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
He ain't wrong. But there's still a big question of what he's going to do about it.
Will the Chicago PD defend its citizens from this unlawful armed incursion? Will the Illinois National Guard step up? Can the citizens defend themselves from this authoritarian violence? And will Pritzker lead his people in opposition to a military occupation of their largest city?
I think he should dispatch Illinois National Guard units for each Federal officer in his city, 1:1. Their only orders should be to trail ICE and other officers with body cams. Do not do anything else. Stream it online, on real time. Make sure people know what is happening.
There’s a section in the IL constitution that creates a “state guard,” which can be activated by the governor, separate from National Guard.
The CPD has a reputation of authoritarian violence
And like other police forces going after minorities
This is not an "Immigration Crackdown," this is an invasion of your own peaceful city. Patrolling tourist areas is only trying to hurt the city.
Didnt the supreme court literally green light this?
No. They said he can activate the NG but they can only protect federal buildings which is why everywhere they're deployed they're just circling around a handful of buildings.
Paywall, if you want to support the times provide the relevant text and we can talk about it though what is available before the block specifically says it isn't final quick means its lawfulness is indeterminate.
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.
Didnt the supreme court literally green light this
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.
well a court did but IDK if I'd call them supreme, they human like us, hint hint nudge nudge
In their opinion, the best of all reasons to harrass someone.
Isn't that like half their job–the other half being kidnappings terrorism?
Eh, you try being brown and see how you feel about this being labeled as a simple "distraction"
The ICE campaign of terror is not a distraction, in the sense that it is meant to draw attention away from something else. It is a primary ambition -- perhaps the primary ambition -- of this administration. Remember those "MASS DEPORTATION NOW" signs people were holding up at the Republican National Convention?
It is also unsympathetic to those being abused by ICE to call their plight a "distraction". No! It's something we need to pay attention to and put a stop to!