Obama sending US Marshalls to ARREST those who owe federal student loans! Dang libs...

[Skylar]

And, again!!!!

LEOs have discretion is arrests, whether ordered by a court or not.

And again, red herring. As there's zero evidence of any LEO 'discretion' in this case. You know it, I know it.

Any other gloriously irrelevant details that have nothing to do with this case you'd like to bring up?

Well, the voices may tell you I wrote there was evidence of LEO discretion in this case (and I doubt you even know what you're trying to when you type that); however, I've actually posted LEOs have discretion in arrests, whether ordered by the court or not.

Um, sweetie.....you're confused. I'm the one here to tell you that there *isn't* evidence of any LEO discretion in this case. You're here to reaffirm the same by running screaming whenever I ask you to show us even the slightest evidence of LEO discretion.

Demonstrating that your 'discretion' babble has nothing to do with this case. And we both know it.

Any other Red Herrings you'd like to offer?

Shall I clap now that you've beaten your strawman to death?

Still, LEOs have discretion in arrests, whether ordered by the court or not.

You are correct. Law enforcement isn't military. They cannot be court martialed. They have discretion in all areas involving detention of citizens. Yet another beautiful balance of power....cops can say no.

So you're claiming that the marshals don't have to obey a lawful federal court order?

Because Title 28 would most definitely contradict you.

 

[Si modo]

And, again!!!!

LEOs have discretion is arrests, whether ordered by a court or not.

And again, red herring. As there's zero evidence of any LEO 'discretion' in this case. You know it, I know it.

Any other gloriously irrelevant details that have nothing to do with this case you'd like to bring up?

Well, the voices may tell you I wrote there was evidence of LEO discretion in this case (and I doubt you even know what you're trying to when you type that); however, I've actually posted LEOs have discretion in arrests, whether ordered by the court or not.

Um, sweetie.....you're confused. I'm the one here to tell you that there *isn't* evidence of any LEO discretion in this case. You're here to reaffirm the same by running screaming whenever I ask you to show us even the slightest evidence of LEO discretion.

Demonstrating that your 'discretion' babble has nothing to do with this case. And we both know it.

Any other Red Herrings you'd like to offer?

Shall I clap now that you've beaten your strawman to death?

Still, LEOs have discretion in arrests, whether ordered by the court or not.

You are correct. Law enforcement isn't military. They cannot be court martialed. They have discretion in all areas involving detention of citizens. Yet another beautiful balance of power....cops can say no.

Indeed. Since Nuremburg, our government has understood the importance of granting LEOs that discretion.

 

[bucs90]

And, again!!!!

LEOs have discretion is arrests, whether ordered by a court or not.

And again, red herring. As there's zero evidence of any LEO 'discretion' in this case. You know it, I know it.

Any other gloriously irrelevant details that have nothing to do with this case you'd like to bring up?

Well, the voices may tell you I wrote there was evidence of LEO discretion in this case (and I doubt you even know what you're trying to when you type that); however, I've actually posted LEOs have discretion in arrests, whether ordered by the court or not.

Um, sweetie.....you're confused. I'm the one here to tell you that there *isn't* evidence of any LEO discretion in this case. You're here to reaffirm the same by running screaming whenever I ask you to show us even the slightest evidence of LEO discretion.

Demonstrating that your 'discretion' babble has nothing to do with this case. And we both know it.

Any other Red Herrings you'd like to offer?

So If they have no discretion then that means they are under the judges chain of command. And that would mean they have 2 chains of command (Executive and Judicial). Which they don't.

So which is it?

Show us the evidence that there was any LEO 'discretion' in this case. And given your batshit that Obama 'sent' the Marshals, show us that Obama was even aware the case existed?

You can't. There is no such evidence. Your entire thread is a lie. The title is a lie. The OP is a lie. The federal judge that issued the arrest warrant is who sent the marshals. And he was arrested because he refused to appear in court. Not because he had student loan debt.

Hey fag.....the Constitution. 3 branches. They're separate. Cannot command each other.

Marshals are Executive. Therefore....Judicial Branch cannot have chain of command authority. It can empower the executive through warrants. But cannot command it.

 

[Skylar]

Loving that Skylar doesn't even u

And again, red herring. As there's zero evidence of any LEO 'discretion' in this case. You know it, I know it.

Any other gloriously irrelevant details that have nothing to do with this case you'd like to bring up?

Well, the voices may tell you I wrote there was evidence of LEO discretion in this case (and I doubt you even know what you're trying to when you type that); however, I've actually posted LEOs have discretion in arrests, whether ordered by the court or not.

Um, sweetie.....you're confused. I'm the one here to tell you that there *isn't* evidence of any LEO discretion in this case. You're here to reaffirm the same by running screaming whenever I ask you to show us even the slightest evidence of LEO discretion.

Demonstrating that your 'discretion' babble has nothing to do with this case. And we both know it.

Any other Red Herrings you'd like to offer?

Shall I clap now that you've beaten your strawman to death?

Still, LEOs have discretion in arrests, whether ordered by the court or not.

You are correct. Law enforcement isn't military. They cannot be court martialed. They have discretion in all areas involving detention of citizens. Yet another beautiful balance of power....cops can say no.

Indeed. Since Nuremburg, our government has understood the importance of granting LEOs that discretion.

And since we both acknowledge that there was no 'LEO discretion' in this case, why the red herrings?

Is there any part of the OP you haven't completely abandoned?

 

[Si modo]

And again, red herring. As there's zero evidence of any LEO 'discretion' in this case. You know it, I know it.

Any other gloriously irrelevant details that have nothing to do with this case you'd like to bring up?

Well, the voices may tell you I wrote there was evidence of LEO discretion in this case (and I doubt you even know what you're trying to when you type that); however, I've actually posted LEOs have discretion in arrests, whether ordered by the court or not.

Um, sweetie.....you're confused. I'm the one here to tell you that there *isn't* evidence of any LEO discretion in this case. You're here to reaffirm the same by running screaming whenever I ask you to show us even the slightest evidence of LEO discretion.

Demonstrating that your 'discretion' babble has nothing to do with this case. And we both know it.

Any other Red Herrings you'd like to offer?

Shall I clap now that you've beaten your strawman to death?

Still, LEOs have discretion in arrests, whether ordered by the court or not.

You are correct. Law enforcement isn't military. They cannot be court martialed. They have discretion in all areas involving detention of citizens. Yet another beautiful balance of power....cops can say no.

So you're claiming that the marshals don't have to obey a lawful federal court order?

Because Title 28 would most definitely contradict you.

When they are ordered to arrest a person, they have discretion in carrying out that order or not. They are not employees of the court.

 

[bucs90]

And again, red herring. As there's zero evidence of any LEO 'discretion' in this case. You know it, I know it.

Any other gloriously irrelevant details that have nothing to do with this case you'd like to bring up?

Well, the voices may tell you I wrote there was evidence of LEO discretion in this case (and I doubt you even know what you're trying to when you type that); however, I've actually posted LEOs have discretion in arrests, whether ordered by the court or not.

Um, sweetie.....you're confused. I'm the one here to tell you that there *isn't* evidence of any LEO discretion in this case. You're here to reaffirm the same by running screaming whenever I ask you to show us even the slightest evidence of LEO discretion.

Demonstrating that your 'discretion' babble has nothing to do with this case. And we both know it.

Any other Red Herrings you'd like to offer?

Shall I clap now that you've beaten your strawman to death?

Still, LEOs have discretion in arrests, whether ordered by the court or not.

You are correct. Law enforcement isn't military. They cannot be court martialed. They have discretion in all areas involving detention of citizens. Yet another beautiful balance of power....cops can say no.

So you're claiming that the marshals don't have to obey a lawful federal court order?

Because Title 28 would most definitely contradict you.

Is that a criminal Title? As in....Marshals can be arrested and charged if they don't obey it?

 

[Skylar]

And again, red herring. As there's zero evidence of any LEO 'discretion' in this case. You know it, I know it.

Any other gloriously irrelevant details that have nothing to do with this case you'd like to bring up?

Well, the voices may tell you I wrote there was evidence of LEO discretion in this case (and I doubt you even know what you're trying to when you type that); however, I've actually posted LEOs have discretion in arrests, whether ordered by the court or not.

Um, sweetie.....you're confused. I'm the one here to tell you that there *isn't* evidence of any LEO discretion in this case. You're here to reaffirm the same by running screaming whenever I ask you to show us even the slightest evidence of LEO discretion.

Demonstrating that your 'discretion' babble has nothing to do with this case. And we both know it.

Any other Red Herrings you'd like to offer?

So If they have no discretion then that means they are under the judges chain of command. And that would mean they have 2 chains of command (Executive and Judicial). Which they don't.

So which is it?

Show us the evidence that there was any LEO 'discretion' in this case. And given your batshit that Obama 'sent' the Marshals, show us that Obama was even aware the case existed?

You can't. There is no such evidence. Your entire thread is a lie. The title is a lie. The OP is a lie. The federal judge that issued the arrest warrant is who sent the marshals. And he was arrested because he refused to appear in court. Not because he had student loan debt.

Hey fag.....the Constitution. 3 branches. They're separate. Cannot command each other.

Marshals are Executive. Therefore....Judicial Branch cannot have chain of command authority. It can empower the executive through warrants. But cannot command it.

So Kunt....you are arguing that the marshals don't have to obey a lawful court order.

As I said, your ilk fucking hate the law and the constitution.

 

[Si modo]

Loving that Skylar doesn't even u

Well, the voices may tell you I wrote there was evidence of LEO discretion in this case (and I doubt you even know what you're trying to when you type that); however, I've actually posted LEOs have discretion in arrests, whether ordered by the court or not.

Um, sweetie.....you're confused. I'm the one here to tell you that there *isn't* evidence of any LEO discretion in this case. You're here to reaffirm the same by running screaming whenever I ask you to show us even the slightest evidence of LEO discretion.

Demonstrating that your 'discretion' babble has nothing to do with this case. And we both know it.

Any other Red Herrings you'd like to offer?

Shall I clap now that you've beaten your strawman to death?

Still, LEOs have discretion in arrests, whether ordered by the court or not.

You are correct. Law enforcement isn't military. They cannot be court martialed. They have discretion in all areas involving detention of citizens. Yet another beautiful balance of power....cops can say no.

Indeed. Since Nuremburg, our government has understood the importance of granting LEOs that discretion.

And since we both acknowledge that there was no 'LEO discretion' in this case, why the red herrings?

Is there any part of the OP you haven't completely abandoned?

LEO discretion in arrests, whether ordered by the court or not, ALWAYS exists.

 

[bucs90]

Well, the voices may tell you I wrote there was evidence of LEO discretion in this case (and I doubt you even know what you're trying to when you type that); however, I've actually posted LEOs have discretion in arrests, whether ordered by the court or not.

Um, sweetie.....you're confused. I'm the one here to tell you that there *isn't* evidence of any LEO discretion in this case. You're here to reaffirm the same by running screaming whenever I ask you to show us even the slightest evidence of LEO discretion.

Demonstrating that your 'discretion' babble has nothing to do with this case. And we both know it.

Any other Red Herrings you'd like to offer?

Shall I clap now that you've beaten your strawman to death?

Still, LEOs have discretion in arrests, whether ordered by the court or not.

You are correct. Law enforcement isn't military. They cannot be court martialed. They have discretion in all areas involving detention of citizens. Yet another beautiful balance of power....cops can say no.

So you're claiming that the marshals don't have to obey a lawful federal court order?

Because Title 28 would most definitely contradict you.

When they are ordered to arrest a person, they have discretion in carrying out that order or not. They are not employees of the court.

That's exactly right.

 

[Skylar]

Loving that Skylar doesn't even u

Um, sweetie.....you're confused. I'm the one here to tell you that there *isn't* evidence of any LEO discretion in this case. You're here to reaffirm the same by running screaming whenever I ask you to show us even the slightest evidence of LEO discretion.

Demonstrating that your 'discretion' babble has nothing to do with this case. And we both know it.

Any other Red Herrings you'd like to offer?

Shall I clap now that you've beaten your strawman to death?

Still, LEOs have discretion in arrests, whether ordered by the court or not.

You are correct. Law enforcement isn't military. They cannot be court martialed. They have discretion in all areas involving detention of citizens. Yet another beautiful balance of power....cops can say no.

Indeed. Since Nuremburg, our government has understood the importance of granting LEOs that discretion.

And since we both acknowledge that there was no 'LEO discretion' in this case, why the red herrings?

Is there any part of the OP you haven't completely abandoned?

LEO discretion in arrests, whether ordered by the court or not, ALWAYS exists.

Which you've already admitted is irrelevant to this case.....as there was no evidence of any LEO discretion here.

If not for the Red Herring Fallacy, your posts would be little more than punctuation.

 

[Si modo]

Well, the voices may tell you I wrote there was evidence of LEO discretion in this case (and I doubt you even know what you're trying to when you type that); however, I've actually posted LEOs have discretion in arrests, whether ordered by the court or not.

Um, sweetie.....you're confused. I'm the one here to tell you that there *isn't* evidence of any LEO discretion in this case. You're here to reaffirm the same by running screaming whenever I ask you to show us even the slightest evidence of LEO discretion.

Demonstrating that your 'discretion' babble has nothing to do with this case. And we both know it.

Any other Red Herrings you'd like to offer?

Shall I clap now that you've beaten your strawman to death?

Still, LEOs have discretion in arrests, whether ordered by the court or not.

You are correct. Law enforcement isn't military. They cannot be court martialed. They have discretion in all areas involving detention of citizens. Yet another beautiful balance of power....cops can say no.

So you're claiming that the marshals don't have to obey a lawful federal court order?

Because Title 28 would most definitely contradict you.

Is that a criminal Title? As in....Marshals can be arrested and charged if they don't obey it?

It's a judiciary and procedure title.

 

[bucs90]

Well, the voices may tell you I wrote there was evidence of LEO discretion in this case (and I doubt you even know what you're trying to when you type that); however, I've actually posted LEOs have discretion in arrests, whether ordered by the court or not.

Um, sweetie.....you're confused. I'm the one here to tell you that there *isn't* evidence of any LEO discretion in this case. You're here to reaffirm the same by running screaming whenever I ask you to show us even the slightest evidence of LEO discretion.

Demonstrating that your 'discretion' babble has nothing to do with this case. And we both know it.

Any other Red Herrings you'd like to offer?

So If they have no discretion then that means they are under the judges chain of command. And that would mean they have 2 chains of command (Executive and Judicial). Which they don't.

So which is it?

Show us the evidence that there was any LEO 'discretion' in this case. And given your batshit that Obama 'sent' the Marshals, show us that Obama was even aware the case existed?

You can't. There is no such evidence. Your entire thread is a lie. The title is a lie. The OP is a lie. The federal judge that issued the arrest warrant is who sent the marshals. And he was arrested because he refused to appear in court. Not because he had student loan debt.

Hey fag.....the Constitution. 3 branches. They're separate. Cannot command each other.

Marshals are Executive. Therefore....Judicial Branch cannot have chain of command authority. It can empower the executive through warrants. But cannot command it.

So Kunt....you are arguing that the marshals don't have to obey a lawful court order.

As I said, your ilk fucking hate the law and the constitution.

Depends. Will they be arrested or charged if they dont?

 

[Si modo]

Loving that Skylar doesn't even u

Shall I clap now that you've beaten your strawman to death?

Still, LEOs have discretion in arrests, whether ordered by the court or not.

You are correct. Law enforcement isn't military. They cannot be court martialed. They have discretion in all areas involving detention of citizens. Yet another beautiful balance of power....cops can say no.

Indeed. Since Nuremburg, our government has understood the importance of granting LEOs that discretion.

And since we both acknowledge that there was no 'LEO discretion' in this case, why the red herrings?

Is there any part of the OP you haven't completely abandoned?

LEO discretion in arrests, whether ordered by the court or not, ALWAYS exists.

Which you've already admitted is irrelevant to this case......

Where did I admit that?

LEOs have discretion in arrests, whether ordered by the court or not. That's far from an irrelevant fact.

 

[bucs90]

Um, sweetie.....you're confused. I'm the one here to tell you that there *isn't* evidence of any LEO discretion in this case. You're here to reaffirm the same by running screaming whenever I ask you to show us even the slightest evidence of LEO discretion.

Demonstrating that your 'discretion' babble has nothing to do with this case. And we both know it.

Any other Red Herrings you'd like to offer?

Shall I clap now that you've beaten your strawman to death?

Still, LEOs have discretion in arrests, whether ordered by the court or not.

You are correct. Law enforcement isn't military. They cannot be court martialed. They have discretion in all areas involving detention of citizens. Yet another beautiful balance of power....cops can say no.

So you're claiming that the marshals don't have to obey a lawful federal court order?

Because Title 28 would most definitely contradict you.

Is that a criminal Title? As in....Marshals can be arrested and charged if they don't obey it?

It's a judiciary and procedure title.

Ah...just as I suspected. So no....they don't HAVE to obey it...just strongly requested.

 

[Skylar]

Um, sweetie.....you're confused. I'm the one here to tell you that there *isn't* evidence of any LEO discretion in this case. You're here to reaffirm the same by running screaming whenever I ask you to show us even the slightest evidence of LEO discretion.

Demonstrating that your 'discretion' babble has nothing to do with this case. And we both know it.

Any other Red Herrings you'd like to offer?

Shall I clap now that you've beaten your strawman to death?

Still, LEOs have discretion in arrests, whether ordered by the court or not.

You are correct. Law enforcement isn't military. They cannot be court martialed. They have discretion in all areas involving detention of citizens. Yet another beautiful balance of power....cops can say no.

So you're claiming that the marshals don't have to obey a lawful federal court order?

Because Title 28 would most definitely contradict you.

When they are ordered to arrest a person, they have discretion in carrying out that order or not. They are not employees of the court.

That's exactly right.

And so after abandoning your every lie about Obama 'sending' the marshals to arrest this guy, after lying about why he was arrested, after utterly blundering on who actually sent the marshals to arrest the man, after misrepresenting every relevant fact of the case....

.......your argument has degenerated into the claim that the marshals aren't required to obey a lawful court order.

Laughing......there's no creature that despises our law, our constitution and our law enforcement officers.....than the American Conservative.

 

[Skylar]

Loving that Skylar doesn't even u

You are correct. Law enforcement isn't military. They cannot be court martialed. They have discretion in all areas involving detention of citizens. Yet another beautiful balance of power....cops can say no.

Indeed. Since Nuremburg, our government has understood the importance of granting LEOs that discretion.

And since we both acknowledge that there was no 'LEO discretion' in this case, why the red herrings?

Is there any part of the OP you haven't completely abandoned?

LEO discretion in arrests, whether ordered by the court or not, ALWAYS exists.

Which you've already admitted is irrelevant to this case......

Where did I admit that?

LEOs have discretion in arrests, whether ordered by the court or not. That's far from an irrelevant fact.

As you've been utterly unable to demonstrate *any* evidence of LEO discretion in this case, its irrelevant to the arrest we're discussing.

Its the same red herring fallacy with you again and again.

 

[Skylar]

Shall I clap now that you've beaten your strawman to death?

Still, LEOs have discretion in arrests, whether ordered by the court or not.

You are correct. Law enforcement isn't military. They cannot be court martialed. They have discretion in all areas involving detention of citizens. Yet another beautiful balance of power....cops can say no.

So you're claiming that the marshals don't have to obey a lawful federal court order?

Because Title 28 would most definitely contradict you.

Is that a criminal Title? As in....Marshals can be arrested and charged if they don't obey it?

It's a judiciary and procedure title.

Ah...just as I suspected. So no....they don't HAVE to obey it...just strongly requested.

Laughing......so now the law is merely a 'strong request'?

Silly conservatives must think the constitution and the USC is 2-ply. As they keep trying to wipe their asses with it.

 

[bucs90]

You are correct. Law enforcement isn't military. They cannot be court martialed. They have discretion in all areas involving detention of citizens. Yet another beautiful balance of power....cops can say no.

So you're claiming that the marshals don't have to obey a lawful federal court order?

Because Title 28 would most definitely contradict you.

Is that a criminal Title? As in....Marshals can be arrested and charged if they don't obey it?

It's a judiciary and procedure title.

Ah...just as I suspected. So no....they don't HAVE to obey it...just strongly requested.

Laughing......so now the law is merely a 'strong request'?

Silly conservatives must think the constitution and the USC is 2-ply. As they keep trying to wipe their asses with it.

Yes. Some laws are criminal and punitive and others are procedural and structural...like a policy manual.

So....what's the fine and sentence for a Marshal if they disobey a judges order to serve a warrant?

 

[Si modo]

Which you've already admitted is irrelevant to this case......

Where did I admit that?

LEOs have discretion in arrests, whether ordered by the court or not. That's far from an irrelevant fact.

As you've been utterly unable to demonstrate *any* evidence of LEO discretion in this case, its irrelevant to the arrest we're discussing.

Its the same red herring fallacy with you again and again.

LEOs discretion in arrests is always relevant in an arrest.

Now, where did I "admit" it was irrelevant?

I'll save you some time...the voices in your head told you I said that.

 

[Skylar]

So you're claiming that the marshals don't have to obey a lawful federal court order?

Because Title 28 would most definitely contradict you.

Is that a criminal Title? As in....Marshals can be arrested and charged if they don't obey it?

It's a judiciary and procedure title.

Ah...just as I suspected. So no....they don't HAVE to obey it...just strongly requested.

Laughing......so now the law is merely a 'strong request'?

Silly conservatives must think the constitution and the USC is 2-ply. As they keep trying to wipe their asses with it.

Yes. Some laws are criminal and punitive and others are procedural and structural...like a policy manual.

So....what's the fine and sentence for a Marshal if they disobey a judges order to serve a warrant?

I've got you on record, Bucky. I've already bookmarked this thread. Your insistence that the marshals don't have to obey a lawful court order because the law is merely a 'strong suggestion'....is going to be spanking you for years.

Alas, I can't really get the same mileage out of your OP being a lie. As you're kinda famous for that. Accusing you of lying in the OP would be like accusing water of being wet.