On 07/04/2018 06:27 AM, Richard wrote:
IMHO, not that anyone is asking, Grant should separate his politics
from his business. Though you would never know it from this google
group, not all purchasers of Rivendell bikes, myself included, share
his political leanings.
Older consumers tend to have more disposable income, and tend to be
more conservative. Why deliberately alienate them? We're not
heartless, selfish monsters just because we're not liberal Democrats.
No, you are a heartless selfish monster because you support a policy
that itself is cruel, indecent, heartless: in a word, monstrous.
And don't think for one microsecond that only "liberal Democrats" oppose
the policy. Consider for a moment this recent Washington Post column by
Jennifer Rubin, as genuinely conservative a columnist as ever there was:
Decency wins — and Trump gets smacked down
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2018/06/27/decency-wins-and-trump-gets-smacked-down/?utm_term=.eee2d31d21cd
by Jennifer Rubin
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/jennifer-rubin/> June 27
On the same day that the Supreme Court upheld President Trump’s
travel ban in a tortured ruling, a district court judge hearing a
suit on behalf of a class of migrants separated from their children
struck a blow for common decency and family reunification. The Post
reports
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/06/27/federal-judge-enjoins-separation-of-migrant-children-orders-family-reunification/?utm_term=.dc125046de16>:
Judge Dana M. Sabraw of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California granted a preliminary injunction
sought by the American Civil Liberties Union. He said all
children must be reunited with their families within 30 days,
allowing just 14 days for the return of children under 5 to
their parents. He ordered that parents must be entitled to speak
by phone with their children within 10 days.
The court slammed the administration
<https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/ms-l-v-ice-order-granting-plaintiffs-motion-classwide-preliminary-injunction>
for “a chaotic circumstance of the Government’s own making.” Sabraw,
appointed by President George W. Bush, found: “This
situation has reached a crisis level. The news media is saturated
with stories of immigrant families being separated at the border.
People are protesting. Elected officials are weighing in. Congress
is threatening action. Seventeen states have now filed a complaint
against the Federal Government challenging the family separation
practice.”
In issuing an injunction, the court found there was a likelihood
that the plaintiffs would succeed on a due process claim. (“We are a
country of laws, and of compassion. We have plainly stated our
intent to treat refugees with an ordered process, and benevolence,
by codifying principles of asylum. The Government’s treatment . . .
[of] class members does not meet this standard, and it is unlikely
to pass constitutional muster.”) The court continued:
The practice of separating these families was implemented
without any effective system or procedure for (1) tracking the
children after they were separated from their parents, (2)
enabling communication between the parents and their children
after separation, and (3) reuniting the parents and children
after the parents are returned to immigration
custody following completion of their criminal sentence. This is
a startling reality. The government readily keeps track of
personal property of detainees in criminal and immigration
proceedings. Money, important documents, and automobiles, to
name a few, at all levels — state and federal, citizen and
alien. Yet, the government has no system in place to keep track
of , provide effective communication with, and promptly produce
alien children. The unfortunate reality is that under the
present system migrant children are not accounted for with the
same efficiency and accuracy as property. Certainly, that cannot
satisfy the requirements of due process.
The court cited at length the findings of the Children’s Defense
Fund regarding the extensive harm done to children forcibly
separated from their parents. The court expressed the shock and
dismay many ordinary Americans are feeling:
The facts set forth before the Court portray
reactive governance — responses to address a chaotic
circumstance of the Government’s own making. They belie measured
and ordered governance, which is central to the concept of due
process enshrined in our Constitution. This is particularly so
in the treatment of migrants, many of whom are asylum seekers
and small children. The extraordinary remedy of classwide
preliminary injunction is warranted based on the evidence before
the Court.
In contrast to the Supreme Court’s travel ban ruling, constructed to
avoid identifying the president as an abject racist whose intent
should have invalidated his executive order, this court did not
avert its eyes. In ordering the reunification of children younger
than 5 within 14 days, older children within 30 days and a halt to
child separation, the judge followed a long tradition recognizing
that anyone here — illegally or not — enjoys the benefits of
ordered, fair government. (The entire country has been deprived of
that under this president.) In this instance, the American people
can be proud of their judiciary.
Consider, if you will, the Justice Department lawyer arguing in
effect, “No, really, we can treat these kids worse than property.”
Justice Department attorneys need to seriously consider their
professional and own moral code of conduct in continuing to defend
the administration’s inhumane practices. One hopes that every
Justice Department lawyer will read the opinion, reflect on the
judge’s admonitions and in the future refuse to sign on to briefs or
undertake oral arguments in defense of barbarism. In the meantime, a
significant victory for real family values and constitutional
government has been won.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
