Agreed. I see the State of Washington filed a lawsuit over this EO. Washington says it has standing to sue because Trump's interference with immigration "affects business in the state".
Wow! Who knew that states have authority over immigration when business is affected? For the last eight years, every time a state like Arizona tried to enact some kind of immigration-affecting law in the face of complete federal inaction, we were told in no uncertain terms that immigration is solely a federal issue, per the Constitution, and the states have no say about the matter at all.
I'm sure Arizona could make a decent case that the virtually unchecked flow of illegals over its border affects business in that state, but they were told no over and over again. Now suddenly the leftists have discovered the wonders of states rights and federalism. Now suddenly states have a seat at the immigration table after all. Now suddenly it's not solely a federal issue that the states should stay out of.
The same goes for the mayors and councils of all these "sanctuary cities". Amazing how they went from "immigration is federal only" to "we have a right to have our own immigration policies" almost overnight.
As for Mr. Cushing:
> President Trump has made it clear he'll cut off this flow > to cities that care more about immigrants than he does.
More like, "...cities that care more about illegal immigrants who have committed additional crimes while in the US then he does."
> but it also helped those that just wanted to get home.
And there's the problem. The goal of the bohemian chanters is to disrupt and annoy innocent people as much as possible and anything that undermines their attempt to make a commute or a shopping experience or a parade a living hell must be condemned.
Why is it that every time a group of unwashed hipsters gets in a snit these days, everyone is supposed to bend over backward in support of them and their "message" and if you don't, if you just carry on with your life and your business as you normally would, you're somehow Satan or Hitler or some goddam thing?
Even from a practical standpoint, I've never understood the point of these clauses. At most, they only bind the person receiving the service from engaging in non-disparagement. They have no effect on that person's friends and family.
Instead of Angry Customer going on RipOffReport.com and complaining about iGeniuses, Angry Customer's Daughter can do it:
"So my dad took his computer to this repair shop and let me tell you about the crappy service he got..."
Even if these clauses were legally valid, there's nothing the could do about that.
> The front-seat passenger should, insofar as possible, be > functioning as a co-pilot, reinforcing the driver's > external alertness. The front-seat passenger's visual > acuity should be focused a couple of hundred feet ahead > of the car
That's baloney. The passenger has no obligation-- legal or otherwise-- to help drive the car. In fact, in many cases, the passenger may be asleep so that he/she can switch places and spell the driver later.
That being the case, there is no justification for mandating the use of technology that would not only block the driver's use of a phone, but would block all the passengers' as well.
And even if they did start making cars with that tech today, there are still hundreds of millions of cars on the road right now without it, so the effect on safety would be non-existent. And to hell with you if you're suggesting forcing me to take my non-equipped car into a dealer to have them install this equipment (at my expense, of course). That just ain't gonna happen.
> A patent granted in 2012 details an in-car dock for cell > phones that won't allow the vehicle to turn on until the > device is docked and in hands-free mode.
What if you don't own a cell phone or didn't bring it with you, left it at home, etc.? Does this docking device just assume everyone has a cell phone and won't allow the car to run until some phone is shoved into the dock?
And what about passengers? It would be a simple thing when there are multiple phones in the car to use one as an ignition activator and still use one of the other phones for all the bad stuff.
Exactly. This idea that the president is responsible for the actions of local cops is ridiculous. I don't understand where TechDirt authors get this stuff.
Obama wasn't responsible for the cops who arrested journalists in Missouri and Trump isn't responsible for the cops who arrested journalists in DC. Not only is the president not responsible, the president has no legal authority over local police. They don't report to him.
> "Rampant underage access." That's a hell of a phrase. I > wonder if the Israeli government has any stats to back up > this assertion.
It's pretty much common sense. I remember what it was like being a pre-teen boy. We were always trying to sneak looks at dad's Playboy stash or descramble Cinemax After Dark. It's just what boys (and girls, also) do.
Given the ease with which anyone can access porn on the net, it's absurd to think hormone-driven kids aren't going after it with gusto.
Not that I support government censorship, but let's be realistic here.
> It's easy for some people to just say "Well, don't use Facebook," but for many > people that's not really an option these days. You may have that luxury, but > many people do not. Facebook has become a key way to stay in touch with > family.
I can't imagine how horrifying it must be to wake up one day and find out that doing without Facebook simply isn't an option anymore. I mean, seriously. That would be depressing on a level I can't comprehend.
Also, I wonder how families stayed in touch with one another in the pre-Zuckerberg Epoch? What dark, hellish times those must have been.
Then it's the job of the other journalists after the debate to highlight the lies and provide the truth.
The moderator is just the moderator, not a journalist. Even if he/she is a journalist in their day job, when they're acting as a moderator, they're not journalists. They are two entirely different jobs.