- Joined
- Dec 8, 2013
- Messages
- 22,517
- Reaction score
- 47,002
Ironically he's one of the biggest racists on here.
Law Trump Says Undocumented Immigrants Shouldn’t Get Trials Before Deportation
- Thread starter jk7707
- Start date
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2009
- Messages
- 49,795
- Reaction score
- 34,098
lol SMH... it's like you didn't even read the post you're responding to. Re: the bold, I gave you a straightforward answer to your earlier question in good faith; you responded with this. And you wonder why I insult you. LOL
Check this out and see if you can learn something about what's wrong with your position.
Guilt by Association - Definition, Examples, Cases, Processes
Guilt by Association defined and explained with examples. Guilt by Association is the idea that someone is guilty because of who he associates with.
legaldictionary.net
Or, you could just fuck off to whatever shithole you live in (guessing Alberta) where you're taught such disregard for people's rights and shut the fuck up. That would work too.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2005
- Messages
- 54,199
- Reaction score
- 33,901
Coming soon, political persecution of US Citizens:
truthout.org
New England Couple Detained “for Several Hours” at Canada-US Border Despite Being Citizens
Border Patrol agents kept the couple in separate cells, and demanded to go through the husband’s emails.
truthout.org
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2024
- Messages
- 4,729
- Reaction score
- 7,954
You understand there is a massive difference between guilt by association and just simply following warning signs to conduct an investigation ? The original question was signs could point to an illegal immigrant, not what arbitrary reasons can we use to assign guilt.
If someone was living off the grid within a city center that's a pretty good indicator something illegal is going on.
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2009
- Messages
- 49,795
- Reaction score
- 34,098
I thought this a good article on the Trump verses courts situation concerning reversing Biden's and Democrats open borders. It does appear that with what is going on with the courts fewer Americans are going to support of the courts with their knee jerk political bias.
nypost.com
“A number of judges have seemingly adopted a constitutional meta-principle: what a past President did, President Trump may not undo.”
So wrote Harvard Law professor and constitutional scholar Adrian Vermeule on Friday after a district court judge issued yet another lawless nationwide injunction meant to handcuff Trump and halt his agenda.
It’s a criticism that the Supreme Court, and particularly Chief Justice John Roberts, must take to heart.
(From left) Supreme Court members Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, John Roberts and Sonia Sotomayor bow their heads during inauguration ceremonies in the Rotunda of the US Capitol on January 20, 2025, in Washington, DC.POOL/AFP via Getty Images
One of the hallmarks of Roberts’ term has been an overweening desire to guard the judicial branch’s “legitimacy.”
But Roberts seems oblivious to the fact that the biggest threat to the courts’ legitimacy comes from the courts themselves — and his desire to preserve the judiciary’s standing with a small circle of Washington and academic insiders.
We saw that as far back as 2012, when Roberts switched sides in the case against Obamacare at the last minute, for fear that striking down that unprecedented bill would upset the DC apple cart and harm the court’s legitimacy.
Instead, it was a self-inflicted wound. Nobody respects a trimmer.
Roberts’ Obamacare decision wasn’t rooted in the Constitution, but an attempt to have it both ways, giving the Democrats enough of a victory to keep them from declaring war.
And we’ve seen that sort of thing repeatedly in the years since.
Roberts seems less concerned with preserving the court’s legitimacy in the eyes of America’s citizens, and more with the views of the editorial pages of the New York Times and the Washington Post, plus some Ivy League law professors whose schools’ decaying reputations should give him pause.
But now the flurry of lower-court interference is reaching crisis proportions, say Harvard’s Vermeule and others.
The prime issue, among others, is the illegal — and yes, it was contrary to the statutes on the books — Biden administration policy to admit millions of unvetted migrants into the country, and to allow them to stay here.
The “rule of law” didn’t matter then, because the crowd to which Roberts defers was in favor of open borders and its massive influx of a low-wage, government-dependent underclass.
Biden’s border policy has never been popular with the public, but the public isn’t Roberts’ concern: When he worries about legitimacy, he’s really thinking peer opinion — the “Mean Girls” judiciary.
“People Who Bypassed Legal Process in Migrating to USA Demand Legal Process Before Being Kicked Out,” as the Babylon Bee parody site put it.
This came to a head early Saturday as Roberts and six colleagues stepped in to temporarily uphold a lower-court opinion interfering with Trump’s deportations.
The Supremes acted one-sidedly and with untoward swiftness to block the president — in accordance, it seems, with Vermeule’s dictum.
But don’t take my word for it. Here’s what Justice Samuel Alito said, in a blazing dissent:
“Literally in the middle of the night, the Court issued unprecedented and legally questionable relief without giving the lower courts a chance to rule, without hearing from the opposing party, within eight hours of receiving the application, with dubious factual support for its order, and without providing any explanation.”
The court may make much of the “rule of law,” Alito noted — but “both the Executive and the Judiciary have an obligation to follow the law.”
The court’s irregular behavior here brings that into serious question.
It’s not clear that the justices had any jurisdiction to rule in this case at all, as Alito pointed out — much less with such unseemly haste.
And unseemly is a good description for the judiciary’s behavior here in general.
From excessively easy forum-shopping — anti-Trump DC District Judge James Boasberg and others seem to get “randomly” assigned to an awful lot of high-profile cases lately — to intemperate language, rushed rulings and a palpable hostility to Trump, the judiciary doesn’t seem to be calling “balls and strikes,” as Roberts likes to say.
Instead, it’s giving the impression of going to bat for one team.
This has played well with the legacy media — that is, the media whose opinion Roberts views as legitimate.
But it doesn’t look so good to a lot of other people. And their opinions matter too.
By design, and for good reason, the courts are insulated from the daily ebb and flow of politics.
But they aren’t, and can’t be, and shouldn’t be, entirely insulated from the tides of public opinion.
The public’s respect for the Supreme Court has been dropping over recent years, even as Roberts has worried endlessly about appearances.
The judiciary has neither the sword nor the purse, only judgment and reputation. If it abandons its objectivity for partisanship, what reason is there to heed it?
If this continues, it’s likely to be reflected in judicial appointments and legislation that the chief will find uncongenial.
He and the courts will deserve such changes. But America deserves better.
Glenn Harlan Reynolds is a professor of law at the University of Tennessee and founder of the InstaPundit.com blog.
Alito’s right to warn: Court’s knee-jerk habit of slapping Trump will cost it dearly
Alito’s right to warn: Court’s knee-jerk habit of slapping Trump will cost it dearly
Chief Justice John Roberts seems oblivious to the fact that the biggest threat to the courts’ legitimacy come from the courts themselves, as they take sides against the president.
nypost.com
“A number of judges have seemingly adopted a constitutional meta-principle: what a past President did, President Trump may not undo.”
So wrote Harvard Law professor and constitutional scholar Adrian Vermeule on Friday after a district court judge issued yet another lawless nationwide injunction meant to handcuff Trump and halt his agenda.
It’s a criticism that the Supreme Court, and particularly Chief Justice John Roberts, must take to heart.
One of the hallmarks of Roberts’ term has been an overweening desire to guard the judicial branch’s “legitimacy.”
But Roberts seems oblivious to the fact that the biggest threat to the courts’ legitimacy comes from the courts themselves — and his desire to preserve the judiciary’s standing with a small circle of Washington and academic insiders.
We saw that as far back as 2012, when Roberts switched sides in the case against Obamacare at the last minute, for fear that striking down that unprecedented bill would upset the DC apple cart and harm the court’s legitimacy.
Instead, it was a self-inflicted wound. Nobody respects a trimmer.
Roberts’ Obamacare decision wasn’t rooted in the Constitution, but an attempt to have it both ways, giving the Democrats enough of a victory to keep them from declaring war.
And we’ve seen that sort of thing repeatedly in the years since.
Roberts seems less concerned with preserving the court’s legitimacy in the eyes of America’s citizens, and more with the views of the editorial pages of the New York Times and the Washington Post, plus some Ivy League law professors whose schools’ decaying reputations should give him pause.
But now the flurry of lower-court interference is reaching crisis proportions, say Harvard’s Vermeule and others.
The prime issue, among others, is the illegal — and yes, it was contrary to the statutes on the books — Biden administration policy to admit millions of unvetted migrants into the country, and to allow them to stay here.
The “rule of law” didn’t matter then, because the crowd to which Roberts defers was in favor of open borders and its massive influx of a low-wage, government-dependent underclass.
Biden’s border policy has never been popular with the public, but the public isn’t Roberts’ concern: When he worries about legitimacy, he’s really thinking peer opinion — the “Mean Girls” judiciary.
“People Who Bypassed Legal Process in Migrating to USA Demand Legal Process Before Being Kicked Out,” as the Babylon Bee parody site put it.
This came to a head early Saturday as Roberts and six colleagues stepped in to temporarily uphold a lower-court opinion interfering with Trump’s deportations.
The Supremes acted one-sidedly and with untoward swiftness to block the president — in accordance, it seems, with Vermeule’s dictum.
But don’t take my word for it. Here’s what Justice Samuel Alito said, in a blazing dissent:
“Literally in the middle of the night, the Court issued unprecedented and legally questionable relief without giving the lower courts a chance to rule, without hearing from the opposing party, within eight hours of receiving the application, with dubious factual support for its order, and without providing any explanation.”
The court may make much of the “rule of law,” Alito noted — but “both the Executive and the Judiciary have an obligation to follow the law.”
The court’s irregular behavior here brings that into serious question.
It’s not clear that the justices had any jurisdiction to rule in this case at all, as Alito pointed out — much less with such unseemly haste.
And unseemly is a good description for the judiciary’s behavior here in general.
From excessively easy forum-shopping — anti-Trump DC District Judge James Boasberg and others seem to get “randomly” assigned to an awful lot of high-profile cases lately — to intemperate language, rushed rulings and a palpable hostility to Trump, the judiciary doesn’t seem to be calling “balls and strikes,” as Roberts likes to say.
Instead, it’s giving the impression of going to bat for one team.
This has played well with the legacy media — that is, the media whose opinion Roberts views as legitimate.
But it doesn’t look so good to a lot of other people. And their opinions matter too.
By design, and for good reason, the courts are insulated from the daily ebb and flow of politics.
But they aren’t, and can’t be, and shouldn’t be, entirely insulated from the tides of public opinion.
The public’s respect for the Supreme Court has been dropping over recent years, even as Roberts has worried endlessly about appearances.
The judiciary has neither the sword nor the purse, only judgment and reputation. If it abandons its objectivity for partisanship, what reason is there to heed it?
If this continues, it’s likely to be reflected in judicial appointments and legislation that the chief will find uncongenial.
He and the courts will deserve such changes. But America deserves better.
Glenn Harlan Reynolds is a professor of law at the University of Tennessee and founder of the InstaPundit.com blog.
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2009
- Messages
- 48,537
- Reaction score
- 24,437
Actually, that's not true. Before your car is impounded for DUI, the cop gives you the chance to take a breathalyzer or to demonstrate, via actions, that you are not drunk (cops get a lot of training on what they have to do before they're allowed to impound a driver's vehicle). And then your car is not permanently taken from you nor is your license permanently suspended without you having the right to address the allegations at a hearing or in court. Even when you get a speeding ticket in the mail, you're given a certain amount of time to challenge the ticket before the points or fine become permanent.
The permanency of the action is very much part of this conversation.
As for Covid, people absolutely were given a chance to respond to government action before it was taken against them, the individual. The government set rules/laws. Before people were punished under those laws, they had every chance to comply. If the law say "There is a punishment for operating after the curfew." That's a law, it doesn't become an action until the government actually tries to enforce it against a shop owner. At that point, due process says "Before you punish that shop owner for breaking the curfew, they must be given a chance to defend themselves." Which they were. People were able to petition for exemptions. Employees had the right to argue why they should be exempted from vaccine requirements. That doesn't mean they will win, they just get the right to argue against it.
Being given the opportunity to respond to the potential punishment does not mean that punishment will not be enforced just because the person chose to respond. People challenge speeding tickets all of the time...and lose. Due process is about the steps to ensure fair enforcement of the law, it doesn't protect people from enforcement if they've violated that law or regulation.
Due process for deportations doesn't mean that illegal aliens have an extra defense from deportation. It just means the government needs to follow the proper steps first.
This misunderstanding of due process happens all of the time, where people think that the government taking action that harms them violates their due process.
Just like illegal immigrants might be in violation of the law but they must be given the chance to address the violation.
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2013
- Messages
- 35,800
- Reaction score
- 33,264
"This looks like a good place to take a shit." -the author of that dumpI thought this a good article on the Trump verses courts situation concerning reversing Biden's and Democrats open borders. It does appear that with what is going on with the courts fewer Americans are going to support of the courts with their knee jerk political bias.
Alito’s right to warn: Court’s knee-jerk habit of slapping Trump will cost it dearly
Alito’s right to warn: Court’s knee-jerk habit of slapping Trump will cost it dearly
Chief Justice John Roberts seems oblivious to the fact that the biggest threat to the courts’ legitimacy come from the courts themselves, as they take sides against the president.
“A number of judges have seemingly adopted a constitutional meta-principle: what a past President did, President Trump may not undo.”
So wrote Harvard Law professor and constitutional scholar Adrian Vermeule on Friday after a district court judge issued yet another lawless nationwide injunction meant to handcuff Trump and halt his agenda.
It’s a criticism that the Supreme Court, and particularly Chief Justice John Roberts, must take to heart.
(From left) Supreme Court members Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, John Roberts and Sonia Sotomayor bow their heads during inauguration ceremonies in the Rotunda of the US Capitol on January 20, 2025, in Washington, DC.POOL/AFP via Getty Images
One of the hallmarks of Roberts’ term has been an overweening desire to guard the judicial branch’s “legitimacy.”
But Roberts seems oblivious to the fact that the biggest threat to the courts’ legitimacy comes from the courts themselves — and his desire to preserve the judiciary’s standing with a small circle of Washington and academic insiders.
We saw that as far back as 2012, when Roberts switched sides in the case against Obamacare at the last minute, for fear that striking down that unprecedented bill would upset the DC apple cart and harm the court’s legitimacy.
Instead, it was a self-inflicted wound. Nobody respects a trimmer.
Roberts’ Obamacare decision wasn’t rooted in the Constitution, but an attempt to have it both ways, giving the Democrats enough of a victory to keep them from declaring war.
And we’ve seen that sort of thing repeatedly in the years since.
Roberts seems less concerned with preserving the court’s legitimacy in the eyes of America’s citizens, and more with the views of the editorial pages of the New York Times and the Washington Post, plus some Ivy League law professors whose schools’ decaying reputations should give him pause.
But now the flurry of lower-court interference is reaching crisis proportions, say Harvard’s Vermeule and others.
The prime issue, among others, is the illegal — and yes, it was contrary to the statutes on the books — Biden administration policy to admit millions of unvetted migrants into the country, and to allow them to stay here.
The “rule of law” didn’t matter then, because the crowd to which Roberts defers was in favor of open borders and its massive influx of a low-wage, government-dependent underclass.
Biden’s border policy has never been popular with the public, but the public isn’t Roberts’ concern: When he worries about legitimacy, he’s really thinking peer opinion — the “Mean Girls” judiciary.
“People Who Bypassed Legal Process in Migrating to USA Demand Legal Process Before Being Kicked Out,” as the Babylon Bee parody site put it.
This came to a head early Saturday as Roberts and six colleagues stepped in to temporarily uphold a lower-court opinion interfering with Trump’s deportations.
The Supremes acted one-sidedly and with untoward swiftness to block the president — in accordance, it seems, with Vermeule’s dictum.
But don’t take my word for it. Here’s what Justice Samuel Alito said, in a blazing dissent:
“Literally in the middle of the night, the Court issued unprecedented and legally questionable relief without giving the lower courts a chance to rule, without hearing from the opposing party, within eight hours of receiving the application, with dubious factual support for its order, and without providing any explanation.”
The court may make much of the “rule of law,” Alito noted — but “both the Executive and the Judiciary have an obligation to follow the law.”
The court’s irregular behavior here brings that into serious question.
It’s not clear that the justices had any jurisdiction to rule in this case at all, as Alito pointed out — much less with such unseemly haste.
And unseemly is a good description for the judiciary’s behavior here in general.
From excessively easy forum-shopping — anti-Trump DC District Judge James Boasberg and others seem to get “randomly” assigned to an awful lot of high-profile cases lately — to intemperate language, rushed rulings and a palpable hostility to Trump, the judiciary doesn’t seem to be calling “balls and strikes,” as Roberts likes to say.
Instead, it’s giving the impression of going to bat for one team.
This has played well with the legacy media — that is, the media whose opinion Roberts views as legitimate.
But it doesn’t look so good to a lot of other people. And their opinions matter too.
By design, and for good reason, the courts are insulated from the daily ebb and flow of politics.
But they aren’t, and can’t be, and shouldn’t be, entirely insulated from the tides of public opinion.
The public’s respect for the Supreme Court has been dropping over recent years, even as Roberts has worried endlessly about appearances.
The judiciary has neither the sword nor the purse, only judgment and reputation. If it abandons its objectivity for partisanship, what reason is there to heed it?
If this continues, it’s likely to be reflected in judicial appointments and legislation that the chief will find uncongenial.
He and the courts will deserve such changes. But America deserves better.
Glenn Harlan Reynolds is a professor of law at the University of Tennessee and founder of the InstaPundit.com blog.
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2009
- Messages
- 48,537
- Reaction score
- 24,437
That's a shitty article.I thought this a good article on the Trump verses courts situation concerning reversing Biden's and Democrats open borders. It does appear that with what is going on with the courts fewer Americans are going to support of the courts with their knee jerk political bias.
Alito’s right to warn: Court’s knee-jerk habit of slapping Trump will cost it dearly
Alito’s right to warn: Court’s knee-jerk habit of slapping Trump will cost it dearly
Chief Justice John Roberts seems oblivious to the fact that the biggest threat to the courts’ legitimacy come from the courts themselves, as they take sides against the president.
“A number of judges have seemingly adopted a constitutional meta-principle: what a past President did, President Trump may not undo.”
So wrote Harvard Law professor and constitutional scholar Adrian Vermeule on Friday after a district court judge issued yet another lawless nationwide injunction meant to handcuff Trump and halt his agenda.
It’s a criticism that the Supreme Court, and particularly Chief Justice John Roberts, must take to heart.
(From left) Supreme Court members Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, John Roberts and Sonia Sotomayor bow their heads during inauguration ceremonies in the Rotunda of the US Capitol on January 20, 2025, in Washington, DC.POOL/AFP via Getty Images
One of the hallmarks of Roberts’ term has been an overweening desire to guard the judicial branch’s “legitimacy.”
But Roberts seems oblivious to the fact that the biggest threat to the courts’ legitimacy comes from the courts themselves — and his desire to preserve the judiciary’s standing with a small circle of Washington and academic insiders.
We saw that as far back as 2012, when Roberts switched sides in the case against Obamacare at the last minute, for fear that striking down that unprecedented bill would upset the DC apple cart and harm the court’s legitimacy.
Instead, it was a self-inflicted wound. Nobody respects a trimmer.
Roberts’ Obamacare decision wasn’t rooted in the Constitution, but an attempt to have it both ways, giving the Democrats enough of a victory to keep them from declaring war.
And we’ve seen that sort of thing repeatedly in the years since.
Roberts seems less concerned with preserving the court’s legitimacy in the eyes of America’s citizens, and more with the views of the editorial pages of the New York Times and the Washington Post, plus some Ivy League law professors whose schools’ decaying reputations should give him pause.
But now the flurry of lower-court interference is reaching crisis proportions, say Harvard’s Vermeule and others.
The prime issue, among others, is the illegal — and yes, it was contrary to the statutes on the books — Biden administration policy to admit millions of unvetted migrants into the country, and to allow them to stay here.
The “rule of law” didn’t matter then, because the crowd to which Roberts defers was in favor of open borders and its massive influx of a low-wage, government-dependent underclass.
Biden’s border policy has never been popular with the public, but the public isn’t Roberts’ concern: When he worries about legitimacy, he’s really thinking peer opinion — the “Mean Girls” judiciary.
“People Who Bypassed Legal Process in Migrating to USA Demand Legal Process Before Being Kicked Out,” as the Babylon Bee parody site put it.
This came to a head early Saturday as Roberts and six colleagues stepped in to temporarily uphold a lower-court opinion interfering with Trump’s deportations.
The Supremes acted one-sidedly and with untoward swiftness to block the president — in accordance, it seems, with Vermeule’s dictum.
But don’t take my word for it. Here’s what Justice Samuel Alito said, in a blazing dissent:
“Literally in the middle of the night, the Court issued unprecedented and legally questionable relief without giving the lower courts a chance to rule, without hearing from the opposing party, within eight hours of receiving the application, with dubious factual support for its order, and without providing any explanation.”
The court may make much of the “rule of law,” Alito noted — but “both the Executive and the Judiciary have an obligation to follow the law.”
The court’s irregular behavior here brings that into serious question.
It’s not clear that the justices had any jurisdiction to rule in this case at all, as Alito pointed out — much less with such unseemly haste.
And unseemly is a good description for the judiciary’s behavior here in general.
From excessively easy forum-shopping — anti-Trump DC District Judge James Boasberg and others seem to get “randomly” assigned to an awful lot of high-profile cases lately — to intemperate language, rushed rulings and a palpable hostility to Trump, the judiciary doesn’t seem to be calling “balls and strikes,” as Roberts likes to say.
Instead, it’s giving the impression of going to bat for one team.
This has played well with the legacy media — that is, the media whose opinion Roberts views as legitimate.
But it doesn’t look so good to a lot of other people. And their opinions matter too.
By design, and for good reason, the courts are insulated from the daily ebb and flow of politics.
But they aren’t, and can’t be, and shouldn’t be, entirely insulated from the tides of public opinion.
The public’s respect for the Supreme Court has been dropping over recent years, even as Roberts has worried endlessly about appearances.
The judiciary has neither the sword nor the purse, only judgment and reputation. If it abandons its objectivity for partisanship, what reason is there to heed it?
If this continues, it’s likely to be reflected in judicial appointments and legislation that the chief will find uncongenial.
He and the courts will deserve such changes. But America deserves better.
Glenn Harlan Reynolds is a professor of law at the University of Tennessee and founder of the InstaPundit.com blog.
It implies personal reasons and motivations for individuals but includes zero quotes to substantiate those implications. The biggest example is the frequent claim that Roberts, and others, are ruling to keep DC insiders happy. That's a bold claim, there should be a quote from one of the Justices or one of these insiders that makes the claim credible.
If I say that Johnny hates cats, I should have some quote from Johnny that suggests that he hates cats. Or from animal control giving examples of Johnny engaging in cat-hating behavior. Or something similar.
What's really going on is that people who disagree with the Court's reasoning but lack the legal foundation to explain why, other than politics, have been making a concerted effort to convince people that SCOTUS is acting in bad faith whenever it disagrees with the current administration.
SCOTUS is primarily an appellate court these days but, constitutionally, it's the only court that actually hears federal cases. All of the lower courts were created by Congress to address things and have limited jurisdiction over what they can hear.
As for Alito's specific gripe in this case, he's being facetious. The Court moved quickly because this administration demonstrated, via the other deportation hearing, that they would try to fast track actions before court rulings and then claim that they acted before the ruling and so weren't bound by it. So, the administration has forced the court to put holding actions on the docket as quickly as possible to preserve the applicability of their rulings.
I have nothing against Alito but he, and Thomas, have spent the last couple of years twisting every piece of jurisprudence to advance ideological positions by overturning existing cases. His "warnings" carry little weight with me.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2007
- Messages
- 2,165
- Reaction score
- 4,816
During your initial contact, you tell ICE your full name and birth date.
From there they can immediately check all 50 states' records to see if you exist in the system.
Worse case scenario they use a mobile fingerprint reader to identify you.
This isn't the 1880s where we need the Pony Express or a telegraph to communicate.
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2013
- Messages
- 35,800
- Reaction score
- 33,264
So now we got ICE grabbing random people and demanding their information, and if the person refuses, they get thrown in a van? Someone stops me walking down the sidewalk and demands my ID, I'm telling them to fuck off. We have something called the Constitution. Without probable cause, nobody should be getting stopped for anything. It's wild how quickly y'all have abandoned this basic core protection. Wild, but sadly not surprising.
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2013
- Messages
- 27,533
- Reaction score
- 14,791
Ah the old so you’re saying routine. Never change.
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2013
- Messages
- 27,533
- Reaction score
- 14,791
Look out. We have a bad ass here
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2013
- Messages
- 35,800
- Reaction score
- 33,264
Holy smokers!
Look, everyone!
The Great Fascisti is here to amaze us with his glorious feats of projection, cognitive dissonance, and shameless fabrication!
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2013
- Messages
- 27,533
- Reaction score
- 14,791
If the police pulled up on me I’d be like whoop ya and I’d kung fu their asses because I know karate. They’d be all like what and I’d be like ya. Then other people would see it and be all like woah
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2007
- Messages
- 2,165
- Reaction score
- 4,816
If you're walking down the street and the police reasonably suspect you of committing a crime, (such as being in the country illegally) they will stop you and ask you to identify yourself.
If you refuse, guess what? You get handcuffed and thrown into a van. And, you'll stay with the police until such time as they can identify you. All of it, completely Constitutional.
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2013
- Messages
- 35,800
- Reaction score
- 33,264
Reasonable suspicion of a crime requires probable cause. Arrests get ruled invalid all the time because they are found to have been conducted without probable cause.
And once you are arrested, you are required to have due process
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2008
- Messages
- 15,182
- Reaction score
- 15,648
I think it would be reasonable to stop everyone wearing a maga hat and test them for autism. Completely constitutional.
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2013
- Messages
- 35,800
- Reaction score
- 33,264
God help you if these tarrifs cause a supply shortage in adult diapers
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2009
- Messages
- 48,537
- Reaction score
- 24,437
Kind of minimizing some steps there.
Reasonably suspecting you of committing a crime has rules to it. Has to be articulable facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime is being committed.
So, no, ICE can't just stop random people and demand identification because some person looks illegal. They need some really articulable facts to justify it. "He looks Hispanic and wasn't speaking English," doesn't cut it.
