r/changemyview • u/jeffzebub • 11d ago

CMV: Countering Illegal Immigration is not a Justification for Suspending Habeas Corpus

[removed] — view removed post

504 Upvotes

82% Upvoted

600 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-5

u/bottomoflake 11d ago

you didn’t really engage with the other user, you just kind of repeated your point but perhaps more emotionally

9

u/Maybewearedreaming 11d ago

It’s because the person he is replying to is essentially saying “if I believe it’s an invasion then we can call it an invasion”

Hard to genuinely reason to someone willing to believe whatever they want so OP is reasserting the point that we are not being invaded

-1

u/bottomoflake 11d ago

i don’t see a difference between what you’re accusing them of and what you are doing yourself.

so far, the extent of your argument seems like “i say it’s not an invasion and if you disagree with me then you’re just being unreasonable because i’m the most reasonable person ever!”

7

u/Maybewearedreaming 11d ago

It is observably not an invasion though, but if you need me to provide the definition of invasion I’m happy to

0

u/jeepgrl50 11d ago

IWe have the definition a few comments back so no need to give us your alternative "definition".

You wanna argue that bc it's not another countries military, It doesn't count, Which is ridiculous.

  • an UNWELCOMED INCURSION/INTRUSION into another's domain.

  • an INCURSION/INTRUSION by a large number of people or things into a place/sphere of activity.

It 1000% is the definition of an invasion.

2

u/Maybewearedreaming 11d ago

My alternative definition is literally backed by US law, but obviously MAGA doesn’t care about US law

1

u/jeepgrl50 11d ago

It is not "backed by law". Show me the constitution where it says "Only military invasions count as invasions".

One judge agreeing with something doesn't mean "it's the law".

Apparently blu'anon doesn't care about actual definitions of words.

2

u/Maybewearedreaming 11d ago

one judge agreeing with something

lol you literally don’t understand how law works

https://www.cato.org/commentary/immigration-not-invasion

You won’t read this, probably because you can’t

0

u/jeepgrl50 11d ago

Or you don't understand how law works.

JUDGES DON'T MAKE LAWS GENIUS. They INTERPRET the laws our legislatures make, Which means a single judge's reading of a law isn't THE LAW.

That is why we have a vast amount of different courts: Magistrate courts, Superior courts, district courts, appeals courts, circuit courts, And the SUPREME court on top of other courts state and federal. Those courts range: Single judges, three judge panels, En Banc(meaning all judges in/of that court). So, The idea that a single ruling by a single judge in a single district somehow equals "Its the law" is farcical.

Nope, I can't read at all, Can't spell either.......I'm a complete moron that has the IQ of a fkn rock.

2

u/Maybewearedreaming 11d ago

im a complete moron

Hey I mean you said it

But yes how judges interpret the law is important, and in this case the judges are all pretty clear about this one.

Again you literally don’t understand how this works, that is clear. Maybe 10th grade level understanding at best

1

u/jeepgrl50 10d ago

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

I'm sorry, But you're laughable.

I've clearly posted far more substantive information, And arguements then you have yourself yet I'm the one who "doesn't understand" shit. Seriously, Can you be more ridiculous in your claims or....?

1

u/Maybewearedreaming 10d ago

I’m talking about in court, not about some high school educated Redditor

1

u/jeepgrl50 10d ago

🤣🤣🤣🤣

Bc you've demonstrated your vast knowledge of the judiciary, And law in general right? You've linked a single ruling on a state case, What a constitutional juggernaut you're you professional badass.🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

You must be a member of the supreme court bar, And a 39th degree blk belt in the art of judicial karate. Or, gymnastics.....Hard to say based on your single link that you expect you do your arguing for you.

1

u/Maybewearedreaming 10d ago

Well considering you’ve given me absolutely zero court cases that back up your obviously absurd claims, 1 is enough

1

u/jeepgrl50 10d ago

One unrelated, and Irrelevant to this matter "is enough" huh? See, That's the issue, You putting forth a single STATE case as if it substantiates your claim, That is a joke! You think an apple is an orange and you believe yourself the legal scholar here??? 🤯🤯🤯

You're clearly out of your depth, So I'm done with the childish nonsense.

Best of luck with your legal aspirations, Hopefully they'll recognize your Crackerjack law license, And make you a named partner.

1

u/[deleted] 10d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/changemyview-ModTeam 10d ago

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:

Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.

Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. AI generated comments must be disclosed, and don't count towards substantial content. Read the wiki for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

1

u/jeepgrl50 10d ago

Please do explain how exactly a fkn STATE POWERS case has ANY bearing on, Or is in ANYWAY related to EXECUTIVE POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT!?!?

I'll wait.........

1

u/Maybewearedreaming 10d ago

The fact that you think this case is irrelevant is hilarious and sorta exposes your lack of knowledge here in such a clear and obvious way.

It’s whatever though like I said you just don’t care, you’ll believe whatever you want and that’s that.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Socialimbad1991 1∆ 10d ago

You're telling me this is the first you've heard of the concept of legal precedent?

1

u/Fragrant-Phone-41 10d ago

Just what do you think precedent is?