New Mexico governor deliberately violates Constitution

[Dill]

(09-19-2023, 01:08 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Not solely, no. We are discussing the Dems utter failure in the realm of the criminal justice system, of which she is most certainly a part.  You arguing that the thread is already derailed so your contributing to that further is not a problem is interesting though.

Are you not getting that literally no one is interested in your semantic parsing of hairs?  We all understand that you utterly avoid topics that you can't nitpick to death, this being a perfect example.  The vindictive part of me would keep this going as it's doing nothing but making you look bad.  But I'm going to leave it at this.  If you have nothing to add to the discussion beyond this then please, do stop wasting everyone's time.  My thanks in advance.

Speaking for everyone?

I'm not convinced everyone agrees with your insistence that the difference between rule of law and law and order is "parsing hairs."  And I don't think "we all understand" that I'm the one utterly avoiding topics when I do offer my take on your CA bill example, but you can't tell me whether rule of law exists in North Korea.

Especially now that you have vowed never to vote for the only party currently upholding rule of law, apparently prioritizing law and order over rule of law.

I have always been on topic. The question regarding the governor's behavior is whether she is stepping outside rule of law, not whether she is upholding law and order. Your mis-framing just separates the NM incident from that central issue, by fiat.

Perhaps that's why you also never answered the question posed in post #29 about the precedent for a state governor suspending rights. You aren't really interested in the legal/constitutional nuance. You're just insisting everything is a nail, hence the easy segue from a constitutional issues to a CA bill about protecting employees to killers who get off to kill again.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-19-2023, 02:57 PM)Dill Wrote: Speaking for everyone?

I'm not convinced everyone agrees with your insistence that the difference between rule of law and law and order is "parsing hairs."

Then I'll wait and see when someone agrees with you.  I won't hold my breath.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

Leaving the world of the semantic distraction, how's that gun ban going?

https://archive.ph/mytyh

a federal judge blocked the effort, and Lujan Grisham issued a new order that largely curtails the ambitious and controversial move.
Following fierce backlash, the revised order will limit the firearm ban to parks and playgrounds in Albuquerque and its surrounding county.


https://www.koat.com/article/house-committee-condemn-new-mexico-governor/45196288#


A committee within the U.S. House of Representatives will vote on a resolution to condemn New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham.

Predictably missing the point Nadler stated;

"It does nothing to promote health and safety," Nadler said. "It will not make a single American safer from gun violence, nor does it have any effect on the rights of responsible gun owners."

To which I answer, no shit. That's not the intention. Normally I'm against this type of political theatre, but Governor Karen went way too far. If you publicly state you're violating your oath of office being condemned in the HoR should be the least of your worries.

[Mickeypoo]

(09-19-2023, 06:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Leaving the world of the semantic distraction, how's that gun ban going?

https://archive.ph/mytyh

a federal judge blocked the effort, and Lujan Grisham issued a new order that largely curtails the ambitious and controversial move.
Following fierce backlash, the revised order will limit the firearm ban to parks and playgrounds in Albuquerque and its surrounding county.


https://www.koat.com/article/house-committee-condemn-new-mexico-governor/45196288#


A committee within the U.S. House of Representatives will vote on a resolution to condemn New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham.

Predictably missing the point Nadler stated;

"It does nothing to promote health and safety," Nadler said. "It will not make a single American safer from gun violence, nor does it have any effect on the rights of responsible gun owners."

To which I answer, no shit.  That's not the intention.  Normally I'm against this type of political theatre, but Governor Karen went way too far.  If you publicly state you're violating your oath of office being condemned in the HoR should be the least of your worries.

I'm sure all the criminals are sending memos to each other as I type this so they know they can't carry firearms in parks or playgrounds.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-20-2023, 08:40 AM)Mickeypoo Wrote: I'm sure all the criminals are sending memos to each other as I type this so they know they can't carry firearms in parks or playgrounds.  

Well, in her own words she "had to do something!"  Even if that something was empty grandstanding that violated the constitutional rights of the citizenry.  After all, never let a crisis go to waste.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(09-19-2023, 02:57 PM)Dill Wrote: Speaking for everyone?

I'm not convinced everyone agrees with your insistence that the difference between rule of law and law and order is "parsing hairs."  And I don't think "we all understand" that I'm the one utterly avoiding topics when I do offer my take on your CA bill example, but you can't tell me whether rule of law exists in North Korea.

When Democrats take over NK, China Russia or any other country they want then we can talk about it. Til then WTF Cares?
Obviously none of us are talking about those countries, much less living in or even ever visited them so it's pointless to try to argue about what we have no idea about.

[Dill]

(09-20-2023, 05:07 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: When Democrats take over NK, China Russia or any other country they want then we can talk about it. Til then WTF Cares?
Obviously none of us are talking about those countries, much less living in or even ever visited them so it's pointless to try to argue about what we have no idea about.

I'm not talking about those countries either. The question was about NK; the answer was about the U.S.  

The assertion was that there is no difference in meaning between the term "law and order" and "rule of law." 

To test whether that is the case, I noted that NK definitely has law and order, but asked "Does it have rule of law?"

If there is no, or little, difference in meaning between the terms, then if NK has law and order, it also has rule of law. 

But NK is ruled by a Dear Leader, a dictator who is above the law that he enforces with deadly thoroughness. No organized shoplifting there. 

So NK does have law and order, but NOT rule of law. Not even close.

That is because LaO and RoL don't mean the same thing. Not even close.  

This is only important if you think that not knowing the difference makes a difference in people's understanding of their own Constitution and politics. E.g, authoritarianism might be harder to recognize, personal rule could be more easily accepted in promotion of order and preferred laws, the interpretation of law could be skewed in authoritarian direction if the ultimate goal of law is misunderstood, etc.  My guess is that people who know the difference think it important to know, and they'd see it's application to the thread topic; people who don't know the difference could see no such application, and might find even raising the question a distraction from the real issue for them--law and order.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-21-2023, 12:59 AM)Dill Wrote: I'm not talking about those countries either. The question was about NK; the answer was about the U.S.  

The assertion was that there is no difference in meaning between the term "law and order" and "rule of law." 

To test whether that is the case, I noted that NK definitely has law and order, but asked "Does it have rule of law?"

If there is no, or little, difference in meaning between the terms, then if NK has law and order, it also has rule of law. 

But NK is ruled by a Dear Leader, a dictator who is above the law that he enforces with deadly thoroughness. No organized shoplifting there. 

So NK does have law and order, but NOT rule of law. Not even close.

That is because LaO and RoL don't mean the same thing. Not even close.  

This is only important if you think that not knowing the difference makes a difference in people's understanding of their own Constitution and politics. E.g, authoritarianism might be harder to recognize, personal rule could be more easily accepted in promotion of order and preferred laws, the interpretation of law could be skewed in authoritarian direction if the ultimate goal of law is misunderstood, etc.  My guess is that people who know the difference think it important to know, and they'd see it's application to the thread topic; people who don't know the difference could see no such application, and might find even raising the question a distraction from the real issue for them--law and order.

When you're talking about the US, which we have been from the beginning, this is an inane question.  Your clown show has run its course.  Literally no one is defending it at this point (except you).  Stop wasting all of our time.

[Dill]

(09-21-2023, 01:20 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: When you're talking about the US, which we have been from the beginning, this is an inane question.  Your clown show has run its course.  Literally no one is defending it at this point (except you).  Stop wasting all of our time.

I answered a post addressed to me, about an issue you cannot address, but from which I'd moved on.

If you want to stop discussion of rule of law, then start by ignoring my posts. 

Policing discussion without police power won't accomplish your goal.

[hollodero]

(09-19-2023, 12:52 PM)Dill Wrote: To the first bolded--SSF started this thread, I thought, to address a violation of constitutional principle. He talked about that some, and fascism. Then in his post #44 he made some sweeping generalizations about "the left" and how the right tends to defend organic society. I could have let that pass, but wanted to know what "awful" policies against "rule of law" he thought Dems were responsible for. When I asked, I did not know that he did not know the difference between "rule of law" and "law and order." Now I do. I can't find anything before that which looks like shared events from personal experience or the like. Or I don't know what you are counting as "well explained points" before that.

When I corrected the conflation, he just doubled down on it. Still does. Like it's no more than the difference between "bachelor" and "unmarried man."  So it's not like he knew perfectly well what rule of law is and just confused terms. I have asked quite reasonable questions of him on quite reasonable grounds, so from my side "deflection" is refusing to answer simple, determinative questions like--Is there law and order in Iran and NK? If there is, and there's no difference, then there must be rule of law there too.

At a time when U.S. democracy is under threat because people don't seem to get, or care, about the basic distinction between "rule by law and rule by men," I don't want to let it go if someone seems appears not to get or care about it. If you still think responding to the double down just looks like deflection, then I guess the conflation, which can no longer be regarded as accidental, doesn't bother you. Skip that and get to law a regulating employer-employee relations, since that's what SSF "intended." He's offered personal grievances and other examples--and adds he will never vote Dem again, presumably because he wants what I would call law and order solutions. Don't see how that makes "the liberal side" look "not so great."

Well. You started the whole issue about rule of law versus law and order. It was in no way SSFs central singular point to make, yet you treat it as if it were. Reducing all the points made to this one particular aspect, that is far from a fair summation, and far from the most interesting one for pretty much everyone except you. Still, you now declare it front and center.
Then you also put parts of my response in quotation marks, like "the liberal side" looking "not so good", and treat these quotes as if they were a valid summation of my stance towards your particular points. That is just a misrepresentation. This was of course not in reference of SSF not voting for Democrats or law and order solutions or whatever else you brought up. What they actually referred to, of course, was that things like governors violating constitutional rights or over-leniency towards criminals in California and the negative effects these policies apparently have, topics like these might be not all that great for democrats. Because that's what the thread actually is about. In theory, that might actually be a discussion valuable for the left side to have. It also really is not a discussion that needs to turn to North Korea for invaluable insights.

Aside from that, I really do not delve into which particular things were raised and doubled down on by whom in which postings or what you would or would not let pass or whatever, that stuff doesn't matter to me. What I called "well explained points" were just that, points, or call it grievances, that I could understand and follow quite easily. Granted, I did not try to find as much fault with them as possible.

[GreenDragon]

(09-15-2023, 10:40 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Oh, I apologize.  I thought you were trying to discuss this, but it's clear you're just here to be silly.  Noted.

I'm sorry. I think we should stay on the topic we're discussing, rather than move on in the middle. That's obviously something YOU enjoy. 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(09-20-2023, 08:40 AM)Mickeypoo Wrote: I'm sure all the criminals are sending memos to each other as I type this so they know they can't carry firearms in parks or playgrounds.  

And those not currently in jail are all voting for her.