ChiGoose Posted September 9 Posted September 9 Feels like the Supreme Court taking a hatchet to the Fourth Amendment would be considered a bad thing by the freedom crowd. But maybe, for some unexplainable reason, they are supportive of the state stopping people without reasonable suspicion so long as those people are presumed to be brown. Also, I don’t know how any district judge is supposed to deal with these unexplained orders that treat settled law as overturned without actually overturning the settled law. 1
B-Man Posted September 9 Author Posted September 9 Schiff and Newsom and Bass OH MY! SCOTUS Decision on ICE California Ops Irks All the Right People Earlier today, the Supreme Court blocked a ruling of a lower court judge (which was upheld by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals)that had barred federal agents from conducting immigration stops in Los Angeles. The 6-3 SCOTUS ruling essentially said the lower court's ruling interfered with ICE's capacity to enforce federal law. https://twitchy.com/eric-v/2025/09/08/schiff-and-newsom-and-bass-oh-my-scotus-decision-on-ice-california-ops-irks-all-the-right-people-n2418642
B-Man Posted September 22 Author Posted September 22 The most important news of the day. SCOTUS allows Trump to fire Biden-appointed FTC commissioner The Supreme Court on Monday backed President Donald Trump's decision to fire a commissioner on the Federal Trade Commission, sending yet another signal that the high court intends to revisit a 90-year-old court precedent about executive firing power. The temporary decision to maintain Biden-appointed commissioner Rebecca Slaughter's termination was issued 6-3 along ideological lines. The Supreme Court set oral arguments in the case for December. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/scotus-allows-trump-fire-biden-appointed-ftc-commissioner
B-Man Posted Wednesday at 06:25 PM Author Posted Wednesday at 06:25 PM No decision yet, but the outcome seems likely. Principal Deputy Solicitor General Hashim Mooppan just completely silenced Sotomayor's argument for Louisiana's second black majority district: "If these were white Democrats, there's no reason to think they would have a second district. What is happening here is their argument is because these Democrats happen to be black, they get a second district. If they were all white, we all agree they wouldn't. That is literally the definition of race subordinating traditional principles."
The Frankish Reich Posted Wednesday at 07:48 PM Posted Wednesday at 07:48 PM 1 hour ago, B-Man said: No decision yet, but the outcome seems likely. Principal Deputy Solicitor General Hashim Mooppan just completely silenced Sotomayor's argument for Louisiana's second black majority district: "If these were white Democrats, there's no reason to think they would have a second district. What is happening here is their argument is because these Democrats happen to be black, they get a second district. If they were all white, we all agree they wouldn't. That is literally the definition of race subordinating traditional principles." What is "insane" about the argument made in your last cut-and-paste special? Isn't this precisely why Congress felt the need to pass the Voting Rights Act in 1965?
nedboy7 Posted Wednesday at 08:15 PM Posted Wednesday at 08:15 PM 27 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: What is "insane" about the argument made in your last cut-and-paste special? Isn't this precisely why Congress felt the need to pass the Voting Rights Act in 1965? No you see 1965 was the peak in woke ideology!
Orlando Buffalo Posted Wednesday at 11:38 PM Posted Wednesday at 11:38 PM On 9/8/2025 at 10:39 PM, Homelander said: The ignorance of this post is great, no other country except the US could put together a world cup is less than year and it is already ours. It is amazing that arresting criminals pisses of liberals this way but the Qatar WC using slaves did not cause them any concern.
B-Man Posted yesterday at 01:51 PM Author Posted yesterday at 01:51 PM The Voting Rights Act Probably Won't Be 'Gutted,' but the Supreme Court Appears Set to Restrain It By Joe Cunningham If you only read the headlines after the Supreme Court’s re-argument in Louisiana v. Callais, you’d think conservatives on the Court were sharpening their knives to “gut” the Voting Rights Act. The reality inside the courtroom was more nuanced—and, for those who actually care about constitutional limits, more encouraging. The justices weren’t preparing to demolish Section 2. They were trying to rescue it from the legal contradictions that have plagued redistricting for forty years. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act prohibits any map or election law that “results” in minority voters having less opportunity than others to elect their candidates of choice. In 1986, the Court’s decision in Thornburg v. Gingles established a three-part test: a large and compact minority population, political cohesion, and majority bloc voting. In Allen v. Milligan (2023), Chief Justice John Roberts reaffirmed that Section 2 can still require states to draw majority-minority districts under those conditions. But what happens when satisfying Section 2 forces a legislature to make race the overriding factor in its map—a move that violates the Equal Protection Clause? That’s the core of Louisiana v. Callais. Louisiana found itself trapped between two conflicting commands. A federal court instructed the legislature to create a second majority-Black district under Section 2. The moment it did, another set of plaintiffs sued, saying the new map— which passed our legislature as Senate Bill 8—was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander under Shaw v. Reno. Louisiana Solicitor General J. Benjamin Aguiñaga put it bluntly at argument: “Louisiana would rather not be here… we would rather not be caught between two parties with opposed visions.” His point: the state can’t simultaneously comply with both Section 2’s racial awareness and the Constitution’s racial neutrality without clearer boundaries. Quote Section 2 was never meant to guarantee racial proportionality in Congress. It was meant to prevent state officials from using race to suppress. Somewhere along the way, compliance with Section 2 began requiring state officials to use race to divide. https://redstate.com/joesquire/2025/10/15/the-voting-rights-act-probably-wont-be-gutted-but-the-supreme-court-appears-set-to-restrain-it-n2195116
Recommended Posts