CA Chief Justice Demands ICE Stop Busting Illegals at Courthouses. Where LAWS Are Enforced…

[Ban Hammer 14,271]

California Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye on Thursday told federal immigration officials to stop “stalking undocumented immigrants” at California courthouses.

Cantil-Sakauye said she was “deeply concerned” that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents are apparently seeking out undocumented immigrants for deportation at courthouses and courtrooms from San Francisco to Los Angeles.

 

http://louderwithcrowder.com/chief-justice-ice/

 

next up, stop fishing in water for fish.

 

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

If I did not know the MDL so well I would think it's satire 

[TBoneTX 47,502]

1 hour ago, Ban Hammer said:

stop fishing in water for fish.

Exactly -- both a captive and captured audience.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

Sigh. There are any number of reasons why the courts are against such apprehensions near courthouses, all of them relating to the fair, equitable and speedy administration of justice. Everyone who is in the US and subject to its jurisdiction has the right to due process and protection of its laws. That means people need to be able to pursue justice on their own behalf, as well as on behalf of others as a witness. It means they need to be able to be prosecuted for offenses when they are not in police custody (traffic tickets come to mind). It means that a person who is subject to subpoena will actually show up in court to testify. If people are afraid they will be arrested, they will not show up to court. This stymies the courts' ability to conduct proceedings with what they call "judicial economy" -- taking care of cases as quickly as possible, and reducing the costs of having to continue hearings, issue bench warrants, etc. This is a practical matter.

 

[CaliCat 3,957]

9 minutes ago, elmcitymaven said:

Sigh. There are any number of reasons why the courts are against such apprehensions near courthouses, all of them relating to the fair, equitable and speedy administration of justice. Everyone who is in the US and subject to its jurisdiction has the right to due process and protection of its laws. That means people need to be able to pursue justice on their own behalf, as well as on behalf of others as a witness. It means they need to be able to be prosecuted for offenses when they are not in police custody (traffic tickets come to mind). It means that a person who is subject to subpoena will actually show up in court to testify. If people are afraid they will be arrested, they will not show up to court. This stymies the courts' ability to conduct proceedings with what they call "judicial economy" -- taking care of cases as quickly as possible, and reducing the costs of having to continue hearings, issue bench warrants, etc. This is a practical matter.

 

 

Thanks for posting elevating this thread to something worth reading. I have a feeling your words will be lost in a sea of ignorance, however.

[Transborderwife 4,666]

hypothetical here...

 

an undocumented parent is attending court in a child protection case.  the judge rules in their favor but they're arrested immediately after forcing the child back into the system.  That could be incrediblytraumatic for the child.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

5 hours ago, elmcitymaven said:

Sigh. There are any number of reasons why the courts are against such apprehensions near courthouses, all of them relating to the fair, equitable and speedy administration of justice. Everyone who is in the US and subject to its jurisdiction has the right to due process and protection of its laws. That means people need to be able to pursue justice on their own behalf, as well as on behalf of others as a witness. It means they need to be able to be prosecuted for offenses when they are not in police custody (traffic tickets come to mind). It means that a person who is subject to subpoena will actually show up in court to testify. If people are afraid they will be arrested, they will not show up to court. This stymies the courts' ability to conduct proceedings with what they call "judicial economy" -- taking care of cases as quickly as possible, and reducing the costs of having to continue hearings, issue bench warrants, etc. This is a practical matter.

 

Darn you suck the fun out of everything ?

[spookyturtle 9,466]

5 hours ago, elmcitymaven said:

Sigh. There are any number of reasons why the courts are against such apprehensions near courthouses, all of them relating to the fair, equitable and speedy administration of justice. Everyone who is in the US and subject to its jurisdiction has the right to due process and protection of its laws. That means people need to be able to pursue justice on their own behalf, as well as on behalf of others as a witness. It means they need to be able to be prosecuted for offenses when they are not in police custody (traffic tickets come to mind). It means that a person who is subject to subpoena will actually show up in court to testify. If people are afraid they will be arrested, they will not show up to court. This stymies the courts' ability to conduct proceedings with what they call "judicial economy" -- taking care of cases as quickly as possible, and reducing the costs of having to continue hearings, issue bench warrants, etc. This is a practical matter.

 

You must be a hoot to party with. 

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Back to topic. If I was a cop, I'd sit in bar parking lots at closing time and pull people over. 

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

28 minutes ago, spookyturtle said:

You must be a hoot to party with. 

My party trick is reciting the first 18 lines of The Canterbury Tales in Middle English, so yes, I am.

 

 

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

43 minutes ago, spookyturtle said:

Back to topic. If I was a cop, I'd sit in bar parking lots at closing time and pull people over. 

Totally different, spooks. By placing cops at bars, you're not infringing upon a person's right to get totally ratarsed (not in the real Constitution, I checked) or upon their right to due process (unless the po-po don't Mirandize you, for example). It is within the states' powers to ensure the general welfare of their people, which includes dissuading people from drunk driving, and protecting innocent people from drunk drivers. 

[CaliCat 3,957]

Yeah, but these are illegal immigrants that are here to steal our jobs. Countless CEOs have lost their jobs lately to illegal immigrants.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

32 minutes ago, elmcitymaven said:

Totally different, spooks. By placing cops at bars, you're not infringing upon a person's right to get totally ratarsed (not in the real Constitution, I checked) or upon their right to due process (unless the po-po don't Mirandize you, for example). It is within the states' powers to ensure the general welfare of their people, which includes dissuading people from drunk driving, and protecting innocent people from drunk drivers. 

But you can give nuclear launch codes to a lunatic? Wow, what a country! 

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

Just pick them up at immigration protests 

[eieio 1,594]

There is never a bad time or place to catch an illegal and deport them.( with compassion of course)