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

[BackAgain]

Liability is playing his games again.

Nah. Just exposing the ignorance and dishonesty of so many of our leftarded trolls etc.

If anyone here is playing games, of course, it’s you, the dainty.

 

[Marener]

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.

That’s not what’s happening. They’re merely attempting to determine if the executive is operating within the confines of the constitution.

 

[Rawley]

I think it would be better if the public did elect the supreme court judges, we elect the president (executive) and congress (legislative) so why not judicial?

Uh, because of the Constitution.

Seems to be a better fit to the constitution's opening "We the people".

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with our Constitution.

 

[WEATHER53]

Thats what the initial judge found. Note this lifts the halt only. it is still going to trial.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2025/07/11/judge-blocks-trump-immigration-raids/

She wrote that the Trump administration “may not rely solely” on apparent race or ethnicity; speaking Spanish or English with an accent; presence at a particular location, such as a day laborer pickup site; or the type of work a person does “to form reasonable suspicion for a detentive stop.”

Another words the corrupt feeler tried to rule that going to where they are is illegal

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Saying that we “use a representative democracy” instead of acknowledging that ARE a Constitutional republic, instead, IS saying that we aren’t a Constitutional republic. And that’s why you’re wrong yet again, the dainty

All I can say is In the fictional nation of America, democracy thrived as the elected representatives in Congress upheld the constitutional principles, ensuring that the judiciary and judicial branches operated democratically and independently. The constitutional amendments were debated thoroughly in the legislative chambers, reflecting the nation's commitment to uphold democratic values. The judiciary, composed of judges elected through a transparent process, played a crucial role in safeguarding the rights of the citizens and maintaining the balance of power among the different branches of government, thereby strengthening the foundation of their vibrant democratic system.

That is what your posts are like, rambling, nonsensical waffle.

 

[westwall]

you are totally confused on the terms and reality

Yet it's YOU wearing the L.

You loser.

 

[Dante]

Saying that we “use a representative democracy” instead of acknowledging that ARE a Constitutional republic, instead, IS saying that we aren’t a Constitutional republic. And that’s why you’re wrong yet again, the dainty

But you’re still off topic, ya little troll.

Nope. I've listed links

You?

Still talking out of your arse

 

[BackAgain]

All I can say is In the fictional nation of America, democracy thrived as the elected representatives in Congress upheld the constitutional principles, ensuring that the judiciary and judicial branches operated democratically and independently. The constitutional amendments were debated thoroughly in the legislative chambers, reflecting the nation's commitment to uphold democratic values. The judiciary, composed of judges elected through a transparent process, played a crucial role in safeguarding the rights of the citizens and maintaining the balance of power among the different branches of government, thereby strengthening the foundation of their vibrant democratic system.

That is what your posts are like, rambling, nonsensical waffle.

Your ignorant and dishonest opinion is duly noted. And, it is filed away properly:

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Uh, because of the Constitution.

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with our Constitution.

Perhaps you should look up "amendment" in a dictionary (our constitution has had 27 of them so far).

 

[Dante]

Yet it's YOU wearing the L.

You loser.

Back Again ass-isting your boyfriend, Liability?

How cute

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Your ignorant and dishonest opinion is duly noted. And, it is filed away properly:

In the fictional Republic of America, democracy flourished beneath the shimmering domes of its capital, where citizens democratically elected their leaders every lunar cycle. The constitution, etched into crystal tablets and guarded by the judiciary's ancient order, outlined a complex system of checks and balances that even the birds seemed to respect. Congress convened in a floating amphitheater, debating constitutional riddles while sipping gravity-defying tea. Meanwhile, the judicial council—cloaked in robes that changed color with the truth—interpreted laws with poetic flair, ensuring that justice danced gracefully through the corridors of governance.

 

[westwall]

Back Again ass-isting your boyfriend, Liability?

How cute

Nah, just stating the obvious.

You wear the L a lot.

Because you ARE a loser.

 

[westwall]

In the fictional Republic of America, democracy flourished beneath the shimmering domes of its capital, where citizens democratically elected their leaders every lunar cycle. The constitution, etched into crystal tablets and guarded by the judiciary's ancient order, outlined a complex system of checks and balances that even the birds seemed to respect. Congress convened in a floating amphitheater, debating constitutional riddles while sipping gravity-defying tea. Meanwhile, the judicial council—cloaked in robes that changed color with the truth—interpreted laws with poetic flair, ensuring that justice danced gracefully through the corridors of governance.

Dude, brevity! You spew so much nonsense!

 

[Rawley]

Perhaps you should look up "amendment" in a dictionary (our constitution has had 27 of them so far).

Good luck with that. While you at it, can you perhaps look up "pretentious, condescending prick" in your dictionary

 

[struth]

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.

Sounds like the scotus basically said the lower courts not only violated the law but defiled common sense with their silly ruling

 

[Dante]

All I can say is In the fictional nation of America, democracy thrived as the elected representatives in Congress upheld the constitutional principles, ensuring that the judiciary and judicial branches operated democratically and independently. The constitutional amendments were debated thoroughly in the legislative chambers, reflecting the nation's commitment to uphold democratic values. The judiciary, composed of judges elected through a transparent process, played a crucial role in safeguarding the rights of the citizens and maintaining the balance of power among the different branches of government, thereby strengthening the foundation of their vibrant democratic system.

That is what your posts are like, rambling, nonsensical waffle.

Founders Online: Alexander Hamilton to Gouverneur Morris, 19 May 1777

Alexander Hamilton to Gouverneur Morris, 19 May 1777

founders.archives.gov

Shh, don't tel LIABILITY

Ch. 3.2. The Founders’ Use of the Terms “Democracy” and “Republic” – American Legal History to the 1860s

(Continued from Dahl.) The view that the framers intended to create a republic, not a democracy, probably has its origins in comments by Madison…

wisc.pb.unizin.org

From Aristotle to Montesquieu, political philosophers had no place in their classifications for representative democracy. It was simply an unknown species, one yet to evolve. In November 1787, however, only two months after the Philadelphia convention had adjourned, James Wilson had already updated the older classifications:

The three species of governments … are the monarchical, aristocratical and democratical. In a monarchy, the supreme power is vested in a single person: in an aristocracy … by a body not formed upon the principle of representation, but enjoying their station by descent, or election among themselves, or in right of some personal or territorial qualifications; and lastly, in a democracy, it is inherent in a people, and is exercised by themselves or their representatives ….

Of what description is the Constitution before us? In its principles, Sir, it is purely democratical: varying indeed in its form in order to admit all the advantages, and to exclude all the disadvantages which are incidental to the known and established constitution of government. But when we take an extensive and accurate view of the streams of power that appear through this great and comprehensive plan … we shall be able to trace them to one great and noble source, THE PEOPLE.

At the Virginia ratifying convention one month later, John Marshall, the future chief justice of the Supreme Court, declared that the “Constitution provided for ‘a well regulated democracy‘ where no king, or president, could undermine representative government.”


Although the Framers differed among themselves as to how democratic they wanted their republic to be, for obvious reasons they were of one mind about the need for a representative government. But as events soon showed, they could not fully determine just how democratic that representative government would

 

[BackAgain]

Nope. I've listed links

Links to opinions. I have discussed this at length in the past with other works of actual value to the discussions there.

You are off topic. I thought that had been mentioned already.

Start your own thread.

You?

Still talking out of your arse

Nope. I am stating, accurately, why the Framers made sure to avoid the creation of these United States as a so-called “democracy.” But I won’t assist you in your deflection efforts from the thread topic.

Do you vaguely recall the TOS for using this Board? You should. You agreed to them, the dainty, you little twit troll.

As Ben Franklin said immediately after the completion of the Constitution, when asked what the Congress had given the people: “a republic if you can keep it.”

We all anticipate another thread from you, the dainty, arguing against Dr. Franklin.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Good luck with that.

With what? looking up a word in a dictionary?

While you at it, can you perhaps look up "pretentious, condescending prick" in your dictionary

I just did, your selfie came back:

 

[BackAgain]

Sounds like the scotus basically said the lower courts not only violated the law but defiled common sense with their silly ruling

If not that, then at least a little reminder for them to stay in their lane.

 

[Concerned American]

SCOTUS needs an enforcement arm to police rouge fed courts.

ROGUE, not rouge (red dye) Just sayin'