Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
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
Open endorsement of racism by SCOTUS wasn't actually on my bingo card. Thought they would be more subtle.
Also, when did SCOTUS decide to throw out a massive number of decisions without deliberation? Are they really that in favor of a Trump dictatorship?
when did SCOTUS decide to throw out a massive number of decisions without deliberation?
When their only job became clearing the way for the trump admin. This shadow docket shit is becoming a real problem for lower courts too because SC keeps ruling without elaborating their decisions. Its difficult to find judgement in line with this precedence without understanding how they're reaching these conclusions.
Apparently they got tired of making shit up like during their last session.
They don't have to justify their decisions. They've gone full authoritarian and are aggressively, flagrantly arbitrary. "Because we said so and you can't stop us" is their only reason. Fucking pigs.
Thankfully some of the lower courts are wising up to this shit. The thing about shadow dockets is they aren't actual rulings. They provide no legal guidance. So what some courts are doing is only applying them to the exact specific question they ruled on. If a party in the case submits a plea worded slightly differently than the one SCOTUS ruled on, the lower courts are perfectly free to ignore the SCOTUS shadow dockets ruling. Only actual written briefs carry any kind of weight of precedent.
A problem with decisions that are only made to kiss Trump's ass is that it's hard to fabricate even a weak chain of reasoning to support them.
In favor or fearful of ....
They wouldn't have anything to fear if they weren't enabling it to happen.
Seems like Constitutional protections are meaningless if you look or sound Latino.
they’ve been meaningless since day 1; right away there needed to be “amendments” for instance. and depending on who is in power, more amendments come and go…
Amendments aren't tied to presidents though. They are tied to 2/3rds votes of representatives (or a bunch of states demanding a convention and then passing one without it being able to be blocked)
I think what they are saying is that depending on who is president, amendments can be temporarily interpreted by the Supreme Court to not exist at all
Yeah these judges seem to be straying pretty far from past rulings, but it seems to be a recent problem. It seemed rare for the supreme Court to hear something they had already made precedent on before until the last decade, but maybe that's just because I've paid more attention the last 10 years
true but they are tied to “regimes” on the whole combined with an ever moving Overton Window…
It seems to be going (has gone) that way. The stand out Amendment there might be the 22nd. Where Republicans majority voted to put 2 term limits on the presidency when it was a sitting Democrat. (Granted it was promoted by FDR I believe once he got his 4 election wins)
I've had burritos more supreme than this court
Family guy skin chart meme just became legal, apparently
Skin chart's canon irl
Supposedly the rule they were going with was four pieces of "evidence" for detainment: 1. Race, 2. Language/Accent, 3. Location, 4. Occupation; and the lower court said that's not enough evidence (although for whatever reason seemed ok with racial discrimination being used with the rest?). They put a hold on ICE doing this, and the SCOTUS blocked the hold, but didn't technically rule on the procedure itself (yet, anyway).
Still not good news, just clarifying based on what I heard on an NPR interview earlier. ICE isn't even following the procedure laid out, as far as I can tell (picking people off the streets lacks location or occupation) and they've partially ignored the court ruling anyway. For instance, there's very clear laws that officials must identify themselves for citizens (with a few exceptions), and you can legally call the police on them if they don't. Obviously that rule has been largely ignored.
They had sharply reduced random detainments in California, in part due to the injunction. A lot of people are going to be needlessly jailed because of this.
I mean it's basically Stop and Frisk, like they had in NY. It's just much worse because they don't even release you immediately. It also always sucks to be profiled by appearance.
"Duh... This is America you're guilty until proven innocent! What do you mean gaslighting? Of course it's gas, we don't use electric here like some commie scum!"
Don’t forget about the conservative minorities who want this and voted for it to happen. This isn’t a strictly Caucasians-only problem.
"Roving patrols" coming to a city near you
They didn't wait long to start
The number of reported arrests is relatively few, but immigrant rights advocates said the operation appears to mark a shift in ICE tactics. Before this operation, local activists said, agents had been targeted in their tactics, presenting warrants at specific homes or detaining people at immigration court. Stopping people on the street in what appeared to be a fairly random fashion is new, they said.
Ah que la chingada!