Am I alone in thinking that buying current month puts on
QQQ is a good speculation right now, better odds than craps even if not as much fun?
OT re: this a.m.’s civil rights posts:
Key words in the ACLU site excerpt re: immigrants’ rights:
the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled . . . as is true of much that isn't in the Constitution, whether we can secretly search the residences of aliens, with sufficient grounds and court approval, is subject to interpretation. The high court must interpret the Constitution, but its rulings change as thinking "evolves" (usually, I've thought, for the worse). I see nothing inherently unconstitutional about permitting secret searches of aliens' residences, provided there are clearly spelled-out rules governing justification and they are enforced by having to obtain permission from courts for the action.
Which relates to Michael Happel's question:
Are the laws insufficient or is the bureaucratic process what's lacking? Are our judges spending too much time on silly, petty and frivolous lawsuits when they should be involved in more important pursuits? Are our courts bogged down by --the too numerous to count-- low level misdemeanor cases and the like when they should be focusing their attention on more important matters?
Yes, but contrary to popular impression, federal judges are not bogged down with frivolous lawsuits! They are bogged down with criminal cases, specifically drug prosecutions and the federalization of myriad offenses against locals. Grandstanding, power-grubbing, or just historically ignorant politicians have filled the federal system with matters that our Framers certainly and rightly intended to be the province of state and local lawmakers and their courts. We must beware the National Nanny, yet one of its few totally legitimate functions is protecting the nation against foreigners who would destroy us.
Ed, you say:
Judicial doctrine interpreting and protecting our rights under the constitution provides that constitutional rights can be infringed, but only where the government shows a compelling state interest.
I'd say the rights aren't being infringed, but rather that they aren't "rights" to begin with if judges can permit action contrary to them. Deciding that is the role of judges both interpreting the Constitution and then overseeing requests to search aliens' houses, if permitted. |
