Supreme Court Lifts Limits on Immigration-Enforcement Tactics in Los Angeles (for now at least)

[martybegan]

Well waddya know, he can count after all!

And of course Shitlock dumbass can't actually respond to the statement made.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

A pure democracy is 51 people out of a hundred voting to take all the property of the remaining 49.

The basis of all governments, certainly those derived from a colonial power is to protect the interests of the powerful.

 

[martybegan]

The basis of all governments, certainly those derived from a colonial power is to protect the interests of the powerful.

LOL right out of your Marx based college economics textbook.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Let me guess how the triplets voted?

 

[BackAgain]

Strange that "win" for Trump always involves being temporarily allowed to break the law.

It's like he is a criminal or something.

Another false set of claims by you.

Nothing has been decided that even temporarily allows the President to “break the law.” Your hyperbole is pretty transparent.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

You still don’t grasp why the Framers of our (not your) Constitution were so intent on making sure that we would NOT be a democracy.

Our SCOTUS Justices aren’t elected at all. They are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

Yes, that's why I wrote

"the people are excluded from the selection of the heads of the judicial branch" (i.e. they aren't elected at all)

There is so much you simply do not comprehend, Shitass Homeless .

I comprehend English and logic, sad that you don't, that's why you're always confused, angry and bitter (and wrong).

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Another false set of claims by you.

As we learned last week after Trump's series of embarrassing losses, it's spot on.

Why do you think Trump should be allowed to break the law with his military deployments?

 

[Dante]

Strange that "win" for Trump always involves being temporarily allowed to break the law.

It's like he is a criminal or something.

Thread 'Judge orders indiscriminate immigration raids in Los Angeles to stop'

Jul 12, 2025

‘A federal judge in Los Angeles ordered the Trump administration to stop carrying out immigration sweeps in which she said federal agents have been indiscriminately arresting people across southern California without reasonable suspicion that they're in the country illegally.

Since early June, agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Border Patrol and other federal agencies have been roving Los Angeles and surrounding counties arresting thousands of people in what civil rights lawyers characterized in a lawsuit last week as an unconstitutional and "extraordinary campaign of...

• C_Clayton_Jones
• Replies: 61
• Forum: Immigration/Illegal Immigration

• 
• 
• 

 

[Dante]

Framers of our (not your) Constitution were so intent on making sure that we would NOT be a democracy.

This was not the case in the sense you posit it in. This Junior High school argument is -- only worthy of a failed Liability L...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Thread 'Judge orders indiscriminate immigration raids in Los Angeles to stop'

Jul 12, 2025

‘A federal judge in Los Angeles ordered the Trump administration to stop carrying out immigration sweeps in which she said federal agents have been indiscriminately arresting people across southern California without reasonable suspicion that they're in the country illegally.

Since early June, agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Border Patrol and other federal agencies have been roving Los Angeles and surrounding counties arresting thousands of people in what civil rights lawyers characterized in a lawsuit last week as an unconstitutional and "extraordinary campaign of...

• C_Clayton_Jones
• Replies: 61
• Forum: Immigration/Illegal Immigration

• 
• 
• 

They are definitely relying on AI and racial profiling.

Thus their mountains of errors.

 

[progressive hunter]

See, a hatred of democracy, you don't even try to hide that.

Are we though? the power to elect the members of the supreme court does not sit with the people but with the executive branch and that's probably by design since the founding fathers were more or less British if not in nationality by education.

Truly empowering the people is not how the British Empire was built.

as per the constitution,,

**** britian,, they are a failed country,,

 

[Dante]

“The chief business of the American people is business” is a famous quote attributed to President Calvin Coolidge. Coolidge said this in a speech to the American Society of Newspaper Editors in Washington, D.C. on January 17, 1925. The speech was about the role of the press in a modern democracy

btw:

Forget Andrew Jackson. The Right Thinks Trump Is Calvin Coolidge!

Conservatism under Trump has brought back a revised version of the gold standard: how much gold you can mine from privatizing the Mother Lode of Government.

billmoyers.com

 

[Foxfyre]

Once again, SCOTUS vacates a temporary hold on the a President’s policy re apprehension of illegal aliens.

Supreme Court Lifts Limits on Immigration Raids in Los Angeles — The Wall Street Journal

Order lets Trump administration proceed with patrols that earlier targeted largely Latino areas

apple.news

Maybe some national bar association can step up to educate the lower courts and the parties that the lower courts are NOT empowered to put themselves into the shoes of the President. The Judicial Branch is NOT the Executive Branch.

For now, a win for the Trump Administration and for the Constitution.

Sooner or later SCOTUS will have to deal with the issue of the lower courts usurping the constitutionally stated powers of Congress and the Executive Branch. We just need a suitable plaintiff to bring that suit.

 

[BS Filter]

The basis of all governments, certainly those derived from a colonial power is to protect the interests of the powerful.

Do you support and respect the US Constitution?

 

[Zincwarrior]

SO they can legally stop you based on the color of your skin?

 

[BackAgain]

Yes, that's why I wrote

So why did you proceed to contradict that?

I comprehend English and logic, sad that you don't, that's why you're always confused, angry and bitter (and wrong).

Nah. You don’t comprehend the purpose of our Constitution as your numerous ignorant statements prove time and time again.

I’m not confused on that in the slightest. I’m not angry, though you seem to be. I’m not bitter at all. In fact, my nation’s Constitution is SWEET.

And, once again, m right and you remain wrong.

Muddle on you tiny brained sophist.

 

[BackAgain]

SO they can legally stop you based on the color of your skin?

Wait. Is that ^ what you claim to perceive from these legal proceedings?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

So why did you proceed to contradict that?

Show us all please where I said that the public vote for members of the supreme court? You are attacking a strawman, pretending I said X when I actually said not X, you just don't care about true or false, you simply do not care.

 

[Dante]

You still don’t grasp why the Framers of our (not your) Constitution were so intent on making sure that we would NOT be a democracy.

Our SCOTUS Justices aren’t elected at all. They are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

There is so much you simply do not comprehend, Shitass Homeless .

try and do some research:
Opinion
Eugene Volokh
Is the United States of America a republic or a democracy?

I often hear people argue that the United States is a republic, not a democracy. But that’s a false dichotomy. A common definition of “republic” is, to quote the American Heritage Dictionary, “A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them” — we are that. A common definition of “democracy” is, “Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives” — we are that, too.

The United States is not a direct democracy, in the sense of a country in which laws (and other government decisions) are made predominantly by majority vote. Some lawmaking is done this way, on the state and local levels, but it’s only a tiny fraction of all lawmaking. But we are a representative democracy, which is a form of democracy.

And indeed the American form of government has been called a “democracy” by leading American statesmen and legal commentators from the Framing on. It’s true that some Framing-era commentators made arguments that distinguished “democracy” and “republic”; see, for instance, The Federalist (No. 10), though even that first draws the distinction between “pure democracy” and a “republic,” only later just saying “democracy.” But even in that era, “representative democracy” was understood as a form of democracy, alongside “pure democracy”: John Adams used the term “representative democracy” in 1794; so did Noah Webster in 1785; so did St. George Tucker in his 1803 edition of Blackstone; so did Thomas Jefferson in 1815. Tucker’s Blackstone likewise uses “democracy” to describe a representative democracy, even when the qualifier “representative” is omitted.

==================================================

What was a “Democracy” in the Eighteenth Century?​

According to James Madison, democracy was a form of government where “the people meet and exercise the government in person” and decide issues by voting.2 The Framers were not impressed by this system. Alexander Hamilton said that “ancient democracies” lacked “one feature of good government. Their very character was tyranny.”3 John Adams called direct democracies “impracticable.”4 James Madison saw direct democracies as “spectacles of turbulence and contention.”5

Why the distrust for democracy? In the eighteenth century, it was not clear how direct democracy would function across vast geographic areas and with large populations. Political thinkers had long concluded that direct democracies could only work in relatively small city-states. The colonies’ elite leaders also worried that democracies tended to dissolve into factional infighting and allow a majority to overpower minority views.

What was a “Republic” in the Eighteenth Century?​

In a republic, according to Madison, the people “assemble and administer” government by empowering “their representatives and agents” to make decisions.7 James Madison argued that “a republic may be extended over a large region,” because it only required representatives to travel, rather than all voting citizens.8 In a well-designed republic, representatives would focus on the broader public good, rather than local or factional interests.9

Yet some critics feared that republics gave too much power to a small, usually wealthy, group of citizens. They easily imagined a republic giving way to “an aristocracy.”10 One opponent of the U.S. Constitution, for example, suggested that the proposed government would allow “opulent and ambitious” men to subvert “the equality established by our democratic forms of government” in state constitutions.11

A Democratic Republic​

The Constitution’s Framers ultimately created what Americans today would call a democratic republic, or a representative democracy, where people vote for representatives to govern on their behalf. But their distrust of democracy showed through in the final document, which contained relatively few democratic elements.

The president, senate, and judiciary would be chosen by representatives, rather than the people. Only the House of Representatives would be directly elected.17 But some opponents of the Constitution complained that even this branch “will have but very little democracy in it.”18 Representatives would serve relatively large constituencies, initially around 30,000 people each. As Madison explained, larger districts would ensure that “members of limited information” would not be elected. But critics worried that having tens of thousands of constituents would keep representatives from close contact with ordinary people.19 Moreover, since the Constitution allowed state legislatures to decide who was qualified to vote, the only people choosing representatives were property-owning adult white men.

In the 1790s, the French Revolution re-animated the ideal of democracy, leading more ordinary people to assert that they should have a role in their government. By 1800, it had shifted once again to refer mostly to Thomas Jefferson’s political party, which advocated for a moderate version of popular rule.20 In the early nineteenth century, the definitions of republic and democracy merged as democracy came to refer to the peoples’ practice of popular sovereignty through the election of representatives.21 While the Constitution incorporated some elements of democracy, “We the People” have, since its inception, defined and redefined what it means to live in a democratic republic.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Wait. Is that ^ what you claim to perceive from these legal proceedings?

Yep.