Supreme Court Refuses To Hear trump's Sanctuary City Lawsuit

[OldLady]

" Bad Jokes "

* Contradictory Except To Traitors *

Freedom and what America stands for and what we are built on wins.

So do you mean that removing the autonomy of us citizens to determine who they accept as citizens and who they allow as immigrants is a win for americans ?

Yes. It leaves the decision with the states.

Yep and watch the blue states turn red......

I havent seen anything change. When is this going to happen?

Its happening now....look at the talking points for dems....open the borders take guns away and abolish cops....not a winning platform...

Who that is running for office wants open borders?

Some Dems want to take AR15's off the shelf, and large magazines. It's happened before and didn't end the world.

NONE of the Dems in Congress want to abolish cops. They are focused on reform, though, and submitted legislation over a week ago, while the Republicans have just corralled their lone black guy, Senator Cotton, to help write their proposal. What mayors in cities rocked by riots do is up to their communities. The only one I've heard of that is actually using the words "defund" is Minneapolis, and it doesn't mean abolish the police. Protesters can say what they want. Askin' ain't gettin.

 

[OldLady]

What's funny is you have been hoisted by your own petard and are too stupid to even see it.

For YEARS now all we've heard is "Trump just appointed two stooges to the SCOTUS" but this is several cases now where one or both of them have voted either against the Administration itself OR against what would be considered the conservative opinion, something that none of Obama's appointees EVER did or EVER will do. Kagan , for example, she'll never be a surprises vote.

Proving that leftists are authoritarian fucksticks .

Oh, look:

Justice Elena Kagan shocked the world on Monday when she joined a dissent by Justice Samuel Alito that would’ve made Robert Bork proud. In Ramos v. Louisiana, Alito contested the Supreme Court’s 6–3 decision striking down split verdicts, which allow conviction by a nonunanimous jury. Kagan, a Barack Obama appointee, typically sides with the court’s liberal wing on civil rights and criminal law. Yet here she was, joining a reactionary dissent defending an unjust practice rooted in bigotry. Civil libertarians were understandably disappointed, baffled, angry, skeptical, and saddened.​

​

Kagan’s vote in Ramos really shouldn’t have come as a surprise: The justice crosses ideological lines in divided decisions more frequently than any of her liberal colleagues do.​

You know, you monumentally ignorant dipshit, what is really funny? You blabbing about...

"What's funny is you have been hoisted by your own petard and are too stupid to even see it."

They are supposed to stick to Constitution and the law. They aren't SUPPOSED to vote left or right based on their own politics. I have no idea what issues were at hand in that case, but I'm guessing, as 99% of the time, that Justice Kagan like the rest of them, was basing her decision on the LAW and the CONSTITUTION.
People who encourage and anticipate justices' votes based on their politics is the exact opposite of what our court system calls for. As much as possible for a human being to do, it is supposed to be objective.

 

[Dana7360]

This year is turning out to be a disaster for the incompetent fuck up in the white house.

Yes and I so enjoy watching it all unfold.

 

[Dana7360]

" Bad Jokes "

* Contradictory Except To Traitors *

Freedom and what America stands for and what we are built on wins.

So do you mean that removing the autonomy of us citizens to determine who they accept as citizens and who they allow as immigrants is a win for americans ?

Yes it follows the constitution.

You might want to read it.

 

[Asclepias]

" Bad Jokes "

* Contradictory Except To Traitors *

Freedom and what America stands for and what we are built on wins.

So do you mean that removing the autonomy of us citizens to determine who they accept as citizens and who they allow as immigrants is a win for americans ?

Yes. It leaves the decision with the states.

Yep and watch the blue states turn red......

I havent seen anything change. When is this going to happen?

Its happening now....look at the talking points for dems....open the borders take guns away and abolish cops....not a winning platform...

Who that is running for office wants open borders?

Some Dems want to take AR15's off the shelf, and large magazines. It's happened before and didn't end the world.

NONE of the Dems in Congress want to abolish cops. They are focused on reform, though, and submitted legislation over a week ago, while the Republicans have just corralled their lone black guy, Senator Cotton, to help write their proposal. What mayors in cities rocked by riots do is up to their communities. The only one I've heard of that is actually using the words "defund" is Minneapolis, and it doesn't mean abolish the police. Protesters can say what they want. Askin' ain't gettin.

Youre wasting your breath. Drumpftards only listen to tweets and Faux. You cant possibly expect them to get factual news by doing that.

 

[Olde Europe]

They are supposed to stick to Constitution and the law. They aren't SUPPOSED to vote left or right based on their own politics. I have no idea what issues were at hand in that case, but I'm guessing, as 99% of the time, that Justice Kagan like the rest of them, was basing her decision on the LAW and the CONSTITUTION.
People who encourage and anticipate justices' votes based on their politics is the exact opposite of what our court system calls for. As much as possible for a human being to do, it is supposed to be objective.

Just what the Constitution and the laws are, is often in dispute, and their interpretation are opening wide fields of strife and dissent. The assertion was, though, that Kagan would never be a surprise vote, when she is, and quite frequently. Also, had you read the article I quoted and linked, your understanding of matters would have greatly improved. You would have learned that the main reason for splits between Kagan and her "liberal" colleagues is that she is a stickler for precedent, and she sticks with it even when precedent favors the reactionary side of the court.

 

[Rambunctious]

" Bad Jokes "

* Contradictory Except To Traitors *

Freedom and what America stands for and what we are built on wins.

So do you mean that removing the autonomy of us citizens to determine who they accept as citizens and who they allow as immigrants is a win for americans ?

Yes. It leaves the decision with the states.

Yep and watch the blue states turn red......

I havent seen anything change. When is this going to happen?

Its happening now....look at the talking points for dems....open the borders take guns away and abolish cops....not a winning platform...

Who that is running for office wants open borders?

Some Dems want to take AR15's off the shelf, and large magazines. It's happened before and didn't end the world.

NONE of the Dems in Congress want to abolish cops. They are focused on reform, though, and submitted legislation over a week ago, while the Republicans have just corralled their lone black guy, Senator Cotton, to help write their proposal. What mayors in cities rocked by riots do is up to their communities. The only one I've heard of that is actually using the words "defund" is Minneapolis, and it doesn't mean abolish the police. Protesters can say what they want. Askin' ain't gettin.

Some in the democrat party are openly calling for everything I named in my post...and that's enough for me...we can't take the chance that Biden is lying...dems lie all the time to make them look reasonable at election time...then they win and go nuts to the left....we can't take that chance....

 

[Olde Europe]

“Supreme Court Refuses To Hear trump's Sanctuary City Lawsuit”

And appropriately so.

That the Federal government cannot compel states and local jurisdictions to enforce Federal law is settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.

As a consequence, there is no such thing as a ‘sanctuary city.’

Yep, there is such a thing as a "sanctuary city". It's just so that the term doesn't mean what the rightarded blabbosphere has led rightards to believe it means.

But then, having the States Rights faction screeching, irate, and going to war in favor of a big, fat Federal Government ordering States and cities around... is cute. The goofs will never learn.

 

[ColtMadeMenEqual]

What's funny is you have been hoisted by your own petard and are too stupid to even see it.

For YEARS now all we've heard is "Trump just appointed two stooges to the SCOTUS" but this is several cases now where one or both of them have voted either against the Administration itself OR against what would be considered the conservative opinion, something that none of Obama's appointees EVER did or EVER will do. Kagan , for example, she'll never be a surprises vote.

Proving that leftists are authoritarian fucksticks .

Oh, look:

Justice Elena Kagan shocked the world on Monday when she joined a dissent by Justice Samuel Alito that would’ve made Robert Bork proud. In Ramos v. Louisiana, Alito contested the Supreme Court’s 6–3 decision striking down split verdicts, which allow conviction by a nonunanimous jury. Kagan, a Barack Obama appointee, typically sides with the court’s liberal wing on civil rights and criminal law. Yet here she was, joining a reactionary dissent defending an unjust practice rooted in bigotry. Civil libertarians were understandably disappointed, baffled, angry, skeptical, and saddened.​

​

Kagan’s vote in Ramos really shouldn’t have come as a surprise: The justice crosses ideological lines in divided decisions more frequently than any of her liberal colleagues do.​

You know, you monumentally ignorant dipshit, what is really funny? You blabbing about...

"What's funny is you have been hoisted by your own petard and are too stupid to even see it."

They are supposed to stick to Constitution and the law. They aren't SUPPOSED to vote left or right based on their own politics. I have no idea what issues were at hand in that case, but I'm guessing, as 99% of the time, that Justice Kagan like the rest of them, was basing her decision on the LAW and the CONSTITUTION.
People who encourage and anticipate justices' votes based on their politics is the exact opposite of what our court system calls for. As much as possible for a human being to do, it is supposed to be objective.

That is how it is supposed to work , and so unless you believe that anyone side is correct 100% of the time, any Justice who NEVER votes against his or her "side" is not doing their job correctly.

There is currently not one single liberal Justice who is doing their jobs correctly. Kagan has not ruled against the liberal agenda once, not once , since being appointed.

 

[ColtMadeMenEqual]

This year is turning out to be a disaster for the incompetent fuck up in the white house.

Yes and I so enjoy watching it all unfold.

I'm going to enjoy watching you and that retarded honkey Asceplias cry when Trump is reelected.

 

[Hellbilly]

Happy day for Dimocrats who do not believe in our immigration laws.

Immigration laws have always been racist.
They benefit the white race only.
This is known.

 

[Wyatt earp]

trump loses again.

Freedom and what America stands for and what we are built on wins.

One of the funniest things about it, both of trump's appointees to the court voted to not hear the case. Which allows the lower court ruling to stand.

trump can't persecute states or cities that don't follow his demands.

Supreme Court won't hear Trump administration challenge to California's immigrant 'sanctuary' law

The case could have determined whether state and local governments can give sanctuary to undocumented immigrants threatened with arrest or deportation

www.freep.com

No what is funny is that your witch hunt against gorsuch and kav was pure bullshit.

 

[Wyatt earp]

" Bad Jokes "

* Contradictory Except To Traitors *

Freedom and what America stands for and what we are built on wins.

So do you mean that removing the autonomy of us citizens to determine who they accept as citizens and who they allow
as immigrants is a win for americans ?

No it's a lost for us to keep out illegal rapist killer Mexicans

 

[pknopp]

The Federal government refuses to enforce the laws that the Constitution notes are the Federal governments to enforce but some people want to blame the states.

Makes no sense to me.

 

[colfax_m]

The existence of these stupid and dangerous sanctuary cities will actually help Trump in the election....so if you think this is a bad thing for Trump you are wrong...but it is bad for the nation and 75% of the nations agrees with that....

If 75% of the nation agreed, you wouldn’t need a court case to end the policies. You’d win elections.

 

[Preacher]

“Supreme Court Refuses To Hear trump's Sanctuary City Lawsuit”

And appropriately so.

That the Federal government cannot compel states and local jurisdictions to enforce Federal law is settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.

As a consequence, there is no such thing as a ‘sanctuary city.’

Then the federal government should cut off funds to those states for certain things. Works both ways.

 

[Olde Europe]

Happy day for Dimocrats who do not believe in our immigration laws.

Immigration laws have always been racist.
They benefit the white race only.
This is known.

More precisely, immigration laws traditionally benefit the rich, deriving most of the benefits from newcomers.

Also, this isn't centrally about immigration laws, it is about whether or not the Federal Government has the power to take over the States' policing powers and directly order the States' forces to do the Federal Government's bidding. How absurd that proposition is you can see in the Supreme Court's decision not even to hear the case.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Happy day for Dimocrats who do not believe in our immigration laws.

Immigration laws have always been racist.
They benefit the white race only.
This is known.

More precisely, immigration laws traditionally benefit the rich, deriving most of the benefits from newcomers.

Also, this isn't centrally about immigration laws, it is about whether or not the Federal Government has the power to take over the States' policing powers and directly order the States' forces to do the Federal Government's bidding. How absurd that proposition is you can see in the Supreme Court's decision not even to hear the case.

Immigration laws are the sole purview of the Federal government, enforced solely by the Federal government, where the states and local jurisdictions are immune from being compelled to enforce Federal laws – including immigration laws.

 

[meaner gene]

Immigration laws are the sole purview of the Federal government, enforced solely by the Federal government, where the states and local jurisdictions are immune from being compelled to enforce Federal laws – including immigration laws.

The federal government can "compel" states to enforce federal laws through a carrot and stick approach. Take federal highway funds. They tied payments of them, to states enforcing the federal 55 mph speed limit.

Some states refused, and thus forfeit matching highway funds, but as I said, this was in the highway funding bills.

Trump tried to cut payments which had no such riders in them.

 

[Olde Europe]

Immigration laws are the sole purview of the Federal government, enforced solely by the Federal government, where the states and local jurisdictions are immune from being compelled to enforce Federal laws – including immigration laws.

That would be my understanding as well.