politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
It means the racial profiling got a rubber stamp, and “we will figure out the legality later.”
No one is saying they determined it was legal. They simply hand waved the issue in the short term.
Think of it like this. If cops started arresting people for saying “I don’t like cheese” and the cases got to the Supreme Court, and they said “nah it’s all good keep doing it until we hear arguments on it” that would be akin to what happened here.
That answer is no.
I’m sorry, did they say “no you have to stop” or did they say “yeah you can keep going” because only one of those happened.
I'm sorry that just isn't how the legal system in this country works.
Even if the court said "come on stop it guys" it would have no legal force until it's clearly established which is generally after finality ie. all appeals are exhausted or expired.
I’m sorry, what? Are you confused as to how things get to the Supreme Court? It’s here because of an appeal.
Lower courts said “yeah no, this shit is illegal, stop it” and the Supreme Court said “well we are going to look at this, so you can keep doing things the way you were until we do.”
The Supreme Court could also have said “well, we are going to look at this, so you have to stop until we do.”
Using your logic, they shouldn’t be doing it because a lower court ruled it illegal.
That is not the only way it gets to the supreme court, it's a way. And yes, that would mean they are not exhausted and thusly it isn't settled case law for most purposes.
Cool, and they could have issued an injunction, that isn't typically a supreme court deal. The supreme court intentionally stays out of minor procedurals especially when they aren't asked to.
That's an injunction bud.
No, they shouldn't be doing it because it's immoral. No one was granted an injunction. Why are you upset about the supreme court not doing something it isn't expected or intended to do.