California bar say illegal immigrant should get license

Tawnos said:

This thread is now about good book quotes:

Click to expand...

Originally Posted by Isaac Asimov "Foundation" Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right!

Click to expand...

There you go just like these nuts disrepecting the people's house.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/gay...s-of-themselves-flipping-off-reagan-portrait/

jbone said:

There you go just like these nuts disrepecting the people's house.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/gay...s-of-themselves-flipping-off-reagan-portrait/

Click to expand...

Fine, I'll include non-book quotes too

Albert Einstein (quote from NYT Magazine said:

“It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.”

Click to expand...

Stop highjacking the thread.

jbone said:

Stop highjacking the thread.

Click to expand...

On hijacking:

Arthur C Clarke said:

“The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion.”

Click to expand...

And one about you:

Zig Ziglar said:

“Little men with little minds and little imaginations go through life in little ruts, smugly resisting all changes which would jar their little worlds”

Click to expand...

jbone said:

You are so void of any tolerance you cannot see that you speak of yourself. You pitiful hateful little person. Yes, do I say, not as I do, that's you type. Fight those who do not support area's you do with intolerance and hate. I see right through you little person.

Click to expand...

Reading this thread has been both entertaining and sad.

We gather in this forum to celebrate an essential civil liberty and frequently discuss others as well. This great country was founded on the idea all men are equal not just those with papers proving they are free. When will we get back to practicing tolerance and accept all those who yearn to be free.

Tolerance is overrated, overused, and PC BS.

jegoodin said:

We gather in this forum to celebrate an essential civil liberty and frequently discuss others as well. This great country was founded on the idea all men are equal not just those with papers proving they are free. When will we get back to practicing tolerance and accept all those who yearn to be free.

Click to expand...

How nice we have another preacher of one way tolerance.

OC for ME said:

Tolerance is overrated, overused, and PC BS.

Click to expand...

I agree.

jbone said:

How nice we have another preacher of one way tolerance.

Click to expand...

I tolerate your opinion, but reject your ideas of how this country should work.

Ralph W. Sockman said:

“The test of courage comes when we are in the minority. The test of tolerance comes when we are in the majority.”

Click to expand...

JFK said:

“Tolerance implies no lack of commitment to one's own beliefs. Rather it condemns the oppression or persecution of others.”

Click to expand...

It is easy to be tolerant of the principles of other people if you have none of your own. - Herbert Samuel

Click to expand...

Interesting twist.

Tawnos said:

I tolerate your opinion, but reject your ideas of how this country should work.

Click to expand...

Somehow I just know you held a straight face when you told that bold faced lie. You have been nothing but intolerant of my freedom since you started in. Then you get some other dingle berry in Stafford, VA to insert their foot because you can’t be honest. Nice Job!

Originally Posted by JFK
“Tolerance implies no lack of commitment to one's own beliefs. Rather it condemns the oppression or persecution of others.”

Click to expand...

Why would you use this quote, when you fail miserable at living the second part.



I think I’ve already said this, but I’ll say it again. You have issue is with my signature, it pains you to see others freely express themselves, and hold true to a truth you disagree with. Your condemn others and paint evil picture of those not conforming to your beliefs, and do in the name of freedom. Your brand of Freedom is Freedom’s enemy.


And you have the nerve to claim I'm one who

Tawnos said:

treats people inhumanely because they are different...

Click to expand...

What a

Tawnos said:

...spiteful, hateful little man

Click to expand...

you are.

jbone said:

The man is here illegally. Ok, not by he’s own fault, but he did knowingly remain illegally as an adult. He commits a criminal act. He’s studied law, but feels it does not apply to him?


They already know he’s a criminal (Illegal Alien).


How has he met this? What could he possibly write that would overshadows his willingness to violate federal law all these years. He’s already displayed poor moral character, IMO.


The article kills me:
Criminal act and lack of moral character come to mind? Or is he just what the bar is looking for in California?

This man should have show restraint, and respect for our country; waiting to see if his VISA came. Instead he takes advanage of WH political mayhem, and social agenda. Don’t have to think real hard to know what kind of lawyer he’ll be! You sure would think it would take moral turpitude to work in the legal profession.

Click to expand...

I laughed when I realized it was a law license you were talking about.

I have yet to find any state that issues a license to practice law.

Tawnos said:

Lrn2legal

Click to expand...

Useless response.

Tawnos said:

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/440/648/case.html

As you can see, violation of the law is reason for a stop.

And the reasons for the violation are based on a reasonableness standard (intermediate scrutiny).

Click to expand...

Stay focused... all you need to do now is to show that traffic law was defined as "civil" in Delaware when Prouse was stopped.

Tawnos said:

[This was upheld recently: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-5841.ZO.html


So, really, you're just wrong. It's pretty simple: it's not unreasonable to stop you (and remember, the 4th amendment says "unreasonable search and seizure" not "all search and seizure") if you have broken the traffic laws and need to be given a ticket for doing so. Terry is completely different to this and an orthogonal issue, because it's related to stops before there's any reason to believe a violation of the law has occurred. It has a higher standard (imminent criminal violation) because it is done absent knowledge of a present violation.

Click to expand...

Uh... no. I'm not wrong. Your case is irrelvant to the discusion(side discussion ).

The petitioner did not argue that traffic infractions were civil and therefore should not qualify as probable cause for a seizure. Instead, they argued...

"that "in the unique context of civil traffic regulations" probable cause is not enough. Since, they contend, the use of automobiles is so heavily and minutely regulated that total compliance with traffic and safety rules is nearly impossible, a police officer will almost invariably be able to catch any given motorist in a technical violation."

This is a case of a good attorney making a bad argument.

In states where traffic law has been moved from a crime to a civil infraction, the argument needs to be made that a civil infraction is NOT probable cause for a seizure.

You still don't get it. You're trying to use Terry's preemptive stop without witness of legal violation standards to argue against a stop after witness of legal violation case. They're different things, and it's nonsense to conflate them.

Tawnos said:

You still don't get it. You're trying to use Terry's preemptive stop without witness of legal violation standards to argue against a stop after witness of legal violation case. They're different things, and it's nonsense to conflate them.

Click to expand...

You still don't get it. Terry deals with crimes ONLY. I believe we are agreeing that Terry does not apply to "civil" traffic violations, but for different reasons. You are correct that Terry applies to reasonable suspicion(not seeing a crime) and not to probable cause( seeing a crime and making an arrest /seizure).

An officer witnessing a crime would attain the level of probable cause. If a state coded it's traffic law as non-criminal then there is no probable cause regardeless whether an officer sees a "violation" because such a viloation is "civil" and is not a crime. No crime = no probable cause. The case you provided does not refute this because this argument was not made to the SCOTUS.