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

[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 .

OMG!

The dreaded use of an ad hominem attack.

Nobody has claimed that the Justices are elected. I smell a red herring or some other fish

 

[BackAgain]

The Failed Liability speaketh. Oh the drama! The drama. Play the victim with others. You have posted ad hominem attacks on numerous membetrs right here in this thread.

Don't make me go back to your major squelch of a welch on that bet on you leaving usmb.

You'll get SpankedAgain and a butt prosthesis will be in order

Back to your ceaseless dishonesty and trolling. Consider knocking that shit off, the dainty. We both know you’re the liar. And your deflection efforts aren’t going to work.

The actual topic, you coward, will keep getting discussed despite your best efforts to be a gnat.

And the topic remains: the SCOTUS decision.

For now it terminate the lower court’s time constraint of mid October to file the Government’s appeal and the plaintiffs’ responsive pleadings. If you were capable of understanding what you read, even a troll like you would realize that I haven’t said that the SCOTUS decision ends the case.

More is to come. You wouldn’t understand that, however, since you’re very dense.

 

[BackAgain]

OMG!

The dreaded use of an ad hominem attack.

Nobody has claimed that the Justices are elected. I smell a red herring or some other fish

^ the troll hypocrisy of the dainty never ends.

Anyway, back on topic:

The shitlib praise for the lower court decision against the Administration was short lived. Now the real issues will get addressed and properly considered.

Shitlib trolls, like the dainty, seemingly fear this.

But it is a good thing, in reality.

 

[Dante]

So much for your "clue"

In reality, what Justice Kavanuagh actually said:

In a lengthy concurring opinion, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, the only member of the majority who offered an explanation for the court’s ruling, said demographic realities justified the actions of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.

“About 10 percent of the people in the Los Angeles region are illegally in the United States — meaning about two million illegal immigrants out of a total population of 20 million,” he wrote.

Justice Kavanaugh said the four factors identified by Judge Frimpong can play a role in determining whom to stop. For instance, he wrote, unauthorized immigrants often work as day laborers in landscaping, agriculture or construction and “many of those illegally in the Los Angeles area come from Mexico or Central America and do not speak much English.”

Apparent ethnicity by itself is not a permissible reason to stop someone, he added, but it can be a relevant consideration in combination with other factors.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/25a169_5h25.pdf

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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

Of course, that isnt happening, and you're repeating what you heard like a parrot.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

We’ve been through all of this, the dainty. And it is beyond meaningful question that we are a Constitutional republic and very much NOT a democracy. And that’s for all the reasons the Framers based that fact upon.

Your lengthy post is off topic for this thread, anyway.

I decline to waste time by repeating to a brick wall( i.e., you) all the arguments and discussions had in other threads. You wanna try to argue your already failed contention yet again? Fine. But not in this thread.

Stay on topic.

We are a democratic republic also, which is a form of democracy.

And racial profiling is not legal.

 

[WEATHER53]

We are a democratic republic also, which is a form of democracy.

And racial profiling is not legal.

But concentration on most likely suspects IS legal

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

But concentration on most likely suspects IS legal

Not when you do so using racial profiling.

That's why Trump directly petitioned the SCOTUS to allow him to use racial profiling.

Which, of course, was yet another global embarrassment.

 

[WEATHER53]

Not when you do so using racial profiling.

That's why Trump directly petitioned the SCOTUS to allow him to use racial profiling.

Which, of course, was yet another global embarrassment.

Adult talk time now

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Adult talk time now

Bye, then.

Haha, you didnt know Trump.asked the SCOTUS to allow him to use racial profiling, did ya?

Whoops.

 

[DonGlock26]

 

[drudge X]

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

It's like he is a criminal or something.

You could be honest and say the SC must school lower courts on what the law is instead of the lower courts issuing feeling based rulings.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You could be honest and say the SC must school lower courts on what the law is instead of the lower courts issuing feeling based rulings.

No, that's stupid and is simply a reflexive shart from your cult lizard brain.

 

[drudge X]

No, that's stupid and is simply a reflexive shart from your cult lizard brain.

The SC agrees with me, not you.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The SC agrees with me, not you.

No they don't. Never have they ruled that racial profiling is legal.

 

[drudge X]

No they don't. Never have they ruled that racial profiling is legal.

Hilarious hearing a leftist complaining about racial profiling when your side concludes that any white person doing anything questionable must be a MAGA person.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Hilarious hearing a leftist complaining about racial profiling when your side concludes that any white person doing anything questionable must be a MAGA person.

So now youre too stupid to understand the difference between a message board and taking away someone's freedom.

That tracks.

 

[drudge X]

So now youre too stupid to understand the difference between a message board and taking away someone's freedom.

That tracks.

Again, the SC disagree with you. Where did you receive your law degree again?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Again, the SC disagree with you.

No, the SC has never ruled that racial profiling is constitutional.

What's happening here is that you have no idea what the ruling was, today.

That also tracks.

 

[drudge X]

No, the SC has never ruled that racial profiling is constitutional.

What's happening here is that you have no idea what the ruling was, today.

That also tracks.

You're free to take it up with the SC. Perhaps if lower courts remained within their jurisdiction, none of this would be necessary. If I am Trump, I would triple down on assigning agents there. That's the price for interfering with the executive branch. Is Boston listening?