Balta1701

QUOTE (G&T @ Apr 28, 2010 -> 03:31 PM) Bad faith requires acting without any reason or justification based on fact. The real purpose of the exception is provide a remedy for legals who are detained despite showing proper ID. The provision has nothing to do with the mandate of an agency. No, that's not what it says at all. This bad faith provision is quite explicitly saying that officers can't be sued for following the rules of their governing authority...but the indemnity goes away if the officer doesn't follow local rules.

Have you ever wondered what it would be like to play Super Mario Bros. As Mega man?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 28, 2010 -> 03:08 PM) The law gives a person a right to sue the state/agency that adopts/implements a policy that is less than Federal Law. It doesn't involve individual police officers, or their actions. They could do whatever they want and never get sued for it (in the context of this law). It's all about the agency/office (and I think maybe the head of that agency/office). You've been harping on this point for 2 days now. Where are you getting this from? Actually, there's a "Bad faith" exemption that would allow a specific officer to be the target of a lawsuit. Which could easily mean that he or she are subject to a lawsuit if his jurisdiction mandates some level of checking detail and he or she does not do the full check, or something along those lines. Secondly, the way the lawsuit clause is worded, it's quite clear that including the phrase "federal law" is not designed to provide an exemption, it's referring to the clauses in federal law that make it illegal for them to be here. Basically, it's saying that if the feds have not explicitly banned something that would enforce immigration laws, the municipality can be sued if they don't do it. It doesn't say "up to the standards of federal law", it says "To the full extent permitted" by federal law. To put it 1 way...you're not allowed to shoot a bunch of hispanic looking people, because that violates other aspects of federal law. But if the Feds have not said "You're not allowed to do a detain and do a detailed immigration check in these circumstances", the agency can be sued if they adopt a policy that doesn't require the most stringent check possible. And then, an officer choosing not to follow those regulations would be subject to legal action for acting in bad faith. The most stringent rules possible are required to avoid a lawsuit, and officers can be given no discretion in application of those rules.

Make any web page look like it was made by a 13 year old in 1996.

QUOTE (G&T @ Apr 28, 2010 -> 02:27 PM) I think you are misreading that section. It states "adopts or implements a policy." That requires either an official act from the police chief, for example, or a tacit disapproval of the law leading to it not being enforced. I base my interpretation on the language of the remedy because the remedy is determined based on days that policy remained in effect. A citizen cannot, by my reading, sue a police officer for not arresting someone. Certainly true that there won't be a lawsuit filed against a single police officer for not checking that. However, the individual police officer is going to have to do the checks that his municipality insists upon, correct? If the city/county/state puts out rules saying that the officer doesn't have to do a detailed check, that opens them up at that level to legal action. On the other hand, if the city/county/state puts out the most stringent rules possible, then either the officer goes forward in all cases with a full, detailed check of all documents or the officer is violating his rules.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 28, 2010 -> 02:16 PM) Do we leave Jones in the OF with Q and Rios and make Pierre a bench player? Sign me up. At this point, yeah, you take your pick out of Q and Pierre who you bench. The Red Sox have Lowell and Beltre at 3rd, Youkilis at 1b, Martinez and Ortiz, and a lot of them can rotate through the DH slot. But with Ortiz's struggles, its pretty obvious why they're involved in every talk involving a 1b bat.

A few months ago I predicted, telling Ranger specifically I think, that it might not be long before some teams were regretting not putting together a solid DH and trying out the rotating DH scheme. So far this season, the DH numbers for the AL are significantly down from previous years (.746 OPS versus .775-.800 the last few years) and a lot of teams are struggling mightily from the spot, including the Sox.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 28, 2010 -> 02:11 PM) That's sort of my point. If it can't go further than that, what does a cop do, if he is presented with what appears to be a valid passport or other ID? He should really do nothing more, but the way the law is written, they are pushing for something more, that is intrusive and impractical. And they can be potentially sued if they don't push for more.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 28, 2010 -> 02:13 PM) Where would he play?! Seriously. What happens to Paulie? Do we shop him elsewhere in a 3 way deal? Or would he part of the deal and MIL can just let him go after this year? You don't trade for Fielder so that he can play effective 1b defense. He's as ideal of a DH as there is in baseball.

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Apr 28, 2010 -> 01:54 PM) i wonder how many illegal Canadians will be caught with this new law. Do any of them look like Mexicans?

WTF?

QUOTE (G&T @ Apr 28, 2010 -> 01:24 PM) It won't go that far. For example, under the Immigration Reform and Control Act, employers are only required to check citizenship documents to determine if they are facially valid. The document need only reasonably appear to be valid on its face. That's about as far as any police officer should be required to go. But think about the lawsuit provision here. If there's anything in the state or national laws that suggests a police officer has to go farther and doesn't, that's a lawsuit opening.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Apr 28, 2010 -> 12:25 PM) The Kennedy Family? Without offense...I really wonder if this could have happened last year. I understand there were personal reasons for his opposition, but man, that pissed me off.

QUOTE (smalls2598 @ Apr 28, 2010 -> 11:17 AM) And would the Bulls even have anyone left under contract to make the sign+trade work? Unless Deng is somehow involved, is it possible? Since the Bulls are under the cap by the amount of a max deal...the Bulls can basically trade anyone to the Raptors because the Bulls can take on up to a max deal in any trade. The Bulls could trade their first round pick for Bosh, Hinrich for Bosh, Deng for Bosh, or anyone else on their roster. They could also, I believe, sign any of the guys on their roster who are currently FA's and deal them for Bosh.

QUOTE (G&T @ Apr 28, 2010 -> 11:41 AM) Cars are a bad example because you have to have a valid driver's license or passport (if not a US citizen) to drive here legally. So if you can't show ID, you get arrested, the police figure out the guy is illegally in the US without breaking any law. The issue is more problematic when talking about the average guy on the street. I can't wait until there's a police officer working security at some MLB spring training game and either Ozzie or one of his sons winds up deported.

QUOTE (fathom @ Apr 28, 2010 -> 12:58 PM) Greg Walker sucks at his job. Alex Rios and Mark Teahen say hi.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Apr 28, 2010 -> 10:47 AM) One step at a time This is a huge step if true. It's stepping over a gigantic roadblock.

QUOTE (fathom @ Apr 28, 2010 -> 10:46 AM) I could see Milwaukee trading for Bucholz, Bard, and others for Prince. What happens when the Supply of $25 million 1b/dh types available in trades is greater than the demand for them?

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Apr 28, 2010 -> 10:42 AM) Sources: Secretary to OK Cape Cod wind turbine project CapeWind.org YAY!

Gosh, decided on a 5-4 decision. Who'd have imagined that? I wonder who the 5 were on the majority.

QUOTE (Tex @ Apr 28, 2010 -> 10:41 AM) If they have a passport and VISA they are not here illegally. Just boosting our tourism dollars. This area is a ghost town without Mexican Nationals and the hundreds of millions of dollars they pump into our local economy. And if they leave those documents safely stored in their hotel room safe, they get deported.

QUOTE (G&T @ Apr 28, 2010 -> 10:33 AM) Only abut 20 states in the country permit wrongful birth causes of action according to an American Jurisprudence survey. So you might want to avoid a lot of states. Of course, for the most part it isn't by statute (except Idaho), but courts were afraid to recognize it 20 years ago without a law and legislatures haven't done anything. The thing that bothers me is that a doctor could get test results showing something bad and then decide on his or her own not to tell me about it.

Morneau left in the 5th inning of yesterday's game with back stiffness. They're saying it's minor and unrelated to last year's back injury.

The Boycott Arizona movement seems to be gaining steam, and a part of it is focusing on the Diamondbacks, who's ownership happens to be a large Republican donor in that state. The 2011 all-star game is also in Arizona.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 28, 2010 -> 10:21 AM) LOL. Because dishwashers, chefs and the lawn service industry aren't largely illegal immigrants? And because people with Hispanic backgrounds don't do the important jobs. Like writing newspaper columns.