Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
This judge intentionally bent legal reasoning in such a way to erroneously rule so fmg could go on without legal challenge despite it being against federal child sex abuse law. He sure as hell did aid the butchers that cut up little girls. Judge Rules In Favor Of Child Genital Mutilation – DimWit PoliticsLearn to read. Said judge "aided" nothing; he simply ruled that the Constitution does not permit a law to be applied in the way it was applied. Which is his fucking JOB.
This judge intentionally bent legal reasoning in such a way to erroneously rule so fmg could go on without legal challenge despite it being against federal child sex abuse law. He sure as hell did aid the butchers that cut up little girls. Judge Rules In Favor Of Child Genital Mutilation – DimWit PoliticsLearn to read. Said judge "aided" nothing; he simply ruled that the Constitution does not permit a law to be applied in the way it was applied. Which is his fucking JOB.
Oh, brother. You really need to let go of that. Trump won, that's reality. Kavanaugh's on the court, that's also reality, and it's not going to change. Even if Trump is impeached and removed from office, it's not going to change. Play the hand you're dealt.
Actually, I read every single word, comma and period of my link and remain just as convinced as ever that this hack dingbat judge made a ghastly ruling and his ruling must have been politically motivated because it sure wasn't motivated by common sense and the law.This judge intentionally bent legal reasoning in such a way to erroneously rule so fmg could go on without legal challenge despite it being against federal child sex abuse law. He sure as hell did aid the butchers that cut up little girls. Judge Rules In Favor Of Child Genital Mutilation – DimWit PoliticsLearn to read. Said judge "aided" nothing; he simply ruled that the Constitution does not permit a law to be applied in the way it was applied. Which is his fucking JOB.
As usual, a poster fails to read his own link:
>> In Judge Friedman’s ruling, he stated that the comparison of FGM to healthcare was unsuitable because FGM was actually a form of physical assault, not anything approaching a healthcare service. As it turns out, what failed the case was the government citing this section in its brief that dealth [sic] with abortion services and healthcare, generally. <<
The argument for the law had been --- and this is also in your same link --- that "FGM is a form of healthcare" and since the government can regulate healthcare, it can regulate FGM. And what the judge said is no it's NOT a form of healthcare". He even (correctly) characterizes FGM as physical assault.
It's apparent you've never been anywhere near the law process but this is how it works. The law is defended on a logical basis, and the judge decides that the BASIS --- not the act of FGM but the basis of the argument ---- is flawed. The judge has no jurisdiction to declare what FGM is or isn't. His authority is to declare whether the law is Constitutional. It's entirely possible to pass a badly written law that does good things but does them in the wrong way. That's all there is to it. So your characterization that the judge made some judgement about FGM is 100% Grade A Bullshit. The only judgment he made about FGM was to call it 'physical assault' --- which it is but that's not binding because it's not his job.
YOUR OWN LINK.
Then there's the link in the OP of this thread, which further explained:
>> U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman concluded that "as despicable as this practice may be," Congress did not have the authority to pass the 22-year-old federal law that criminalizes female genital mutilation, and that FGM is for the states to regulate.
... "As laudable as the prohibition of a particular type of abuse of girls may be ... federalism concerns deprive Congress of the power to enact this statute," Friedman wrote in his 28-page opinion, noting: "Congress overstepped its bounds by legislating to prohibit FGM ... FGM is a 'local criminal activity' which, in keeping with long-standing tradition and our federal system of government, is for the states to regulate, not Congress." <<
**CLEARLY** his entire thrust is about how it can be done and who has the authority to do it, and just as clearly the judge agrees with the rest of us that the practice itself is disgusting. So your revisionist history trying to paint him into the opposite corner from where he is, is just blatantly dishonest hackery, and accomplishes absolutely nothing beyond perpetuating the continuance of the disgusting practice by diverting attention away from it just so you can put up some message board partisan hackery "points".
Oh, brother. You really need to let go of that. Trump won, that's reality. Kavanaugh's on the court, that's also reality, and it's not going to change. Even if Trump is impeached and removed from office, it's not going to change. Play the hand you're dealt.
That's pretty much how the Nazis win... when decent people give up.
You don't have to like either one of those guys to gain a true perspective on reality.
You don't have to like either one of those guys to gain a true perspective on reality.
Reality, Trump is going to be frog marched out of the white house in chains. and people like you will deny you ever supported him.
Not so. Number one, that won't happen even if you get your wet dream and he's convicted of something, and number two, sure I'll say I supported him right up until he is proven to deserve justice. You can support some things a person does while not supporting other things. At least conservatives are capable of such nuance.
Are all liberals incapable of nuance? Maybe it's a maturity thing.
Actually, I read every single word, comma and period of my link and remain just as convinced as ever that this hack dingbat judge made a ghastly ruling and his ruling must have been politically motivated because it sure wasn't motivated by common sense and the law.This judge intentionally bent legal reasoning in such a way to erroneously rule so fmg could go on without legal challenge despite it being against federal child sex abuse law. He sure as hell did aid the butchers that cut up little girls. Judge Rules In Favor Of Child Genital Mutilation – DimWit PoliticsLearn to read. Said judge "aided" nothing; he simply ruled that the Constitution does not permit a law to be applied in the way it was applied. Which is his fucking JOB.
As usual, a poster fails to read his own link:
>> In Judge Friedman’s ruling, he stated that the comparison of FGM to healthcare was unsuitable because FGM was actually a form of physical assault, not anything approaching a healthcare service. As it turns out, what failed the case was the government citing this section in its brief that dealth [sic] with abortion services and healthcare, generally. <<
The argument for the law had been --- and this is also in your same link --- that "FGM is a form of healthcare" and since the government can regulate healthcare, it can regulate FGM. And what the judge said is no it's NOT a form of healthcare". He even (correctly) characterizes FGM as physical assault.
It's apparent you've never been anywhere near the law process but this is how it works. The law is defended on a logical basis, and the judge decides that the BASIS --- not the act of FGM but the basis of the argument ---- is flawed. The judge has no jurisdiction to declare what FGM is or isn't. His authority is to declare whether the law is Constitutional. It's entirely possible to pass a badly written law that does good things but does them in the wrong way. That's all there is to it. So your characterization that the judge made some judgement about FGM is 100% Grade A Bullshit. The only judgment he made about FGM was to call it 'physical assault' --- which it is but that's not binding because it's not his job.
YOUR OWN LINK.
Then there's the link in the OP of this thread, which further explained:
>> U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman concluded that "as despicable as this practice may be," Congress did not have the authority to pass the 22-year-old federal law that criminalizes female genital mutilation, and that FGM is for the states to regulate.
... "As laudable as the prohibition of a particular type of abuse of girls may be ... federalism concerns deprive Congress of the power to enact this statute," Friedman wrote in his 28-page opinion, noting: "Congress overstepped its bounds by legislating to prohibit FGM ... FGM is a 'local criminal activity' which, in keeping with long-standing tradition and our federal system of government, is for the states to regulate, not Congress." <<
**CLEARLY** his entire thrust is about how it can be done and who has the authority to do it, and just as clearly the judge agrees with the rest of us that the practice itself is disgusting. So your revisionist history trying to paint him into the opposite corner from where he is, is just blatantly dishonest hackery, and accomplishes absolutely nothing beyond perpetuating the continuance of the disgusting practice by diverting attention away from it just so you can put up some message board partisan hackery "points".
That you get behind this judicial quackery demonstrates where you are coming from...a place of foolish idiocy. Must be your San Francisco sense of justice.
If federal law guarantees civil rights to all then on what basis is this asshole judge ruling that only states have the right to ban female genital mutilation? Does a female child not have the right as a United States citizen to be free from being held down and having her genitals sliced up and all potential future sexual experiences robbed from her forever?
Yes, I know what this judge ruled and I find it appalling and disgraceful. His reasoning is b.s. though you seem to applaud it which doesn't surprise me. Children are constitutionally guaranteed the right to be free from abuse of any sort, and that includes the right not to be mutilated bodily.
The judge himself calls fgm a form of physical assault. If Minnesota or Michigan or any other state won't come out of the dark ages and fails to protect a girl from this sort of abuse specifically the federal government has already stepped in and outlawed all forms of grievous physical harm whether performed by a monstrous doctor or not.
Congress does not have the "authority" that the constitution gave them to pass a law that criminalizes fgm?
What are you smoking, Chuck? You are a bigger clown than the judge, apparently.
Look for this fool's ruling to be overturned on appeal.
Not so. Number one, that won't happen even if you get your wet dream and he's convicted of something, and number two, sure I'll say I supported him right up until he is proven to deserve justice. You can support some things a person does while not supporting other things. At least conservatives are capable of such nuance.
Are all liberals incapable of nuance? Maybe it's a maturity thing.
Yeah, somehow I can't go along with GASSING FUCKING CHILDREN because I like a tax cut that we can't afford.
Another Von Papen Republican heard from.
You've come a long way from female genital mutilation is older than Islam therefore somehow it isn't their fault. And now, after arguing the matter dozens of times you must have finally read one of my links and now you are arguing a whole new tune presenting a whole new rational for why this judge wouldn't stop Michigan, Illinois and Minnesota from this barbaric act. And acting like a smug dick the whole time!What he struck down was ---- once AGAIN for the intellectually emptypocketed who couldn't read it the first 18 times ---------- the argument that the law is based on FGM being "health care". That, and the fact that the law was passed under the Commerce Clause, which has nothing to do with the practice of FGM. In other words it's a badly written law. Good intentions, bad execution.
You mean what Obama did regularly at the border?
You mean what Obama did regularly at the border?
Nope. That's a lie. One incident involving adult men... you guys just can't fuck helping lying.
This is what you are defending, Asshole.
View attachment 232214
stop fucking lying and stop using "But, but, but Obama" you racist asshat.
This judge intentionally bent legal reasoning in such a way to erroneously rule so fmg could go on without legal challenge despite it being against federal child sex abuse law. He sure as hell did aid the butchers that cut up little girls. Judge Rules In Favor Of Child Genital Mutilation – DimWit PoliticsLearn to read. Said judge "aided" nothing; he simply ruled that the Constitution does not permit a law to be applied in the way it was applied. Which is his fucking JOB.
As usual, a poster fails to read his own link:
>> In Judge Friedman’s ruling, he stated that the comparison of FGM to healthcare was unsuitable because FGM was actually a form of physical assault, not anything approaching a healthcare service. As it turns out, what failed the case was the government citing this section in its brief that dealth [sic] with abortion services and healthcare, generally. <<
The argument for the law had been --- and this is also in your same link --- that "FGM is a form of healthcare" and since the government can regulate healthcare, it can regulate FGM. And what the judge said is no it's NOT a form of healthcare". He even (correctly) characterizes FGM as physical assault.
It's apparent you've never been anywhere near the law process but this is how it works. The law is defended on a logical basis, and the judge decides that the BASIS --- not the act of FGM but the basis of the argument ---- is flawed. The judge has no jurisdiction to declare what FGM is or isn't. His authority is to declare whether the law is Constitutional. It's entirely possible to pass a badly written law that does good things but does them in the wrong way. That's all there is to it. So your characterization that the judge made some judgement about FGM is 100% Grade A Bullshit. The only judgment he made about FGM was to call it 'physical assault' --- which it is but that's not binding because it's not his job.
YOUR OWN LINK.
Then there's the link in the OP of this thread, which further explained:
>> U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman concluded that "as despicable as this practice may be," Congress did not have the authority to pass the 22-year-old federal law that criminalizes female genital mutilation, and that FGM is for the states to regulate.
... "As laudable as the prohibition of a particular type of abuse of girls may be ... federalism concerns deprive Congress of the power to enact this statute," Friedman wrote in his 28-page opinion, noting: "Congress overstepped its bounds by legislating to prohibit FGM ... FGM is a 'local criminal activity' which, in keeping with long-standing tradition and our federal system of government, is for the states to regulate, not Congress." <<
**CLEARLY** his entire thrust is about how it can be done and who has the authority to do it, and just as clearly the judge agrees with the rest of us that the practice itself is disgusting. So your revisionist history trying to paint him into the opposite corner from where he is, is just blatantly dishonest hackery, and accomplishes absolutely nothing beyond perpetuating the continuance of the disgusting practice by diverting attention away from it just so you can put up some message board partisan hackery "points".
Part of the prosecution's argument was the doctor at the middle of this all was bound by federal law because she was funded partially with federal funds, as I understand the issue.The judge says otherwise.So the judge was nudging a higher court to approach the arguments from an assault standpoint? Maybe argument re: healthcare might have been framed around assault being a form of malpractice & child abuse as defined in CAPTA?
By the way, if rape victims can be treated for injuries and trauma due to rape under Obama Care how would the victim of female genital mutilation not be considered a matter for health care also under Obama Care?
Just wondering why certain types of sexual trauma are considered a matter for health care but not others.
John Roberts found that Obama Care was really a tax, when not even the Obama lawyers themselves would make that argument. Judge Friedman could find a distinction between
the victims of sexual assault (a matter of healthcare) and the victims of female genital mutilation (assault)?
What an interesting ruling he made. Seems like both would be a matter of healthcare to me
and most rational people.
This judge intentionally bent legal reasoning in such a way to erroneously rule so fmg could go on without legal challenge despite it being against federal child sex abuse law. He sure as hell did aid the butchers that cut up little girls. Judge Rules In Favor Of Child Genital Mutilation – DimWit PoliticsLearn to read. Said judge "aided" nothing; he simply ruled that the Constitution does not permit a law to be applied in the way it was applied. Which is his fucking JOB.
As usual, a poster fails to read his own link:
>> In Judge Friedman’s ruling, he stated that the comparison of FGM to healthcare was unsuitable because FGM was actually a form of physical assault, not anything approaching a healthcare service. As it turns out, what failed the case was the government citing this section in its brief that dealth [sic] with abortion services and healthcare, generally. <<
The argument for the law had been --- and this is also in your same link --- that "FGM is a form of healthcare" and since the government can regulate healthcare, it can regulate FGM. And what the judge said is no it's NOT a form of healthcare". He even (correctly) characterizes FGM as physical assault.
It's apparent you've never been anywhere near the law process but this is how it works. The law is defended on a logical basis, and the judge decides that the BASIS --- not the act of FGM but the basis of the argument ---- is flawed. The judge has no jurisdiction to declare what FGM is or isn't. His authority is to declare whether the law is Constitutional. It's entirely possible to pass a badly written law that does good things but does them in the wrong way. That's all there is to it. So your characterization that the judge made some judgement about FGM is 100% Grade A Bullshit. The only judgment he made about FGM was to call it 'physical assault' --- which it is but that's not binding because it's not his job.
YOUR OWN LINK.
Then there's the link in the OP of this thread, which further explained:
>> U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman concluded that "as despicable as this practice may be," Congress did not have the authority to pass the 22-year-old federal law that criminalizes female genital mutilation, and that FGM is for the states to regulate.
... "As laudable as the prohibition of a particular type of abuse of girls may be ... federalism concerns deprive Congress of the power to enact this statute," Friedman wrote in his 28-page opinion, noting: "Congress overstepped its bounds by legislating to prohibit FGM ... FGM is a 'local criminal activity' which, in keeping with long-standing tradition and our federal system of government, is for the states to regulate, not Congress." <<
**CLEARLY** his entire thrust is about how it can be done and who has the authority to do it, and just as clearly the judge agrees with the rest of us that the practice itself is disgusting. So your revisionist history trying to paint him into the opposite corner from where he is, is just blatantly dishonest hackery, and accomplishes absolutely nothing beyond perpetuating the continuance of the disgusting practice by diverting attention away from it just so you can put up some message board partisan hackery "points".
So the judge was nudging a higher court to approach the arguments from an assault standpoint? Maybe argument re: healthcare might have been framed around assault being a form of malpractice & child abuse as defined in CAPTA?
In a welcome development Dr. M.Zuhdi Jasser, (American Islamic Fund for Democracy) an enlightened Muslim leader, has condemned the ruling of judge Friedman and I have to agree wholeheartedly. Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, Founder and President of American Islamic Forum for Democracy, Rebukes Judge's Dismissal of FGM Charges
Female Genital Mutilation: American Muslim Physician Says Stop Defending the Abuse of Girls and Women
As he said if the cutting of young frightened girls is not done due to medical emergency but for some twisted religious or ideological reason then that's abuse! And the federal government has every right to intervene if the cretins in Illinois, Minnesota and Michigan will not act out of cowardice.
The evil brilliance of opening our immigration system to people that live by the dictates of an antithetical religion that clashes with our society that recognizes no official religion is that they will forever be a wedge when it comes to issues like female genital mutilation and they will elect politicians that owe allegiance to Islam rather than the nation itself.
In any case I don't see Islam ever doing much, if anything, to end the barbaric custom
so in a sense Islam is sponsoring the practice. In a very real sense.
The Imams could issue official condemnations but it doesn't seem to bother them all that much, if at all.
One of the many hells here on earth is to be born a girl into a strict Muslim family.
So it's a piddling meaningless distinction to claim Islam did not start the practice when it does nothing to stop it among it's many members.
... That's the difference between a moral and immoral religion. Just like the rape gangs that flourish in the UK, Germany, Sweden, etc. Mohammad's followers feel entitled to rape women who aren't Muslims and their religion with the fifth century mind set continues to plague the earth.
I'm sorry. What do you do when you see something for the first time that contradicts a previously held position?See also posts 56 and 62. Kinda fun watching you contradict yourself.
You let us know who wins. And consider that this internal contradiction would not have been necessary had you not adopted the dishonest position in the first place.
