Bullheaded Texan's "Open Thread"

Comment

Comment by Bullheaded Texan on April 25, 2018 at 4:50pm

Pg 2)
The Immigration and Nationality Act

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, any alien who is convicted of an “aggravated felony” in the United States is subject to deportation, regardless of their ties to the country. Congress defined “aggravated felony” by a long list of specific offenses and offense types (at 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(43)), one of which is “a crime of violence” punishable by imprisonment for at least one year.

Congress defined “crime of violence” elsewhere, in 18 U. S. C. §16, in part by stating that it includes any felony “that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.”

Only that provision, known as the residual clause, was at issue in this case.

But in order to figure out which convictions trigger that residual clause, the court assesses the presence of “substantial risk” by looking not at the facts of the case, or the elements of the crime, but to “the ‘nature of the offense’ generally speaking,” and asks this: Does “‘the ordinary case’ of [this] offense pose[] the requisite risk”?

Immigration judges held that James Dimaya, a Philippine native and lawful permanent resident, is deportable because he was convicted—twice—of first-degree burglary under California law. The government sought to remove Dimaya after his second conviction, and immigration judges found that first-degree burglary counts as a “crime of violence” under federal law.

Dimaya appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that the “residual clause” is unconstitutionally vague.

The 9th Circuit relied in part on Johnson v. United States, a 2015 opinion that the Supreme Court published while Dimaya’s appeal was pending.

In Johnson, the court struck down part of the definition of “violent felony” under the Armed Career Criminal Act on vagueness grounds.

That law increased the sentence of a defendant convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm if he had three or more previous “violent felony” convictions, which includes any felony that “involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.”

Scalia wrote the majority opinion for the court in that case, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan.

Scalia concluded that the residual clause left “grave uncertainty about how to estimate the risk posed by a crime,” and further “uncertainty about how much risk it takes for a crime to qualify as a violent felony.” Rather than make up those aspects of the law himself, Scalia chose instead to send Congress back to the drawing board.

For that, Scalia’s opinion advanced the rule of law and the separation of powers.

Gorsuch’s Concurring Opinion

In his concurring opinion this week in Dimaya, Gorsuch provided thorough reasoning for a narrow conclusion: that “to the extent it requires an ‘ordinary case’ analysis, the portion of the Immigration and Nationality Act before us fails the fair notice test for the reasons Justice Scalia identified in Johnson.”

Comment by Bullheaded Texan on April 25, 2018 at 4:50pm

Pg 3)
Gorsuch’s concern in Dimaya was, like Scalia’s in Johnson, a fundamentally conservative one: hostility to vague laws and arbitrary power.
Gorsuch wrote that “vague laws … can invite the exercise of arbitrary power … by leaving the people in the dark about what the law demands and allowing prosecutors and courts to make it up.” Gorsuch explained:
The Immigration and Nationality Act requires a judge to determine that the ordinary case of the alien’s crime of conviction involves a substantial risk that physical force may be used. But what does that mean? Just take the crime at issue in this case, California burglary, which applies to everyone from armed home intruders to door-to-door salesmen peddling shady products. How, on that vast spectrum, is anyone supposed to locate the ordinary case and say whether it includes a substantial risk of physical force? The truth is, no one knows.
Gorsuch gave the following examples of the confusion that results from the “ordinary case analysis”:
Does a conviction for witness tampering ordinarily involve a threat to the kneecaps or just the promise of a bribe? Does a conviction for kidnapping ordinarily involve throwing someone into a car trunk or a noncustodial parent picking up a child from daycare? These questions do not suggest obvious answers.
Because the statute “leaves judges to their intuitions and the people to their fate,” Gorsuch wrote, “the Constitution demands more.”
And Gorsuch explained exactly why that is.
Looking to history, Gorsuch cited early American court cases and turned to the Federalist Papers for the principle that “without an assurance that the laws supply fair notice, so much else of the Constitution risks becoming only a ‘parchment barrier, against arbitrary power.”
And Gorsuch discussed exactly how vague laws might jeopardize other constitutional rights.
“Take the Fourth Amendment’s requirement that arrest warrants must be supported by probable cause,” Gorsuch wrote, “and consider what would be left of that requirement if the alleged crime had no meaningful boundaries.”
Finally, Gorsuch observed precisely how vague criminal laws undermine the separation of powers.
Only Congress may enact law, but if Congress writes vague statutes, Gorsuch wrote, then it leaves judges, prosecutors, and police “free to ‘condem[n] all that [they] personally disapprove and for no better reason than [they] disapprove it.’”
Thus, to “keep the separate branches within their proper spheres,” Gorsuch wrote, is “the more important aspect” of the vagueness doctrine.
And that is the most important aspect of Gorsuch’s opinion in Dimaya.
To judge how individual justices vote in particular cases in relation to one another, without regard to the substance of their opinions, unjustifiably politicizes the judiciary.
Dimaya is interesting not because of how the justices voted in relation to one another, but because of how the justices—especially Gorsuch and Justice Clarence Thomas—debated legal history and precedent, and did so respectfully.
Yes, the other conservative justices all dissented. Roberts dissented, joined by Thomas and Justices Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito, arguing that, unlike the law in Johnson, the statute at issue in this case was not vague.
Thomas also wrote a separate dissent, joined by Kennedy and Alito, challenging Gorsuch on the merits of the vagueness doctrine.
And yes, Gorsuch’s opinion is not what the government hoped for in this case.
The government had pointed to the executive’s “considerable constitutional authority” in immigration and foreign affairs but, as Gorsuch wrote, “to acknowledge that the president has broad authority to act in this general area supplies no justification for allowing judges to give content to an impermissibly vague law.”
Now, Congress can go back to the drawing board and draft a more precise law.

Comment by Bullheaded Texan on April 25, 2018 at 4:47pm

Pg 4)
Gorsuch’s opinion has explained why that is a job for Congress, echoing his prior statements on the role of the judge: “to put aside their personal politics and preferences to decide cases and to follow the law and not try and make it.”
And by echoing Scalia’s opinion in Johnson, this case also illustrates how Gorsuch carries Scalia’s legacy.

Comment by Bullheaded Texan on April 25, 2018 at 1:26pm

Two Police Officers Wounded In Dallas Shooting.
8:30 am Apr/25/18 by Tom Knighton
Once again, Dallas, TX finds itself in the news after police officers were shot.
This time, however, the results are quite a bit different, thankfully.
Yesterday, two police officers were wounded when a gunman opened fire. A five-hour hunt for the gunman who shot two Dallas police officers and a Home Depot employee Tuesday ended with a high-speed chase through the city.
Authorities arrested Armando Luis Juarez, 29, who faces multiple charges of aggravated assault on a police officer in the shootings at the Lake Highlands store.
He also had an outstanding felony theft warrant, Dallas police Chief U. Renee Hall said.
Juarez had been spotted in southeast Dallas driving the truck he’d reportedly fled the Home Depot in. Officers pursued him to a neighborhood near Love Field, where he was swarmed by dozens of officers about 9:15 p.m.
A woman with him was also taken into custody. Her name has not been released.
“I want to thank our Dallas police tonight,” Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings said late Tuesday. “They’ve taken a punch, and they’ve come out fighting.”
Juarez originally had been described as a person of interest in the shootings, which occurred about 4:15 p.m.
An off-duty police officer working at the Home Depot near U.S. Highway 75 and Forest Lane had called for assistance after detaining a man, said Hall, who did not explain why he was being held.
When police arrived, the detained man “produced a handgun” and shot the responding officers and the store’s loss-prevention officer, police said.
The off-duty officer was not wounded.The three victims were taken to Texas Health Presbyterian of Dallas, where they underwent surgery Tuesday night. Officials declined to release their names or detail their injuries.
Officials are not commenting on the officers’ conditions. That could mean they’re bad, or it could mean they simply haven’t gotten hold of the family yet and don’t want people learning this kind of thing on the news first.
I’m inclined to think it’s probably something closer to the latter.
This incident comes on the heels of two other officers being gunned down in Florida. While there’s absolutely no reason to see the two cases as connected, it’s still difficult not to think of one when you think of the other, especially in light of what happened following the previous case of officers being shot in Dallas.
Hopefully, the officers are only suffering from relatively minor wounds and will be back on the streets quick, fast, and in a hurry.
However, this case is troubling. Again, it’s on the heels of the Florida shooting.
Are we about to see an uptick in anti-police violence? Even if this wasn’t a case of that sort, could it still help stoke the fires for those who are already resentful of police officers?
Let’s hope not. I pray not.
In truth, that’s probably what will happen.

Comment by Bullheaded Texan on April 25, 2018 at 12:49pm

Mexifornia Considers Bill That Would Make Traditional Views on Sexuality Illegal.
Apr/23/18 Monica Burke
A new bill in California claims to protect LGBT people, but actually limits their choices, censors speech, and infringes upon religious freedom.

AB 2943 would amend the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act—a consumer law that outlaws unfair and deceptive practices—by adding so-called “sexual orientation change efforts” to a list of banned practices. It would in effect ban all practices that the state deems attempting to change one’s sexual orientation—including practices as indirect as the publishing of certain material.

This expansive law would impose widespread censorship that could implicate authors, speakers, counselors, colleges and universities, and even religious leaders seeking to address unwanted same-sex attraction or gender identity confusion.

The bill defines sexual change efforts as “any practices that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation. This includes efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.”

The liberal Left continue to push their radical agenda against American values. The good news is there is a solution. Find out more >>

This broad terminology that includes not only attractions, but actions, has drastic implications. The proposed bill could infringe upon the constitutionally protected speech of countless people.

If the bill becomes law, it could punish the speech of religious leaders who preach chastity and, according to the teachings of their religion, maintain that sexual activity should be limited to marriage between one man and one woman.

It could also punish religiously-affiliated counseling services who counsel patients who do not wish to act upon their same-sex attraction for legitimate personal reasons—for example, someone who wants to live by the teachings of their religion on sexuality or to remain faithful to their spouse and children.

It could punish speakers like Ryan T. Anderson of The Heritage Foundation when speaking in California to advocate a traditional view of marriage and human sexuality.

It could punish bookstores, including online platforms like Amazon, that sell recently published books that challenge gender identity ideology, like Anderson’s latest, “When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment.”

It could also punish religious colleges and universities that maintain codes of conduct requiring students to live consistent with biblical views about sexuality.

This law would be triggered when a transaction occurs—a counselor’s payment, an attendance fee, the cost of a book, or a pastor’s speaking fee. Anyone who is offended by a statement, teaching, or practice with regard to sexual orientation and gender identity could then file a lawsuit against a minister, counselor, author, store, or educational institution that offended them.

A lawsuit could devastate any of these persons or institutions.

First, the accused would be at the mercy of a judge to determine whether or not AB 2943 applies in their case. The California Consumer Legal Remedies Act commands that it be “liberally construed and applied.” By this standard, individuals and institutions would be vulnerable to crippling fines simply for speaking to millennia-old views on human sexuality.

Comment by Bullheaded Texan on April 25, 2018 at 12:48pm

Pg 2)
Even if a judge were to spare accused persons from frivolous claims, AB 2943 would still have a chilling effect, as individuals and institutions begin to censor their own speech in order to avoid undergoing multiple costly lawsuits.
This places a burden on the free exercise of religion, too. If individuals or organizations cannot preach the faith-based response to same-sex attraction and gender identity, they cannot freely practice their religion.
Ultimately, AB 2943 treats faith-driven activity to counsel chastity as fraudulent and deceptive, directly violating Justice Anthony Kennedy’s admonition in Obergefell that “religious organizations and persons [be] given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths.”
Such an assault on free exercise hurts everyone. Civil liberties travel together, and when we set a precedent for the government to silence certain viewpoints in one context, we should fully expect to see censorship arise in other areas.
The broad nature of AB 2943 also fails to consider those LGBT individuals who may seek help in their efforts to refrain from acting on certain inclinations. These individuals would be denied professional and personal help under AB 2943.
The policy would also affect transgender persons who later cease identifying with the opposite sex and wish to transition back to their biological gender. Under AB 2943, such individuals would be categorically denied the help and support they desire.
AB 2943 poses an imminent threat to civil liberties in Mexifornia. It does little to protect LGBT persons and only limits the number of perspectives (and assistance) they have access to, while setting a dangerous, Orwellian precedent for government-mandated censorship.
Policymakers must act quickly before the bill can be signed into law.

Comment by Bullheaded Texan on April 25, 2018 at 12:35pm

How much did the "Degree" cost?
How Colleges Are Ripping Off a Generation of Ill-Prepared Students.
Walter E. Williams Apr/25/18
Earlier this month, the 2017 National Assessment of Educational Progress, aka the nation’s “report card,” was released. It’s not a pretty story.
Only 37% of 12th-graders tested proficient or better in reading, and only 25% did so in math. Among black students, only 17% tested proficient or better in reading, and just 7% reached at least a proficient level in math.
The atrocious National Assessment of Educational Progress performance is only a fraction of the bad news. Nationally, our high school graduation rate is over 80%. That means high school diplomas, which attest that these students can read and compute at a 12th-grade level, are conferred when 63% are not proficient in reading and 75% are not proficient in math.
For blacks, the news is worse!
Roughly 75% of black students received high school diplomas attesting that they could read and compute at the 12th-grade level.
However, 83% could not read at that level, and 93% could not do math at that level.
It’s grossly dishonest for the education establishment and politicians to boast about unprecedented graduation rates when the high school diplomas, for the most part, do not represent academic achievement. At best, all they do is to certify attendance.
Fraudulent high school diplomas aren’t the worst part of the fraud.

Comment by Bullheaded Texan on April 25, 2018 at 12:34pm

Pg 2)
Some of the greatest fraud occurs at the higher education levels—colleges and universities. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 70% of white high school graduates in 2016 enrolled in college, and 58% of black high school graduates enrolled in college.
Here are my questions: If only 37% of white high school graduates test as college-ready, how come colleges are admitting 70% of them? And if roughly 17% of black high school graduates test as college-ready, how come colleges are admitting 58% of them?
Nation’s ‘Report Card’ Shows Federal Intervention Has Not Helped Students.
It’s inconceivable that college administrators are unaware that they are admitting students who are ill-prepared and cannot perform at the college level.
Colleges cope with ill-prepared students in several ways. They provide remedial courses. One study suggests that more than two-thirds of community college students take at least one remedial course, as do 40% of four-year college students.
College professors dumb down their courses so that ill-prepared students can get passing grades.
Colleges also set up majors with little analytical demands so as to accommodate students with analytical deficits.
Such majors often include the term “studies,” such as ethnic studies, cultural studies, gender studies, and American studies.
The major for the most ill-prepared students, sadly enough, is education.
When students’ SAT scores are ranked by intended major, education majors place 26th on a list of 38.
The bottom line is that colleges are admitting youngsters who have not mastered what used to be considered a ninth-grade level of proficiency in reading, writing, and arithmetic!
Very often, when they graduate from college, they still can’t master even a 12th-grade level of academic proficiency.
New National Test Scores Show Betsy DeVos Was Right About Public Schools.
The problem is worse in college sports.
During a recent University of North Carolina scandal, a learning specialist hired to help athletes found that during the period from 2004 to 2012, 60% of the 183 members of the football and basketball teams read between fourth- and eighth-grade levels.
About 10% read below a third-grade level.
Keep in mind that all of these athletes both graduated from high school and WERE admitted to college.
How necessary is college anyway?
One estimate is that 1 in 3 college graduates have a job historically performed by those with a high school diploma.
According to Richard Vedder, distinguished emeritus professor of economics at Ohio University and the director of the Center for College Affordability and Productivity, in 2012 there were 115,000 janitors, 16,000 parking lot attendants, 83,000 bartenders, and about 35,000 taxi drivers with a bachelor’s degree.
I’m not sure about what can be done about education. But the first step toward any solution is for the American people to be aware of academic fraud at every level of education.

Comment by Bullheaded Texan on April 25, 2018 at 3:04am

Things to look forward to next year:
This is our last year ever filing under this ridiculous, complicated, punitive tax code.
Next year we’ll all benefit from a new tax code that is fair and simple. https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/kevin-mccarthy-tax-code-tax-day-h...
☑️ Filing taxes in a simple and straightforward way
☑️ Doubled Child Tax Credit
☑️ Doubled Standard Deduction
☑️ A tax cut! #TaxReform #TaxDay
Apr/16/18

Comment by Bullheaded Texan on April 25, 2018 at 2:59am

Congress Sets Sights On The IRS, Introduces 9 Bills To Completely Restructure It.
April/17/18 By Lawrence Richard
This week the House Ways and Means Committee unanimously passed a series of nine bipartisan bills which aim to reform the IRS to better put the “taxpayer first.”
A report from the Ways and Means Committee specifies the bills will “redesign the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), enhance customer service, improve the IRS’s vastly outdated IT infrastructure, and modernize the appeals process.”
“Tax administration watchdogs, small business lenders, and conservative leaders all agree that these bills will put the taxpayer first,” the report reads.
Republican Congressman Kevin Brady writes in the Houston Chronicle that “a new tax code calls for a new IRS.”
Brady describes the nine proposals as “the biggest transformation of the Internal Revenue Service in two decades.”
The goal is to redesign the IRS into a modern, 21st century agency focused on ‘taxpayers first’ service — quickly and fairly resolving disputes, reining in IRS abuses and protecting private taxpayer information from fraud.
Championed by both Republicans and Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee that I lead, we are moving forward a package of nine bills that will dramatically redesign the IRS.
The reason why is simple. The American people deserve better!
The IRS mission statement is “provide America’s taxpayers top quality service by helping them understand and meet their tax responsibilities and enforce the law with integrity and fairness to all.”
Unfortunately, in many cases, the IRS has failed to provide the quality customer service they claim to be striving for, even when it comes to simply answering the phone when a taxpayer calls.
Settling a disagreement with the IRS is a complex procedure which can leave taxpayers frustrated and seemingly at the mercy of a faceless bureaucrat who cannot be held accountable.
With no transparent process in place, taxpayers have little faith that they will receive a fair review of their case and they have little recourse if they do not.
Current IRS technology does little to facilitate customer service or offer assistance during an audit. In fact, their outdated systems can leave the IRS vulnerable to serious cyber threats from around the world.
Every taxpayer’s personal and vital information continues to be a target of bad actors worldwide and we are working hard to ensure that the billions of dollars the IRS spends on IT will adequately protect it.
This is going to change according to Brady.
Other members of Congress have taken to social media to express support for the IRS reform.
National Taxpayers Union and Citizens Against Government Waste:

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 29
• 30
• 31
• 32
• 33
• …
• 40
• Next ›
• Page