I've been thinking alot about our "rights" in regards to the work environment. And call me crazy, but haven't we already given up almost all our normal rights the moment we accept a job??You can't exercise free speech and go tell your boss to go f**k himself. You likely can't keep a gun in your locker. Your aren't guaranteed due process or presumption of innocence. You can't just start handing out religious flyers in the lunchroom. A vast amount of our constitutional rights in regards to the government aren't REMOTELY applicable to a work enviroment, including at least half of the bill of rights.
That's why I said "leave that crap at home and not take it to work". Her job was "teach the lesson plan as it had been submitted and approved", not "plant my political ideas in the minds of children".
It comes down to who do local police serve, their community or their government?
It has been stated that law enforcements like sanctuary city status because illegal immigrants are less afraid to talk to them about crimes that are effecting their community. This communication and trust would be broken if the police sold them out to federal authorities.
There is also the argument of does a local officer have the authority to legally detain a person for a federal crime like immigration status?
Reversing the argument, an FBI agent is not allowed to pull you over and charge you for speeding. He does not have the authority to uphold state laws.
Drug crime is generally shared however, since states do have drug trafficking laws in their books.
I've been thinking alot about our "rights" in regards to the work environment. And call me crazy, but haven't we already given up almost all our normal rights the moment we accept a job??You can't exercise free speech and go tell your boss to go f**k himself. You likely can't keep a gun in your locker. Your aren't guaranteed due process or presumption of innocence. You can't just start handing out religious flyers in the lunchroom. A vast amount of our constitutional rights in regards to the government aren't REMOTELY applicable to a work enviroment, including at least half of the bill of rights.
That's why I said "leave that crap at home and not take it to work". Her job was "teach the lesson plan as it had been submitted and approved", not "plant my political ideas in the minds of children".
It certainly isn't only the right 'planting their political ideas in the minds of children'. Fortunately, most kids have a built-in b.s. sensor after a certain age. Wait, maybe that was just me, hopefully not though...
It is precisely because so many people try to translate their personal prejudices into political action that things like racism, as with all forms of bigotry, definitely do count as "political speech". No one has to like it--I don't like it--but that is reality as it exists.
I think that's certainly true. Politics is the means of determining how a country or area is governed and that can very clearly include racism.
There is also the argument of does a local officer have the authority to legally detain a person for a federal crime like immigration status?
Even if they technically do not, in general if a local police officer witnesses you committing a Federal offense of some sort they will detain you. As I noted, if local law enforcement is not allowed to detain someone for Federal offenses then the local police cannot stop you from robbing a bank--that makes no sense whatsoever.
The *real* problem with sanctuary cities are not the city's positions, in and of themselves, but the anti-sanctuary-city laws I have seen passed. Under many of these laws, if local law enforcement *doesn't* do the Federal Government's job then that local officer could face jail time. In other words, local law enforcement risks jail for *not* doing something--at least the criminals currently in the city jail actually did something to warrant being put in there.
Speaking of people doing the Federal Government's job....it appears that Geek Squad has been searching people's computers at the behest of the FBI for at least 10 years now. Computer broken? Take it to Best Buy's Geek Squad--they will be more than happy to overcharge your for not doing very much, but as long as they have your computer they will pilfer through all your files, reading your documents and looking at your pictures just in case they find something they need to report. I have no doubt they did all sorts of things with the computers while they had them. What's that? You had risque pictures of your wife posing in lingerie or in the nude, all of which is perfectly legal? Well, now that Geek Squad tech has a copy of those pictures, too.
Can the podcaster teacher be fired for having unpopular and/or fringe political beliefs? Unless she advocated violence in some form, I don't think her actions are grounds for being fired. She shouldn't be teaching children, that's for sure, because I have no doubt she is trying to indoctrinate them, but firing someone for their political beliefs is a perilous road. Who gets to determine which political beliefs are grounds for termination?
That is simply more evidence that most people should *not* have social media profiles at all. No podcasts, no videos, no vlogs, no blogs, etc. They should stick to ranting in political forums like I do. *laugh*
Racism, like all other forms of prejudices, is not political. People like to hide behind the politic label to justify and give credence to their bigotry.
While it can be political, it is also more than that. It is more than enough reason to fire anyone, from any job. However, I would be interested in hearing the female teacher's satire defense.
9 times out of 10, when someone who is comepletely serious about a view they are fully aware is viewed as socially reprehensible, when they are caught, the first thing they claim is "satire".
I've been thinking alot about our "rights" in regards to the work environment. And call me crazy, but haven't we already given up almost all our normal rights the moment we accept a job??You can't exercise free speech and go tell your boss to go f**k himself. You likely can't keep a gun in your locker. Your aren't guaranteed due process or presumption of innocence. You can't just start handing out religious flyers in the lunchroom. A vast amount of our constitutional rights in regards to the government aren't REMOTELY applicable to a work enviroment, including at least half of the bill of rights.
Of course. There are some limitations on public sector employers though, particularly on free speech. There are so many free speech retaliation lawsuits filed by police officers and other union employees every year, and there are real limitations on what the government can do to its employees.
However, of course the bill of rights doesn't apply to private parties. However, its not something we "gave up" because they never bound private parties in the first place.
If they are going to ignore one subset of the law, what is to stop them from ignoring a different subset in the future? "Bank robbery? Meh--that's a Federal offense, so let the Feds deal with it. We aren't going to pursue those guys." There is no logic by which anyone could defend that position.
If the state has a ban robbery law they will enforce it.
"It has been stated that law enforcements like sanctuary city status"
The largest police union condemned sanctuary cities and refusal of cooperation with federal authorities. Of course, they also oppose restricting funding for these cities, but they say that's because it would hurt good police officers, not because they have any love for sanctuary policies.
"There is also the argument of does a local officer have the authority to legally detain a person for a federal crime like immigration status?"
Yes, federal immigration laws can be enforced by the state and a lot of federal laws explicitly say that they can be enforced on the state level. The Attorney General can enter agreement with states to give additional enforcement powers to them so there's a lot of leeway.
I've been thinking alot about our "rights" in regards to the work environment. And call me crazy, but haven't we already given up almost all our normal rights the moment we accept a job??You can't exercise free speech and go tell your boss to go f**k himself. You likely can't keep a gun in your locker. Your aren't guaranteed due process or presumption of innocence. You can't just start handing out religious flyers in the lunchroom. A vast amount of our constitutional rights in regards to the government aren't REMOTELY applicable to a work enviroment, including at least half of the bill of rights.
Sometimes it seems like the bigger and/or more convoluted the business corporation/ bureaucracy is, the worse (limiting) it is. I know we choose jobs and are required to conform to keep said job, but it just seems like it is harder to fight against them when flagrant acts that violate the The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) occur in these bigger (i.e. lawyer'd up) companies.
"Local and state governments have no obligation to enforce federal law"
Irrelevant. They have no obligation to enforce it, like in many cases enforcement is up to their discretion, you are not obligated to arrest every pot smoker you see for example, but they are obligated to not violate it.
In this case, that means not doing things sanctuary cities in California have done, like warn of incoming ICE raids and actively hinder their ability to do their job, or pass bills like SB-54 which prohibits the use of state resources for immigration related causes, prohibits state authorities to cooperate with ICE, try to enforce the law themselves, provide any personal information to them, and more.
I see no reason a state government should be required to dedicate limited resources to implementing the federal government's goals when it comes to immigration, but actively working against federal policies seems little different from the South's "nullification" idea that states could simply ignore any federal law they didn't like.
The states already have a check on federal power: they enjoy representation in the House and Senate.
Gerrymandering just happened recently in my state of PA with a 5-2 Democrat Supreme Court voting for more favorable maps for themselves. Unless you have some outside nonpartisan commission that draws those maps it seems that will always be a reality as long as you have the power to make it happen. To be fair of course the Republican map was obviously gerrymandered yet two wrongs do not make a right.
The word "more" is doing heavy lifting here. The new map favors Republicans less than the old map does, but that doesn't mean it favors Democrats.
The unfortunate reality is that it is nearly impossible to assemble a commission that is recognized as "nonpartisan" to decide such a politically fraught issue. Anyone who didn't get their way would inevitably accuse the commission of partisan bias. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try, but it's a tough issue.
"Local and state governments have no obligation to enforce federal law"
Irrelevant. They have no obligation to enforce it, like in many cases enforcement is up to their discretion, you are not obligated to arrest every pot smoker you see for example, but they are obligated to not violate it.
In this case, that means not doing things sanctuary cities in California have done, like warn of incoming ICE raids and actively hinder their ability to do their job, or pass bills like SB-54 which prohibits the use of state resources for immigration related causes, prohibits state authorities to cooperate with ICE, try to enforce the law themselves, provide any personal information to them, and more.
I see no reason a state government should be required to dedicate limited resources to implementing the federal government's goals when it comes to immigration, but actively working against federal policies seems little different from the South's "nullification" idea that states could simply ignore any federal law they didn't like.
The states already have a check on federal power: they enjoy representation in the House and Senate.
Some of them have more representation than others, even in the House. As I've mentioned before, given their relative populations, California would have to have 67 House seats to be equal to the one from Wyoming. They only have 53. And the House is the MORE representative body in regards to population. For New York, it would be 33. They only have 27.
Leaked documents from the NYPD have shown that hundreds of New York police officers have committed crimes from assaulting civilians to lying to grand juries and still retained their jobs. Some officers had committed multiple crimes, and one officer had attacked so many people that the city paid about $900,000 in settlements when people sued in response to the assault. That's seven and a half years of the officer's salary.
That's the thing about misconduct. If you want to prevent it, you need to crack down on it, not paper over it.
Leaked documents from the NYPD have shown that hundreds of New York police officers have committed crimes from assaulting civilians to lying to grand juries and still retained their jobs. Some officers had committed multiple crimes, and one officer had attacked so many people that the city paid about $900,000 in settlements when people sued in response to the assault. That's seven and a half years of the officer's salary.
That's the thing about misconduct. If you want to prevent it, you need to crack down on it, not paper over it.
You'd think the fiscal consevatives would be up in arms, but you apparently can't put a price on good old police state tactics.
Leaked documents from the NYPD have shown that hundreds of New York police officers have committed crimes from assaulting civilians to lying to grand juries and still retained their jobs. Some officers had committed multiple crimes, and one officer had attacked so many people that the city paid about $900,000 in settlements when people sued in response to the assault. That's seven and a half years of the officer's salary.
That's the thing about misconduct. If you want to prevent it, you need to crack down on it, not paper over it.
You'd think the fiscal consevatives would be up in arms, but you apparently can't put a price on good old police state tactics.
New York City is run by Democrats last time I checked. Boy they sure make a BIG difference when they're in power don't they...
Leaked documents from the NYPD have shown that hundreds of New York police officers have committed crimes from assaulting civilians to lying to grand juries and still retained their jobs. Some officers had committed multiple crimes, and one officer had attacked so many people that the city paid about $900,000 in settlements when people sued in response to the assault. That's seven and a half years of the officer's salary.
That's the thing about misconduct. If you want to prevent it, you need to crack down on it, not paper over it.
You'd think the fiscal consevatives would be up in arms, but you apparently can't put a price on good old police state tactics.
New York City is run by Democrats last time I checked. Boy they sure make a BIG difference when they're in power don't they...
The NYPD despises Bill DeBlassio. After he spoke out about being a parent of a black son after Eric Garner was choked to death, they turned their backs on him at a police funeral. New York's finest are still very much Giuliani's boys.
Beyond that, the last 3 or 4 years have made in abundantly clear that police forces in this country are an authority unto themselves, answerable and responsible to no one except in the most extreme circumstances (and usually not even then).
It's like the teachers thing. Conservatives claim some big conspiracy that more teachers and educated people hold liberal worldviews. What about cops? Liberals get the shutout there and are very much a minority in law enforcement. Maybe certain professions draw people with certain personality types or foster certain types of thinking.
Gerrymandering just happened recently in my state of PA with a 5-2 Democrat Supreme Court voting for more favorable maps for themselves. Unless you have some outside nonpartisan commission that draws those maps it seems that will always be a reality as long as you have the power to make it happen. To be fair of course the Republican map was obviously gerrymandered yet two wrongs do not make a right.
The word "more" is doing heavy lifting here. The new map favors Republicans less than the old map does, but that doesn't mean it favors Democrats.
The unfortunate reality is that it is nearly impossible to assemble a commission that is recognized as "nonpartisan" to decide such a politically fraught issue. Anyone who didn't get their way would inevitably accuse the commission of partisan bias. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try, but it's a tough issue.
I'll do it! I don't like either party. As a bonus, you can't claim I intentionally favored any side, as I would have no idea what I was doing.
It's like the teachers thing. Conservatives claim some big conspiracy that more teachers and educated people hold liberal worldviews. What about cops? Liberals get the shutout there and are very much a minority in law enforcement. Maybe certain professions draw people with certain personality types or foster certain types of thinking.
Only liberal activists can actually take on police abuse. Because the moment an actual politician does so, the hero-worship of the public towards this profession makes it tantamount to suicide. Even calls for body cameras or civilian review boards are viewed as "attacks" on cops. Not that body cameras make a difference, since we see case after case of juries watching cops commit cold-blooded murder and acquiting anyway.
Leaked documents from the NYPD have shown that hundreds of New York police officers have committed crimes from assaulting civilians to lying to grand juries and still retained their jobs. Some officers had committed multiple crimes, and one officer had attacked so many people that the city paid about $900,000 in settlements when people sued in response to the assault. That's seven and a half years of the officer's salary.
That's the thing about misconduct. If you want to prevent it, you need to crack down on it, not paper over it.
You'd think the fiscal consevatives would be up in arms, but you apparently can't put a price on good old police state tactics.
Except that fiscal conservatives are the only people fighting back against public sector unions who prevent local pds from firing people who commit misconduct in the first place.
It's also a joke to believe that conservatives of any sort have any power at all in NY.
Leaked documents from the NYPD have shown that hundreds of New York police officers have committed crimes from assaulting civilians to lying to grand juries and still retained their jobs. Some officers had committed multiple crimes, and one officer had attacked so many people that the city paid about $900,000 in settlements when people sued in response to the assault. That's seven and a half years of the officer's salary.
That's the thing about misconduct. If you want to prevent it, you need to crack down on it, not paper over it.
You'd think the fiscal consevatives would be up in arms, but you apparently can't put a price on good old police state tactics.
Except that fiscal conservatives are the only people fighting back against public sector unions who prevent local pds from firing people who commit misconduct in the first place.
It's also a joke to believe that conservatives of any sort have any power at all in NY.
And police unions are literally the ONLY unions the right supports (that and firefighters) At least with Scott Walker in Wisconsin, the prime example, as he exempted them from his collective bargaining crackdown a few years ago:
The union battle in Wisconsin a few years ago was among the highest profile in decades. When push came to shove, the police officers, clearly getting the super-citizen treatment, were magically let off the hook.
That is the "control freak" facet of his personality making itself shown. He *has* to know what everyone else said so that he knows how to phrase his own answers or statements "correctly".
That is the "control freak" facet of his personality making itself shown. He *has* to know what everyone else said so that he knows how to phrase his own answers or statements "correctly".
That is the "control freak" facet of his personality making itself shown. He *has* to know what everyone else said so that he knows how to phrase his own answers or statements "correctly".
It seems entirely likely this article is sourced at least partially my Don McGahn himself and possibly the two witnesses who Trump spoke to. If that is case, what does it say about the case that they are willing to provide this information to the press??
Leaked documents from the NYPD have shown that hundreds of New York police officers have committed crimes from assaulting civilians to lying to grand juries and still retained their jobs. Some officers had committed multiple crimes, and one officer had attacked so many people that the city paid about $900,000 in settlements when people sued in response to the assault. That's seven and a half years of the officer's salary.
That's the thing about misconduct. If you want to prevent it, you need to crack down on it, not paper over it.
You'd think the fiscal consevatives would be up in arms, but you apparently can't put a price on good old police state tactics.
Except that fiscal conservatives are the only people fighting back against public sector unions who prevent local pds from firing people who commit misconduct in the first place.
It's also a joke to believe that conservatives of any sort have any power at all in NY.
And police unions are literally the ONLY unions the right supports (that and firefighters) At least with Scott Walker in Wisconsin, the prime example, as he exempted them from his collective bargaining crackdown a few years ago:
The union battle in Wisconsin a few years ago was among the highest profile in decades. When push came to shove, the police officers, clearly getting the super-citizen treatment, were magically let off the hook.
The numbers don't lie. The only time the contributions were even close (and by close I mean the Democrats got double the money than Republicans did) was during the Trump campaign.
I don't agree with any kind of collectivism, racial pride makes no sense because you have nothing to do with what your ancestors did but if the teacher was a member of a black nationalist or supremacist organization(yes, they exist), nobody will complain.
Comments
It has been stated that law enforcements like sanctuary city status because illegal immigrants are less afraid to talk to them about crimes that are effecting their community. This communication and trust would be broken if the police sold them out to federal authorities.
There is also the argument of does a local officer have the authority to legally detain a person for a federal crime like immigration status?
Reversing the argument, an FBI agent is not allowed to pull you over and charge you for speeding. He does not have the authority to uphold state laws.
Drug crime is generally shared however, since states do have drug trafficking laws in their books.
The *real* problem with sanctuary cities are not the city's positions, in and of themselves, but the anti-sanctuary-city laws I have seen passed. Under many of these laws, if local law enforcement *doesn't* do the Federal Government's job then that local officer could face jail time. In other words, local law enforcement risks jail for *not* doing something--at least the criminals currently in the city jail actually did something to warrant being put in there.
Speaking of people doing the Federal Government's job....it appears that Geek Squad has been searching people's computers at the behest of the FBI for at least 10 years now. Computer broken? Take it to Best Buy's Geek Squad--they will be more than happy to overcharge your for not doing very much, but as long as they have your computer they will pilfer through all your files, reading your documents and looking at your pictures just in case they find something they need to report. I have no doubt they did all sorts of things with the computers while they had them. What's that? You had risque pictures of your wife posing in lingerie or in the nude, all of which is perfectly legal? Well, now that Geek Squad tech has a copy of those pictures, too.
However, of course the bill of rights doesn't apply to private parties. However, its not something we "gave up" because they never bound private parties in the first place.
Elections!
The largest police union condemned sanctuary cities and refusal of cooperation with federal authorities. Of course, they also oppose restricting funding for these cities, but they say that's because it would hurt good police officers, not because they have any love for sanctuary policies.
"There is also the argument of does a local officer have the authority to legally detain a person for a federal crime like immigration status?"
Yes, federal immigration laws can be enforced by the state and a lot of federal laws explicitly say that they can be enforced on the state level. The Attorney General can enter agreement with states to give additional enforcement powers to them so there's a lot of leeway.
The states already have a check on federal power: they enjoy representation in the House and Senate.
The unfortunate reality is that it is nearly impossible to assemble a commission that is recognized as "nonpartisan" to decide such a politically fraught issue. Anyone who didn't get their way would inevitably accuse the commission of partisan bias. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try, but it's a tough issue.
That's the thing about misconduct. If you want to prevent it, you need to crack down on it, not paper over it.
Beyond that, the last 3 or 4 years have made in abundantly clear that police forces in this country are an authority unto themselves, answerable and responsible to no one except in the most extreme circumstances (and usually not even then).
It's also a joke to believe that conservatives of any sort have any power at all in NY.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-gop-and-police-unions-a-love-story
The union battle in Wisconsin a few years ago was among the highest profile in decades. When push came to shove, the police officers, clearly getting the super-citizen treatment, were magically let off the hook.
https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00382556
The numbers don't lie. The only time the contributions were even close (and by close I mean the Democrats got double the money than Republicans did) was during the Trump campaign.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_supremacy
I believe in freedom of association and freedom of speech.