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
So, the part where they granted a stay… means nothing?
There didn’t need to be a injunction. The lower courts ruled it illegal. They were forced to stop. The Trump admin appealed, and the Supreme Court granted the Trump admin a stay until the appeal is heard. They were then allowed to continue.
Long story short, the Supreme Court allowed racial profiling to continue.
Why is this so difficult for you to understand? I’m genuinely confused on where your confusion is coming from.
Let me ask a question that might clear this up: Had the Supreme Court done literally nothing, would ICE be allowed to racially profile people?
It means the motion for injunction is denied and the last ruling carries. It's also specifically not a new ruling.
It did for this stay to exist given that it's a denial of injunction. Yes, that's how a stay works. It is amusing that you're talking down to me about not reading it but it's quite clear you've both not read what you've provided nor are you actually familiar with the subject you're talking about.
Correct, until they rule on it. Again that's how a stay works.
It's not difficult, you just don't know what you're talking about but confident morons abound so here we are.
Yes. It's not clearly established until it's ruled on by the supreme court or ruled by a lower court and the supreme court reviews and affirms it.
Seriously, we could have a conversation but you chose a flight you're clearly not prepared for.
… Yes. It’s obvious that’s how a stay works. The stay that the Supreme Court decided to give.
And no. If it hadn’t gone to the Supreme Court, or the Supreme Court had decided to not review it, ICE would not be allowed to racially profile.
Literally no one is saying the Supreme Court said it was legal. We are saying the Supreme Court allowed it.
The lower courts ruled against the Trump administration. The stay was to prevent that lower court ruling.
You’re splitting hairs on wording.
I’m done. You’re obviously arguing in bad faith here. Literally all news sources and legal reviews of the situation agree, meanwhile you’re being intentionally obtuse.
Good day.
Is there an end to that sentence or what?
If it hadn't gone before the court yeah, that didn't happen it was immediately appealed.
And if crocodiles were bananas they might grow on trees. It has nothing to do with reality but fuck it, I guess we're just tossing out what ifs like they matter. They did not allow it, federal law might allow it, a lower court said it's not allowed and the supreme court is saying we don't know, we want to hear it until then continue what you were doing before. They're just not preventing it because the fed says things would be irreparably harmed and the other movent did not provide a good enough argument for an injunction.
You could say the federal government is allowing it and you'd be right.
You could say a bad argument allowed it, you can't say taking no action is the same as taking an action when it comes to judgements and rulings.
You're mad at a flawed legal system that overwhelmingly favors the state which is reasonable. In this case there actually doing it by the book and that's what we actually want.
When speaking of legalities?! Gosh golly I wonder if linguistics and phraseology matter in the legal system.