction.
> 
> But you can't dig up any other person's conviction that supports your point of view.
> 

But you can not dig up anyone that supports your point either.

But if you could do logic, you would see your mistake.

                                   Dan

> Bill Sloman, Sydney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#448760 — Re: Federal Judges

On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 7:46:15 AM UTC+11, dca...@krl.org wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 21, 2017 at 9:50:54 AM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> 
> > > Not my personal conviction.
> > 
> > But you can't dig up any other person's conviction that supports your point of view. 
> 
> But you can not dig up anyone that supports your point either.

Not that many people are bored enough to take this kind of trivia seriously.
 
> But if you could do logic, you would see your mistake.

As I pointed out, in the bit of the post you snipped, I can do logic, up to and including predicate calculus.

You think you can construct a sequences of logical operations that prove me wrong, but you haven't bothered to go through the exercise, and it wouldn't prove much if you did, because logic works by simplifying  - generally over-simplifying - arguments down to true-or-false choices, and such proofs can usually be exploded by teasing out the point where rationality was abandoned.

I even included an example, which you snipped without marking the snip.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#448348 — Re: Federal Judges

On Saturday, February 18, 2017 at 8:15:48 PM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> On Sunday, February 19, 2017 at 12:03:26 PM UTC+11, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 8:53:17 PM UTC-5, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
> > > Den søndag den 12. februar 2017 kl. 02.39.46 UTC+1 skrev bill....@ieee.org:
> > 
> > > > The people that Australia puts in off-shore detention are just the ones that try to get to Australia by being smuggled in on fishing boats. It got to be an industry a decade or so ago, and the plan was to wreck the economic model by declaring that if you tried to get in illegally by boat, you were never going to get in, which does seem to have discouraged the people smugglers.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > so when Trump talks about not letting in illegal immigrants he's hitler, when Australia does it it is a great idea?
> > > 
> > > double standards must be twice as good as standards...
> > 
> > +1.
> 
> James Arthur endorses more right-wing non-thinking. The objections to Trump's travel ban was that he was (1) arbitrarily going to block people who already had (2) visa's - legal (3) immigrants. Nobody has ever had a problem with countries not letting in (4) illegal immigrants.
> 
> -- 
> Bill Sloman, Sydney

1a. Not arbitrarily, but based on the Obama administration's assessment of
    risk.
1b. The president has the power to do it arbitrarily, if he so chooses.

2. Visas.  Not visa's.

3a. People with visas are NOT immigrants.  A visa is permission for temporary
    entry, not permission to migrate.
3b. People with visas have no right to entry or residence, they enter and
    stay at a nation's pleasure.
4. The left here is in the streets EXACTLY over us not letting in illegal
   immigrants.

I admire your pluck--continuing to slander and impugn, confident as ever,
with zero grasp of your topic, utterly uninformed, and despite always being
wrong.

Cheers,
James Arthur

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#448351 — Re: Federal Judges

On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 07:13:46 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

>On Saturday, February 18, 2017 at 8:15:48 PM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>> On Sunday, February 19, 2017 at 12:03:26 PM UTC+11, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> > On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 8:53:17 PM UTC-5, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
>> > > Den søndag den 12. februar 2017 kl. 02.39.46 UTC+1 skrev bill....@ieee.org:
>> > 
>> > > > The people that Australia puts in off-shore detention are just the ones that try to get to Australia by being smuggled in on fishing boats. It got to be an industry a decade or so ago, and the plan was to wreck the economic model by declaring that if you tried to get in illegally by boat, you were never going to get in, which does seem to have discouraged the people smugglers.
>> > > > 
>> > > 
>> > > so when Trump talks about not letting in illegal immigrants he's hitler, when Australia does it it is a great idea?
>> > > 
>> > > double standards must be twice as good as standards...
>> > 
>> > +1.
>> 
>> James Arthur endorses more right-wing non-thinking. The objections to Trump's travel ban was that he was (1) arbitrarily going to block people who already had (2) visa's - legal (3) immigrants. Nobody has ever had a problem with countries not letting in (4) illegal immigrants.
>> 
>> -- 
>> Bill Sloman, Sydney
>
>1a. Not arbitrarily, but based on the Obama administration's assessment of
>    risk.
>1b. The president has the power to do it arbitrarily, if he so chooses.
>
>2. Visas.  Not visa's.
>
>3a. People with visas are NOT immigrants.  A visa is permission for temporary
>    entry, not permission to migrate.
>3b. People with visas have no right to entry or residence, they enter and
>    stay at a nation's pleasure.
>4. The left here is in the streets EXACTLY over us not letting in illegal
>   immigrants.
>
>I admire your pluck--continuing to slander and impugn, confident as ever,
>with zero grasp of your topic, utterly uninformed, and despite always being
>wrong.
>
>Cheers,
>James Arthur

Ignorance dominates reason.  Slowman is the epitome.
		
                                        ...Jim Thompson
-- 
| James E.Thompson                                 |    mens     |
| Analog Innovations                               |     et      |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    |
| STV, Queen Creek, AZ 85142    Skype: skypeanalog |             |
| Voice:(480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com |    1962     |

     Thinking outside the box... producing elegant solutions.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#448370 — Re: Federal Judges

On Monday, February 20, 2017 at 2:21:18 AM UTC+11, Jim Thompson wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 07:13:46 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
> wrote: 
> >On Saturday, February 18, 2017 at 8:15:48 PM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> >> On Sunday, February 19, 2017 at 12:03:26 PM UTC+11, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> > On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 8:53:17 PM UTC-5, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
> >> > > Den søndag den 12. februar 2017 kl. 02.39.46 UTC+1 skrev bill....@ieee.org:
> >> > 
> >> > > > The people that Australia puts in off-shore detention are just the ones that try to get to Australia by being smuggled in on fishing boats. It got to be an industry a decade or so ago, and the plan was to wreck the economic model by declaring that if you tried to get in illegally by boat, you were never going to get in, which does seem to have discouraged the people smugglers.
> >> > > > 
> >> > > 
> >> > > so when Trump talks about not letting in illegal immigrants he's Hitler, when Australia does it it is a great idea?
> >> > > 
> >> > > double standards must be twice as good as standards...
> >> > 
> >> > +1.
> >> 
> >> James Arthur endorses more right-wing non-thinking. The objections to Trump's travel ban was that he was arbitrarily going to block people who already had visas - legal immigrants. Nobody has ever had a problem with countries not letting in illegal immigrants.

<snip> 

> Ignorance dominates reason.  Sloman is the epitome.

Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson should know all about ignorance. He exhibits it more or less non-stop, and adds the comic grace-note of complaining that it's the people who don't share his silly ideas who are ignorant.

The correct phrase is usually "well-informed", but since Jim actually epitomises over-confident ignorance, he's unaware of his almost unique distinction in this area.

James Arthur does have a wider range of silly ideas, and has a wider range of subjects that he doesn't know nearly enough about.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#448369 — Re: Federal Judges

On Monday, February 20, 2017 at 2:13:50 AM UTC+11, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Saturday, February 18, 2017 at 8:15:48 PM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 19, 2017 at 12:03:26 PM UTC+11, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 8:53:17 PM UTC-5, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
> > > > Den søndag den 12. februar 2017 kl. 02.39.46 UTC+1 skrev bill....@ieee.org:
> > > 
> > > > > The people that Australia puts in off-shore detention are just the ones that try to get to Australia by being smuggled in on fishing boats. It got to be an industry a decade or so ago, and the plan was to wreck the economic model by declaring that if you tried to get in illegally by boat, you were never going to get in, which does seem to have discouraged the people smugglers.
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > so when Trump talks about not letting in illegal immigrants he's hitler, when Australia does it it is a great idea?
> > > > 
> > > > double standards must be twice as good as standards...
> > > 
> > > +1.
> > 
> > James Arthur endorses more right-wing non-thinking. The objections to Trump's travel ban was that he was (1) arbitrarily going to block people who already had (2) visa's - legal (3) immigrants. Nobody has ever had a problem with countries not letting in (4) illegal immigrants.
> 
> 1a. Not arbitrarily, but based on the Obama administration's assessment of
>     risk.

The Obama administration's assessment of the risk that somebody dangerous might get in if they didn't go through the process of apply for a visa and being checked up on. Trump arbitrarily decided that the visa-granting system wasn't working well enough to protect the US - which it didn't with guys who destroyed the World Trade Centre - but didn't have any evidence to support his change of policy.

> 1b. The president has the power to do it arbitrarily, if he so chooses.

The courts beg to differ. The president has got to have a reason to think that the people he was planning to exclude were going to act to the detriment of the USA.
 
> 2. Visas.  Not visa's.

No doubt.
 
> 3a. People with visas are NOT immigrants.  A visa is permission for temporary
>     entry, not permission to migrate.

Immigrant visas are granted to people who want to apply for entry as immigrants at the port of entry. Some of the people excluded were immigrants, returning from travel after having been admitted as immigrants 

> 3b. People with visas have no right to entry or residence, they enter and
>     stay at a nation's pleasure.

Perhaps. But the nation should have - and give - a clear reason for changing its mind.

> 4. The left here is in the streets EXACTLY over us not letting in illegal
>    immigrants.

Who cares what gets your left wing onto the streets. And who would trust your ideas about what is motivating them?

> I admire your pluck--continuing to slander and impugn, confident as ever,
> with zero grasp of your topic, utterly uninformed, and despite always being
> wrong.

If your judgment was a little sounder, your admiration might be worth having.

Anybody who thinks that Trump's performance to date has been anything but abysmal can't expect to be taken seriously. The man is a blustering buffoon who lies continuously, and his cabinet is made up of people who aren't worried by that. It's not a pretty picture.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#448313 — Re: Federal Judges

On 2017-02-12, bill.sloman@ieee.org <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
> On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 11:48:21 PM UTC+11, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Jim, you got elected here because I do not respond directly to Slowman. Again, he is trying to exercise armchair social engineering from a country that wants to push us to take in every Mohammed, Jesus and Achmed, while they put such people on an island. 
>
> Wrong. We only want you to take the ones who aren't terrorists - which is the overwhelming majority. Concentrating on Muslim terrorist may mean that you aren't paying enough attention to people like Timothy McVeigh who was a born-again Christian.
>
> The people that Australia puts in off-shore detention are just the
> ones that try to get to Australia by being smuggled in on fishing
> boats. 

Untrue, they also put resident aliens who are trying to contest
deportation orders there.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/75924244/kiwi-detainees-being-moved-to-christmas-island-again--advocacy-group

-- 
This email has not been checked by half-arsed antivirus software 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#448329 — Re: Federal Judges

On Sunday, February 19, 2017 at 5:01:39 PM UTC+11, Jasen Betts wrote:
> On 2017-02-12, bill.sloman@ieee.org <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 11:48:21 PM UTC+11, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Jim, you got elected here because I do not respond directly to Sloman. Again, he is trying to exercise armchair social engineering from a country that wants to push us to take in every Mohammed, Jesus and Achmed, while they put such people on an island. 
> >
> > Wrong. We only want you to take the ones who aren't terrorists - which is the overwhelming majority. Concentrating on Muslim terrorist may mean that you aren't paying enough attention to people like Timothy McVeigh who was a born-again Christian.
> >
> > The people that Australia puts in off-shore detention are just the
> > ones that try to get to Australia by being smuggled in on fishing
> > boats. 
> 
> Untrue, they also put resident aliens who are trying to contest
> deportation orders there.
> 
> http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/75924244/kiwi-detainees-being-moved-to-christmas-island-again--advocacy-group

The off-shore detention was set up to deal with the people who were being smuggled in on fishing boats. Once it had been set up, it seems that it has been exploited by the Immigration Department to make life difficult for people who were resident aliens until they committed a crime or were revealed to have lied in their applications for immigrant status.

I don't think anybody is trying to palm off any of them onto the Unites States. There are questions about Australia's treatment of people who qualify as refugees. Anybody who made it to resident alien status, then lost that status, doesn't seem to raise the same kinds of questions.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#448228 — Re: Federal Judges

Jim Thompson wrote:
>
> I was seeking a quantifiable way... 66%+ overturns should clean the
> liberal clock post haste.


    10% should automatically force them to step down.


-- 
Never piss off an Engineer!

They don't get mad.

They don't get even.

They go for over unity! ;-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#448265 — Re: Federal Judges

On Sunday, February 19, 2017 at 8:15:17 AM UTC+11, Michael Terrell wrote:
> Jim Thompson wrote:
> >
> > I was seeking a quantifiable way... 66%+ overturns should clean the
> > liberal clock post haste.
> 
> 
>     10% should automatically force them to step down.

It's a pity that the actual rate of over-turns is about 0.1%.

Only 0.19% of the court's decisions are appealed, which is to say cases where  the law was so badly drafted that the interpretation was difficult. The lawyers who chose to make the appeals seem to be able to pick cases where there's a reasonable chance of winning. 

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447284

On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 6:51:55 PM UTC-5, Jim Thompson wrote:
> "Article III federal judges" (as opposed to judges of some courts with
> special jurisdictions) serve "during good behavior" (often paraphrased
> as appointed "for life"). 
> 
> Judges hold their seats until they resign, die, or are removed from
> office. 
> 
> Although the legal orthodoxy is that judges cannot be removed from
> office except by impeachment by the House of Representatives followed
> by conviction by the Senate, several legal scholars, including William
> Rehnquist, Saikrishna Prakash and Steven D. Smith, have argued that
> the Good Behaviour Clause may, in theory, permit removal by way of a
> writ of scire facias filed before a federal court, without resort to
> impeachment
> 
> I would argue that "bad behavior" could also be defined by issuing
> decisions which are overturned more than 66% of the time.
> 
> We need such a law/definition to toss out the trash on the 9th
> Circuit.
> 		
>                                         ...Jim Thompson
> -- 
> | James E.Thompson                                 |    mens     |
> | Analog Innovations                               |     et      |
> | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    |
> | STV, Queen Creek, AZ 85142    Skype: skypeanalog |             |
> | Voice:(480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  |
> | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com |    1962     |
> 
>      Thinking outside the box... producing elegant solutions.

You're numbers are just spin.

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/02/10/does-the-9th-circuit-really-have-an-80-reversal-rate/

"Reversal rates for each court of appeals would be very small, in the range of a tenth of a percent, if calculated as the total number of cases reversed over the total number of appeals terminated by that court. Conversely, if the reversal rate is calculated as the total number of cases reversed over the total number of cases reviewed by the Supreme Court, the ratio increases dramatically. So, in the big picture, i.e., considering all of the appeals terminated by each circuit, reversal rates for all courts of appeals could be very low, if calculated by the former method, or very high, if calculated by the latter method."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447301

On 2017/02/11 6:21 AM, Wanderer wrote:
> On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 6:51:55 PM UTC-5, Jim Thompson wrote:
>> "Article III federal judges" (as opposed to judges of some courts with
>> special jurisdictions) serve "during good behavior" (often paraphrased
>> as appointed "for life").
>>
>> Judges hold their seats until they resign, die, or are removed from
>> office.
>>
>> Although the legal orthodoxy is that judges cannot be removed from
>> office except by impeachment by the House of Representatives followed
>> by conviction by the Senate, several legal scholars, including William
>> Rehnquist, Saikrishna Prakash and Steven D. Smith, have argued that
>> the Good Behaviour Clause may, in theory, permit removal by way of a
>> writ of scire facias filed before a federal court, without resort to
>> impeachment
>>
>> I would argue that "bad behavior" could also be defined by issuing
>> decisions which are overturned more than 66% of the time.
>>
>> We need such a law/definition to toss out the trash on the 9th
>> Circuit.
>> 		
>>                                         ...Jim Thompson
> You're numbers are just spin.
>
> http://hotair.com/archives/2017/02/10/does-the-9th-circuit-really-have-an-80-reversal-rate/
>
> "Reversal rates for each court of appeals would be very small, in the range of a tenth of a percent, if calculated as the total number of cases reversed over the total number of appeals terminated by that court. Conversely, if the reversal rate is calculated as the total number of cases reversed over the total number of cases reviewed by the Supreme Court, the ratio increases dramatically. So, in the big picture, i.e., considering all of the appeals terminated by each circuit, reversal rates for all courts of appeals could be very low, if calculated by the former method, or very high, if calculated by the latter method."
>

Jim and a few others here don't seem to like seeing contrasting viewpoints.

As a point of clarification - from the same page:

"What does that mean in practical terms? It means that the Supreme 
Court’s grant of certiorari tend to favor those cases that are likely to 
be overturned. It’s a major selection bias, and as we’ll see, it gives a 
very distorted picture of what happens in the appellate court system."

In other words the few cases that are appealed are cases that the 
supreme court are likely to agree deserve to be overturned. Hardly 
surprising that lawyers don't like fighting cases they are most likely 
to loose unless they are trying to make a point.

It is all part of democracy - checks and balances. If no one (or 
everyone) is happy with the results then that is most likely the fairest 
outcome.

John

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447285

On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 6:51:55 PM UTC-5, Jim Thompson wrote:
> "Article III federal judges" (as opposed to judges of some courts with
> special jurisdictions) serve "during good behavior" (often paraphrased
> as appointed "for life"). 
> 
> Judges hold their seats until they resign, die, or are removed from
> office. 
> 
> Although the legal orthodoxy is that judges cannot be removed from
> office except by impeachment by the House of Representatives followed
> by conviction by the Senate, several legal scholars, including William
> Rehnquist, Saikrishna Prakash and Steven D. Smith, have argued that
> the Good Behaviour Clause may, in theory, permit removal by way of a
> writ of scire facias filed before a federal court, without resort to
> impeachment
> 
> I would argue that "bad behavior" could also be defined by issuing
> decisions which are overturned more than 66% of the time.
> 
> We need such a law/definition to toss out the trash on the 9th
> Circuit.
> 		
>                                         ...Jim Thompson

The cause of action should be much simpler: failure to honor their oath
to defend the Constitution, and protect it from enemies foreign and
domestic.

For example, by statute and the Constitution, the president has plenary
power with respect to limits he may impose on immigration.

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens
(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

 "Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any
  class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the
  interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such
  period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens
  or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on
  the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

Obama exercised this power to place restrictions on immigration from
Syria, for example.  No one complained.  Nor was this a problem:

"February 18, 2016

 For Immediate Release
 DHS Press Office
 Contact: 202-282-8010

 WASHINGTON—The Department of Homeland Security today announced that it
 is continuing its implementation of the Visa Waiver Program Improvement
 and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 with the addition of LIBYA,
 SOMALIA, and YEMEN as three countries of concern, limiting Visa Waiver
 Program travel for certain individuals who have traveled to these
 countries. [...]

 "Last month, the United States began implementing changes under the Act. The
  three additional countries designated today join IRAN, IRAQ, SUDAN and
  SYRIA as countries subject to restrictions for Visa Waiver Program travel
  for certain individuals. [...]

 "The addition of these three countries is indicative of the Department’s
  continued focus on the threat of foreign fighters."

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/02/18/dhs-announces-further-travel-restrictions-visa-waiver-program

So, it was the OBAMA ADMINISTRATION who identified these selected countries
as high-risk countries.  Not Trump's alleged prejudices.

Yet the judge who stayed Trump's lawful order allowed statements Trump made
as a candidate to be admitted in court as alleged evidence of the
president's malign 'intent,' however, the president's intent is not a
material fact to the statute, nor is the judiciary authorized to second-
guess it.

But if we're to consider statements made by the president prior to his
holding office as relevant evidence of the president's intent, perhaps
we should apply the same standard to the judge, who, bizarrely, recently
bellowed "Black lives matter!" in open court.

The judge, who is supposed to judge on the law, is acting as a partisan
politician.  But our society, in part, *depends* on an impartial judiciary
to be *apolitical.*

The judge who stayed Trump's order should be removed.  And Congress, granted
absolute power over managing the court system under the Constitution, should
eliminate the clownish 9th circuit.

Cheers,
James Arthur

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447295

On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 06:29:39 -0800, dagmargoodboat wrote:

> So, it was the OBAMA ADMINISTRATION who identified these selected
> countries as high-risk countries.  Not Trump's alleged prejudices.

Correct, but to hear the howls of anguish from CNN and the like, you'd 
never know it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design

csiph-web