The Current Supreme Court, due to their erroneous decisions, and apparently unlimited hubris, needs to be abolished or completely restricted by Congress, if we in fact get Congress back in 2026. They are corrupt, using unchecked power to help facilitate the agenda of a convicted felon who happens to be our current President. They are shredding the constitution with each decision and defying the will of the voters who are living with the consequences of their feckless mandates. If allowed to continue, there needs to be strict guidelines as to behavior that prevents outside influence and money from tainting their decisions, and concrete term limits. They are actually doing more damage to our democracy than Trump. There are only three justices worth keeping out of this group of nine, as far as I am concerned. Sotomayer, Jackson, and Kagen are the standard that should be applied to a serving justice. The rest need to be impeached and removed for failing to honor our constitution and implement their decisions accordingly.
I can't give this a like because the ruling by the six Christian Nationalists on the Supreme Court is so disgusting. This is a clear violation of the 4th Amendment.
In addition, nowhere in the Constitution can one find Presidential immunity and "the major questions doctrine".
Congress enacted, by law, all Federal agencies. With the six allowing the firing of board members/officers/chairs of various agencies which Congress could only be fired for cause, the six are defying the will of Congress.
Gerrymandering is unconstitutional. The Founders formulated the House of Representatives to ensure representation by the people in Government. Gerrymandering is not politics. Gerrymandering is taking power away from the many and giving power to the few. Gerrymandering is actually taxation without representation.
These six don't care about precedent, the rule of law nor the Constitution. They should all be impeached.
With the full support of the six Christian Nationalists on the Supreme Court and GOP Congressional members the Felon is making the United States an authoritarian theocracy, with the Felon as leader and the American oligarchs running the Country (Putin's Russia).
Nick, those of us who "liked" this piece didn't do so because we approve of the conduct of some judges. We did so because we approve of this piece--this exercise of our First Amendment freedoms--exposing and opposing judges who are abusing their positions to violate our Constitution.
Kavanaugh: "for stops of those individuals who are legally in the country, the questioning in those circumstances is typically brief, and those individuals may promptly go free after making clear to the immigration officers that they are U. S. citizens or otherwise legally in the United States."
And how does this idiot of a justice suggest these individuals "make clear to immigration officers" that they are legally in the U.S.? This man has lived a very protected life and has no idea what it's like to work for a living. What document does he think will satisfy these bullies? I certainly don't have any such document. The only legal document I carry is a driver's license, and it says nothing about my citizenship.
Kavanaugh doesn't watch the news either, because he'd see these baboons smash the glass out of a car window, pull the suspect from the vehicle, slam him/her on the ground, kick them (accidentally) a few times, and, with a foot on their chest, demand documents. In filmed incidents, they've intentionally ignored the documents the suspect does present, imprisoned them in horrible conditions, denied them access to counsel, and then shipped them to another prison where they are ignored.
Kavanaugh is a fool, a bigot, and a rubber stamp for a wannabe dictator. The fact that Roberts joined this decision makes clear that this Supreme Court has abandoned the principles on which this country was founded.
"[Kavanaugh] wrote: “there is an extremely high number and percentage illegal immigrants in the Los Angeles area, that those individuals tend to gather in certain locations to seek daily work; that those individuals work in certain kinds of jobs … and that many of those illegally in the Los Angeles area come from Mexico or Central America and do not speak much English.”"
Kavanaugh provides no citation for his claims. Where does he get this information, (except through that well-known right-wing Justice process of rectal extraction)? One suspects Prof. Chemerinsky would mark down a law student for making such a claim without providing a reference and this is a Supreme Court Justice!
It's even worse that Prof. Chemerinsky says regarding the likelihood of the US citizens who brought the case being accosted by ICE again. Many of these raids were at workplaces and bus stops - places where these workers go EVERY DAY!
As disgraceful and frankly unconstitutional as Kavanaugh's screed is, at least he actually wrote an explanation for his vote. The other (likely) five justices are such cowards they didn't even bother to take responsibility for their vote or explain to us little people why they think racial profiling is justified in this case. They seem to forget, or treat with contempt, who their employers are - the American people. We pay for your salary, your chambers, staff, fancy building, security and (probably) even your damn robes so the least you owe us is an explanation for decisions made in our name.
Well, the circle has been completed. Now we not only have a LAWLESS wannabe dictator for president, we also have a LAWLESS congress and last, but not least, we have a LAWLESS "supreme" court!
What could possibly go wrong between now and November 2026/January 2027?
Clarence Thomas is no different from Trump. Thomas is on a retribution tour and has been for quite a while now. He was accused by Anita Hill for sexual harassment much in the same way as Trump. Though Trump is guilty as charged so likely is Clarence Thomas. That’s how it started for both of them. Alito and Coney-Barrett are both religious fanatics and apply their religious views to the rule of law and the constitution. None of them give a rip about ethical standards whether in theory or in practice except the liberal wing of the court. The conservatives would as soon racial profile as not.
Where, oh where is CONGRESS!! a with two of the 3 branches of OUR Government out of control, Congress is out last hope……..I know a VERY slim one!! SAD DAY!!
Our constitution has been transformed into toilet paper by six lawless justices, a senile predator and a party filled with cowards. The writers of the Federalist Papers propaganda letters might be surprised at how easily their work has been thwarted. If it weren't so awful, it would be laughable.
'Federalist Papers propaganda letters’?? Fascist AI, I presume, and not very smart AI at that. But for those of us who don’t know what 1) propaganda is, and/or, 2) what the Federalist Papers were:
1) 'propaganda, dissemination of information—facts, arguments, rumours, half-truths, or lies—to influence public opinion. It is often conveyed through mass media.
Propaganda is the more or less systematic effort to manipulate other people’s beliefs, attitudes, or actions by means of symbols (words, gestures, banners, monuments, music, clothing, insignia, hairstyles, designs on coins and postage stamps, and so forth). Deliberateness and a relatively heavy emphasis on manipulation distinguish propaganda from casual conversation or the free and easy exchange of ideas. Propagandists have a specified goal or set of goals. To achieve these, they deliberately select facts, arguments, and displays of symbols and present them in ways they think will have the most effect. To maximize effect, they may omit or distort pertinent facts or simply lie, and they may try to divert the attention of the reactors (the people they are trying to sway) from everything but their own propaganda.'
2) 'The Federalist Papers were written and published to urge New Yorkers to ratify the proposed United States Constitution, which was drafted in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787. In lobbying for adoption of the Constitution over the existing Articles of Confederation, the essays explain particular provisions of the Constitution in detail. For this reason, and because Hamilton and Madison were each members of the Constitutional Convention, the Federalist Papers are often used today to help interpret the intentions of those drafting the Constitution.’
They were NOT ‘letters’ but were published in two NY state newspapers. So, an effort at civic education, NOT propaganda.
The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause.
"wartime propaganda."
A congregation of cardinals, established in 1622, charged with the management of missions.
The American Heritage dictionary via wordnik”
“Considerable debate has surrounded these essays since their publication. Many suggest they represent the best exposition of the Constitution to date. Their conceptual design would affirm this view. Others contend that they were mere propaganda to allay fears of the opposition to the Constitution. University of Wisconsin Department of history.”
“letters /lĕt′ər/
Plural form of letter
noun
A written symbol or character representing a speech sound and being a component of an alphabet.
A written symbol or character used in the graphemic representation of a word, such as the h in Thames.
A WRITTEN OR PRINTED COMMUNICATION DIRECTED TO A PERSON OR ORGANiZATION.” Once again The American Heritage Dictionary.
When I got my degree in American studies with honors from one of the best public universities in this country, I was not once told I was an AI or stupid.
I have never liked the way rightists use the document to promote the very ideas they used to destroy it. And they have very nearly destroyed the constitution.
You think the rightists are failing at destroying the constitution? This country being “all we have” as you put it means that we had better be honest about what this country really is so that we can fix its flaws.
When I studied, this country in college, my focus was the contradictions between mainstream communications foisted by the establishment and communications that were suppressed by that establishment. It was easy to see our flaws. Our participation in this democracy isn’t very good, for many reasons. We can surely lose this country if we don’t wake up to our basic flaws and contradictions and fix them.
As to my being an AI, that is just an attempt to demean. Give it a rest.
The rightists are not following the constitution. They are ignoring it. They are circumventing it. They are deliberately misinterpreting it. They are outright defying it.
Is that not true?
So far, the institutions which are designed by the constitution to prevent that are failing to hold them to account for it. Is that not true?
The rightists are indeed turning our constitution into toilet paper. What else can you call a document that is ignored by a significant cadre of elected leadership, appointed responsible parties and a horrifying number of citizens? Do you dispute the fact that this is occurring?
.
The writers of the Federalist papers foresaw war, ok, that observation right after the revolution does not surprise me upon reflection about your comment. It makes sense and it is a good point. Even so they sure didn’t do much to prevent it now did they? Talks is great, and political discussions about war just after a war seem likely. But if they saw that horror coming they sure weren’t serious about solving the underlying conflicts to prevent it, now were they? They talked about it. Ok.
The Federalist papers do not have the force of law. Come see me when they do. Still I do not disagree with them per se, I attack the way they have been used. They were and are correspondences seeking to build support for the constitution. They are not the constitution they are not law, they are opinions and explanations. The writers suffer from the foibles and prejudices that are consistent with their times. I tire of having them served up as something they are not.
As to the Supreme Court the people who wrote Miranda did not just conclude that it was ok to detain people because of appearances. The Supreme Court has been corrupted.
You wish you could see my face huh? That suggests your level of engagement in this discussion exceeds just disagreement. I must REALLY displease you with my comment. So blank the first amendment too? Still…I am truly sorry about that, and that you feel that way because I care about this country at least as much as you do and I am sick about how it is being perverted.
WJM, in The Federalist No. 9, Alexander Hamilton warned of the extreme danger to America of “vibration between the extremes of tyranny and anarchy,” of “furious storms” and reason, truth and justice being “overwhelmed by the tempestuous waves” of “party rage.”
The name for the famous Miranda warning (of rights when people are arrested) comes from a SCOTUS decision, Miranda v. Ariz., 384 U.S. 436 (1966). One principle at work is that a word of warning can make a world of difference. But there is an even greater principle at work: our public servants should educate us, not deceive us, about our rights.
Particular warnings in Miranda should be as famous as the Miranda warning issued upon arrest. Miranda repeated wise warnings that had been included in prior opinions of SCOTUS justices.
The first warning in Miranda (about how and why crime is contagious, especially when judges become infected) was originally by the wise and great Justice Brandeis (joined by the wise and great Justice Holmes) dissenting in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928)). This warning was first offered just before SCOTUS (finally) started enforcing our First Amendment rights almost 100 years ago.
"Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy."
In Miranda, SCOTUS elaborated on how judges play the long game. They do not merely decide the case or controversy before them. They use their opinions or statements to teach, encourage and assist others to undermine our Constitution and defraud us of our rights. Judges can and do use their opinions to misrepresent, distort and deny our rights. Their misrepresentations, distortions and denials, in turn, encourage more litigation to even further encroach on our rights.
WJM, only people who want to take the easy path of trashing our Constitution say what you say. No good can come from making people think our Constitution is irrelevant. No one ever said keeping our republic would be easy. It requires actual work. It requires many people working together. In The Federalist No. 51, James Madison emphasized that was the design:
"It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government . . . ."
People speaking out (including by voting, helping to register people to vote, litigating and helping litigate) always was and always will be "necessary to control the abuses of government." Nothing we're experiencing today is even remotely new or unanticipated by the people who wrote and ratified our Constitution and our Bill of Rights.
The constitution is not irrelevant. I did not say that AT ALL. I said that I am not a fan of some of the writings in the federalist papers which, I think have become a rightist tool that they are using to undermine the constitution while purporting to support it.
The constitution under attack by the right and if we don’t do something about it, we are in danger of losing this republic.
If you think any of that is easy, we are existing in different universes.
The Supreme Court just ruled, without explanation mind you, that people can be stopped in the street and detained based on their color, language skills and job until they prove their legal status to the satisfaction of someone else - without due process. You do not think that is an attack on the fourth amendment?
As far as this not being new, I agree. However I don’t think we have seen much of anything like this since the start of the civil war. I have never seen all three branches of government in these straits before.
The Federalist papers sure didn’t prevent civil war and its (by some accounts)600,000 casualties, nor did the constitution. Do you think the writers of the Federalist papers saw that war coming?
In the end it is our vigilance that makes the constitution whole. Right now it is under siege and people had better wake up to it. And frankly I am terrified that we are not up to it this time.
WJM, I wish I could see you face to face and wager $10,000 that I could prove "the writers of the Federalist papers saw [the Civil War] coming." If you considered the actual text of the Federalist Papers, you'd know that people of their time talked and thought a lot about civil war--even in 1787 and 1788. The threat of civil war was one of their best arguments for having one nation with a written Constitution that was ratified by the people. See, for example, The Federalist Nos. 2, 8, 9, 10.
Papers, alone, won't prevent wars or violations of rights. People must prevent wars and oppression, but papers can help them. Even the writers of The Federalist Papers expressly emphasized (repeatedly) that constitutions, alone, are mere "parchment barriers." See Federalist No. 48.
WJM, you started this thread with these words: "Our constitution has been transformed into toilet paper" and "the Federalist Papers" are "propaganda letters." Nobody needs you pushing those views. We need people to spend more time learning the true meaning of our Constitution, including by considering the important insights offered by the Federalist Papers. That takes work that you obviously haven't put in.
What does it mean that the SC "allowed ICE to resume its racial profiling while the matter continues to be litigated in the lower courts"?? And once the litigation is completed? Then SC votes again??
"The application for stay presented to JUSTICE KAGAN and by her referred to the Court is granted. The July 11, 2025 order entered by the United States District Court for the Central District of California, case No. 2:25–cv–5605, is stayed pending the disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if such a writ is timely sought. Should certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court."
My apologies. It's a temporary decision to stop a lower court ruling so that ICE may continue its operations while the case works its way through the lower courts. Eventually it will end back up at the Supreme Court.
Well, what is racist's Kavanaugh lofty position in the South Koreans that were marched out of the Korean car plant? They did not speak Spanish or appeared to be Hispanic. What of the Canadians or Irish who have been illegally held by ICE for a period of time for small-time travel visa violations? No Mexican appearing individual there. What of the attempts to make Haitians return to their war-torn country? Absolutely no Hispanics there that I could see. What a piece of shit this guy is, and SCOTUS is absolutely lost to the American people. This court should simply be abolished.
"The Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection prevents people from being stopped based on race."
That's true, but race wasn't the only condition for making the stops, as Justice Kavanaugh noted:
"Reasonable suspicion is a lesser requirement than probable cause and “considerably short” of the preponderance of the evidence standard. Arvizu, 534 U. S., at 274. Whether an officer has reasonable suspicion depends on the totality of the circumstances. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S., at 885, n. 10; Arvizu, 534 U. S., at 273. Here, those circumstances include: that there is an extremely high number and percentage of illegal immigrants in the Los Angeles area; that those individuals tend to gather in certain locations to seek daily work; that those individuals often work in certain kinds of jobs, such as day labor, landscaping, agriculture, and construction, that do not require paperwork and are therefore especially attractive to illegal immigrants; and that many of those illegally in the Los Angeles area come from Mexico or Central America and do not speak much English. Cf. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S., at 884–885 (listing “[a]ny number of factors” that contribute to reasonable suspicion of illegal presence). To be clear, apparent ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion; under this Court’s case law regarding immigration stops, however, it can be a “relevant factor” when considered along with other salient factors. Id., at 887."
Hal, it's meaningless to say that "ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion" but
"it can be a “relevant factor” when considered along with other salient factors." The primary factors are skin color, education, economic status and willingness to do certain kinds of work.
I lived in NYC when Mayor Guiliani had it cleaned up. They didn't target people because of the foregoing factors. They targeted everybody who violated the law. I recall the NY Times publishing a big, prominent piece explaining that anybody who violates the law (including by letting dogs run off leash in a park, failing to curb a dog, jumping turnstiles or even taking up two seats on a subway car) could wind up being arrested and booked. That's how government employees do things when they're really not violating our Constitution.
Jack, it's not my opinion. And it will be hashed out again once the case works its way through the lower courts. We'll see what the other justices say then.
Like I said, I thought it was most relevant to his decision. If you want to infer anything else, that's your opinion. I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on Substack.
Cf. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S., at 884–885 is about STOPPING CARS AT THE BORDER, not roving masked yahoos throwing people to the ground in the middle of Los Angeles — which is 134 miles to the north and in no sense could be construed as the necessary ‘functional equivalent’ of the border! And where does this idiot rapist wannabe kav get his information about ’an extremely high number and percentage of illegal immigrants in the Los Angeles area’. Yeah, that's real precise. There is so much that is just wrong about his weak attempt at justification: as usual the fascist 6 are full of forking crap and we all pay the price.
"Cf. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S., at 884–885 is about STOPPING CARS AT THE BORDER..."
Part of the decision stated:
"The effect of our decision is to limit exercise of the authority granted by both § 287(a)(1) and § 287(a)(3). Except at the border and its functional equivalents, officers on roving patrol may stop vehicles only if they are aware of specific articulable facts, together with rational inferences from those facts, that reasonably warrant suspicion that the vehicles contain aliens who may be illegally in the country. [Footnote 9]"
Footnote 9: "As noted above, we reserve the question whether Border Patrol officers also may stop persons reasonably believed to be aliens when there is no reason to believe they are illegally in the country. See Cheung Tin Wong v. INS, 152 U.S.App.D.C. 66, 468 F.2d 1123 (1972); Au Yi Lau v. INS, 144 U.S.App.D.C. 147, 445 F.2d 217, cert. denied, 404 U.S. 864 (1971). The facts of this case do not require decision on the point."
1. Downtown LA is neither the border nor its 'functional equivalent' so this case does not apply at all. You can’t just take precedent out of context/cherry pick what you like and ignore the rest, although that’s what this SCOTUS excels at. To be clear, this case is a veeeeerrrrry loooooong way from ‘on point’.
2. ‘[O]fficers on roving patrol may stop vehicles only if they are aware of specific articulable facts, together with rational inferences from those facts, that reasonably warrant suspicion that the vehicles contain aliens who may be illegally in the country’. I would have thought this was self-explanatory. ICE HAS TO HAVE SPECIFIC ARTICULABLE FACTS THAT REASONABLY WARRANT SUSPICION THAT THE CAR CONTAINS ILLEGAL ALIENS. THESE ARE LEGAL TERMS OF ART/CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS ('aware of specific, articulable facts', 'together with rational inferences from those facts', 'reasonably warrant suspicion') NOT JUST THROW AWAY WORDS TO SOUND SMART.
3. This is about CARS. Nowhere does it say ICE can attack a delivery guy walking out a door just because he’s a BROWN delivery guy.
4. Did you read the footnote? It mutes the point you seem to be trying to make. The Court DID NOT DECIDE 'the question whether Border Patrol officers also may stop persons reasonably believed to be aliens when there is no reason to believe they are illegally in the country.’
I guess it really doesn't matter to you except to have an argument. So be it. Until then I'll just wait until the case eventually returns to SCOTUS. Maybe in the interim you can get with the professor and write an amicus brief for the Court. Have a good day.
'If the court does not uphold the Constitution and the rule of law, is there anything to protect our constitutional democracy?’
You betcha, there is. We the people don’t need no stinkin’ corrupt SCOTUS to protect our democracy, especially since the fascist 6 religious fanatics are among the greatest threats. We will do it ourselves. I live in WA where my AG has already put out a statement:
“The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling allows ICE to resume racially profiling and detaining members of the Latino community in the Los Angeles area, whether they have reason to believe an individual is undocumented or not. This is a terrible decision. It harkens back to some of the court’s most notorious and regrettable decisions, and it communicates to the Latino community, and other people of color in the U.S.—whether citizens or not—that they are second-class citizens. I condemn this decision and reaffirm my office’s commitment to protecting the rights of all Washingtonians under the law.”
This is inaccurate: "But the Supreme Court, in an apparent 6-3 ruling, reversed and allowed ICE to resume its racial profiling while the matter continues to be litigated in the lower courts." ICE denies "racial profiling," declaring instead that the criteria they're using is constitutional. Thus, those facts and arguments should be litigated before the SCOTUS gets the case.
Kavanaugh … “profoundly misunderstands the Fourth Amendment: It protects the right of every person—citizen or non-citizen—to be free from being stopped by the police unless there is at least reasonable suspicion.”
Misunderstands or intentionally flaunts given his inherent racism
Roberts previously said the Korematsu decision that justified the imprisonment of 126,000 people of Japanese descent was no longer applicable. What the supreme court is now doing is reinstating the Korematsu decision through the back door. If the standard is the "common sense" elements that the drunk Kavanaugh identified, a case could be made that the people of Japanese descent could be imprisoned for common sense reasons: the United States had been attacked by Japan, many of the people imprisoned were not citizens (people born in Japan could not be citizens), many had studied in Japan, blah, blah blah. This erosion of our liberty is frighening and appaling.
The Current Supreme Court, due to their erroneous decisions, and apparently unlimited hubris, needs to be abolished or completely restricted by Congress, if we in fact get Congress back in 2026. They are corrupt, using unchecked power to help facilitate the agenda of a convicted felon who happens to be our current President. They are shredding the constitution with each decision and defying the will of the voters who are living with the consequences of their feckless mandates. If allowed to continue, there needs to be strict guidelines as to behavior that prevents outside influence and money from tainting their decisions, and concrete term limits. They are actually doing more damage to our democracy than Trump. There are only three justices worth keeping out of this group of nine, as far as I am concerned. Sotomayer, Jackson, and Kagen are the standard that should be applied to a serving justice. The rest need to be impeached and removed for failing to honor our constitution and implement their decisions accordingly.
I can't give this a like because the ruling by the six Christian Nationalists on the Supreme Court is so disgusting. This is a clear violation of the 4th Amendment.
In addition, nowhere in the Constitution can one find Presidential immunity and "the major questions doctrine".
Congress enacted, by law, all Federal agencies. With the six allowing the firing of board members/officers/chairs of various agencies which Congress could only be fired for cause, the six are defying the will of Congress.
Gerrymandering is unconstitutional. The Founders formulated the House of Representatives to ensure representation by the people in Government. Gerrymandering is not politics. Gerrymandering is taking power away from the many and giving power to the few. Gerrymandering is actually taxation without representation.
These six don't care about precedent, the rule of law nor the Constitution. They should all be impeached.
With the full support of the six Christian Nationalists on the Supreme Court and GOP Congressional members the Felon is making the United States an authoritarian theocracy, with the Felon as leader and the American oligarchs running the Country (Putin's Russia).
Nick, those of us who "liked" this piece didn't do so because we approve of the conduct of some judges. We did so because we approve of this piece--this exercise of our First Amendment freedoms--exposing and opposing judges who are abusing their positions to violate our Constitution.
Kavanaugh: "for stops of those individuals who are legally in the country, the questioning in those circumstances is typically brief, and those individuals may promptly go free after making clear to the immigration officers that they are U. S. citizens or otherwise legally in the United States."
And how does this idiot of a justice suggest these individuals "make clear to immigration officers" that they are legally in the U.S.? This man has lived a very protected life and has no idea what it's like to work for a living. What document does he think will satisfy these bullies? I certainly don't have any such document. The only legal document I carry is a driver's license, and it says nothing about my citizenship.
Kavanaugh doesn't watch the news either, because he'd see these baboons smash the glass out of a car window, pull the suspect from the vehicle, slam him/her on the ground, kick them (accidentally) a few times, and, with a foot on their chest, demand documents. In filmed incidents, they've intentionally ignored the documents the suspect does present, imprisoned them in horrible conditions, denied them access to counsel, and then shipped them to another prison where they are ignored.
Kavanaugh is a fool, a bigot, and a rubber stamp for a wannabe dictator. The fact that Roberts joined this decision makes clear that this Supreme Court has abandoned the principles on which this country was founded.
"[Kavanaugh] wrote: “there is an extremely high number and percentage illegal immigrants in the Los Angeles area, that those individuals tend to gather in certain locations to seek daily work; that those individuals work in certain kinds of jobs … and that many of those illegally in the Los Angeles area come from Mexico or Central America and do not speak much English.”"
Kavanaugh provides no citation for his claims. Where does he get this information, (except through that well-known right-wing Justice process of rectal extraction)? One suspects Prof. Chemerinsky would mark down a law student for making such a claim without providing a reference and this is a Supreme Court Justice!
It's even worse that Prof. Chemerinsky says regarding the likelihood of the US citizens who brought the case being accosted by ICE again. Many of these raids were at workplaces and bus stops - places where these workers go EVERY DAY!
As disgraceful and frankly unconstitutional as Kavanaugh's screed is, at least he actually wrote an explanation for his vote. The other (likely) five justices are such cowards they didn't even bother to take responsibility for their vote or explain to us little people why they think racial profiling is justified in this case. They seem to forget, or treat with contempt, who their employers are - the American people. We pay for your salary, your chambers, staff, fancy building, security and (probably) even your damn robes so the least you owe us is an explanation for decisions made in our name.
p. 3, 1st paragraph of the Kavanaugh concurrence (link below): "(iv) apparent race or ethnicity."
You mean "skin color." What other possible meaning could that have?
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/25a169_5h25.pdf
Kavanaugh, not Gorsuch. But yeah.
No difference. Interchangeable in the worst possible ways.
Thank you. Just reading about these imbeciles gives me a headache. Corrected.
I hear you. His explanation made me so angry I had to stop reading it.
It infuriates me. I love the law and the Constitution and these feckless, venal nincompoops are just ripping it up.
Well, the circle has been completed. Now we not only have a LAWLESS wannabe dictator for president, we also have a LAWLESS congress and last, but not least, we have a LAWLESS "supreme" court!
What could possibly go wrong between now and November 2026/January 2027?
Clarence Thomas is no different from Trump. Thomas is on a retribution tour and has been for quite a while now. He was accused by Anita Hill for sexual harassment much in the same way as Trump. Though Trump is guilty as charged so likely is Clarence Thomas. That’s how it started for both of them. Alito and Coney-Barrett are both religious fanatics and apply their religious views to the rule of law and the constitution. None of them give a rip about ethical standards whether in theory or in practice except the liberal wing of the court. The conservatives would as soon racial profile as not.
Where, oh where is CONGRESS!! a with two of the 3 branches of OUR Government out of control, Congress is out last hope……..I know a VERY slim one!! SAD DAY!!
Congress is populated by cowards who are hiding under their desks and afraid to say anything.
Our constitution has been transformed into toilet paper by six lawless justices, a senile predator and a party filled with cowards. The writers of the Federalist Papers propaganda letters might be surprised at how easily their work has been thwarted. If it weren't so awful, it would be laughable.
'Federalist Papers propaganda letters’?? Fascist AI, I presume, and not very smart AI at that. But for those of us who don’t know what 1) propaganda is, and/or, 2) what the Federalist Papers were:
1) 'propaganda, dissemination of information—facts, arguments, rumours, half-truths, or lies—to influence public opinion. It is often conveyed through mass media.
Propaganda is the more or less systematic effort to manipulate other people’s beliefs, attitudes, or actions by means of symbols (words, gestures, banners, monuments, music, clothing, insignia, hairstyles, designs on coins and postage stamps, and so forth). Deliberateness and a relatively heavy emphasis on manipulation distinguish propaganda from casual conversation or the free and easy exchange of ideas. Propagandists have a specified goal or set of goals. To achieve these, they deliberately select facts, arguments, and displays of symbols and present them in ways they think will have the most effect. To maximize effect, they may omit or distort pertinent facts or simply lie, and they may try to divert the attention of the reactors (the people they are trying to sway) from everything but their own propaganda.'
https://www.britannica.com/topic/propaganda
2) 'The Federalist Papers were written and published to urge New Yorkers to ratify the proposed United States Constitution, which was drafted in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787. In lobbying for adoption of the Constitution over the existing Articles of Confederation, the essays explain particular provisions of the Constitution in detail. For this reason, and because Hamilton and Madison were each members of the Constitutional Convention, the Federalist Papers are often used today to help interpret the intentions of those drafting the Constitution.’
They were NOT ‘letters’ but were published in two NY state newspapers. So, an effort at civic education, NOT propaganda.
https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/full-text
Faux noise much, hmmmm??
My that was really emotional.
“propaganda /prŏp″ə-găn′də/
noun
The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause.
"wartime propaganda."
A congregation of cardinals, established in 1622, charged with the management of missions.
The American Heritage dictionary via wordnik”
“Considerable debate has surrounded these essays since their publication. Many suggest they represent the best exposition of the Constitution to date. Their conceptual design would affirm this view. Others contend that they were mere propaganda to allay fears of the opposition to the Constitution. University of Wisconsin Department of history.”
“letters /lĕt′ər/
Plural form of letter
noun
A written symbol or character representing a speech sound and being a component of an alphabet.
A written symbol or character used in the graphemic representation of a word, such as the h in Thames.
A WRITTEN OR PRINTED COMMUNICATION DIRECTED TO A PERSON OR ORGANiZATION.” Once again The American Heritage Dictionary.
When I got my degree in American studies with honors from one of the best public universities in this country, I was not once told I was an AI or stupid.
I have never liked the way rightists use the document to promote the very ideas they used to destroy it. And they have very nearly destroyed the constitution.
You think the rightists are failing at destroying the constitution? This country being “all we have” as you put it means that we had better be honest about what this country really is so that we can fix its flaws.
When I studied, this country in college, my focus was the contradictions between mainstream communications foisted by the establishment and communications that were suppressed by that establishment. It was easy to see our flaws. Our participation in this democracy isn’t very good, for many reasons. We can surely lose this country if we don’t wake up to our basic flaws and contradictions and fix them.
As to my being an AI, that is just an attempt to demean. Give it a rest.
No, they have not. In fact, they are failing miserably at it. The Constitution stands as long as we, the people, do.
Yep. I’m emotional about this. IT’S OUR COUNTRY AND IT’S THE ONLY ONE WE HAVE. And I still think you are AI.
WJM, see my comments above.
The rightists are not following the constitution. They are ignoring it. They are circumventing it. They are deliberately misinterpreting it. They are outright defying it.
Is that not true?
So far, the institutions which are designed by the constitution to prevent that are failing to hold them to account for it. Is that not true?
The rightists are indeed turning our constitution into toilet paper. What else can you call a document that is ignored by a significant cadre of elected leadership, appointed responsible parties and a horrifying number of citizens? Do you dispute the fact that this is occurring?
.
The writers of the Federalist papers foresaw war, ok, that observation right after the revolution does not surprise me upon reflection about your comment. It makes sense and it is a good point. Even so they sure didn’t do much to prevent it now did they? Talks is great, and political discussions about war just after a war seem likely. But if they saw that horror coming they sure weren’t serious about solving the underlying conflicts to prevent it, now were they? They talked about it. Ok.
The Federalist papers do not have the force of law. Come see me when they do. Still I do not disagree with them per se, I attack the way they have been used. They were and are correspondences seeking to build support for the constitution. They are not the constitution they are not law, they are opinions and explanations. The writers suffer from the foibles and prejudices that are consistent with their times. I tire of having them served up as something they are not.
As to the Supreme Court the people who wrote Miranda did not just conclude that it was ok to detain people because of appearances. The Supreme Court has been corrupted.
You wish you could see my face huh? That suggests your level of engagement in this discussion exceeds just disagreement. I must REALLY displease you with my comment. So blank the first amendment too? Still…I am truly sorry about that, and that you feel that way because I care about this country at least as much as you do and I am sick about how it is being perverted.
WJM, in The Federalist No. 9, Alexander Hamilton warned of the extreme danger to America of “vibration between the extremes of tyranny and anarchy,” of “furious storms” and reason, truth and justice being “overwhelmed by the tempestuous waves” of “party rage.”
The name for the famous Miranda warning (of rights when people are arrested) comes from a SCOTUS decision, Miranda v. Ariz., 384 U.S. 436 (1966). One principle at work is that a word of warning can make a world of difference. But there is an even greater principle at work: our public servants should educate us, not deceive us, about our rights.
Particular warnings in Miranda should be as famous as the Miranda warning issued upon arrest. Miranda repeated wise warnings that had been included in prior opinions of SCOTUS justices.
The first warning in Miranda (about how and why crime is contagious, especially when judges become infected) was originally by the wise and great Justice Brandeis (joined by the wise and great Justice Holmes) dissenting in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928)). This warning was first offered just before SCOTUS (finally) started enforcing our First Amendment rights almost 100 years ago.
"Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy."
In Miranda, SCOTUS elaborated on how judges play the long game. They do not merely decide the case or controversy before them. They use their opinions or statements to teach, encourage and assist others to undermine our Constitution and defraud us of our rights. Judges can and do use their opinions to misrepresent, distort and deny our rights. Their misrepresentations, distortions and denials, in turn, encourage more litigation to even further encroach on our rights.
WJM, only people who want to take the easy path of trashing our Constitution say what you say. No good can come from making people think our Constitution is irrelevant. No one ever said keeping our republic would be easy. It requires actual work. It requires many people working together. In The Federalist No. 51, James Madison emphasized that was the design:
"It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government . . . ."
People speaking out (including by voting, helping to register people to vote, litigating and helping litigate) always was and always will be "necessary to control the abuses of government." Nothing we're experiencing today is even remotely new or unanticipated by the people who wrote and ratified our Constitution and our Bill of Rights.
The constitution is not irrelevant. I did not say that AT ALL. I said that I am not a fan of some of the writings in the federalist papers which, I think have become a rightist tool that they are using to undermine the constitution while purporting to support it.
The constitution under attack by the right and if we don’t do something about it, we are in danger of losing this republic.
If you think any of that is easy, we are existing in different universes.
The Supreme Court just ruled, without explanation mind you, that people can be stopped in the street and detained based on their color, language skills and job until they prove their legal status to the satisfaction of someone else - without due process. You do not think that is an attack on the fourth amendment?
As far as this not being new, I agree. However I don’t think we have seen much of anything like this since the start of the civil war. I have never seen all three branches of government in these straits before.
The Federalist papers sure didn’t prevent civil war and its (by some accounts)600,000 casualties, nor did the constitution. Do you think the writers of the Federalist papers saw that war coming?
In the end it is our vigilance that makes the constitution whole. Right now it is under siege and people had better wake up to it. And frankly I am terrified that we are not up to it this time.
WJM, I wish I could see you face to face and wager $10,000 that I could prove "the writers of the Federalist papers saw [the Civil War] coming." If you considered the actual text of the Federalist Papers, you'd know that people of their time talked and thought a lot about civil war--even in 1787 and 1788. The threat of civil war was one of their best arguments for having one nation with a written Constitution that was ratified by the people. See, for example, The Federalist Nos. 2, 8, 9, 10.
Papers, alone, won't prevent wars or violations of rights. People must prevent wars and oppression, but papers can help them. Even the writers of The Federalist Papers expressly emphasized (repeatedly) that constitutions, alone, are mere "parchment barriers." See Federalist No. 48.
WJM, you started this thread with these words: "Our constitution has been transformed into toilet paper" and "the Federalist Papers" are "propaganda letters." Nobody needs you pushing those views. We need people to spend more time learning the true meaning of our Constitution, including by considering the important insights offered by the Federalist Papers. That takes work that you obviously haven't put in.
What does it mean that the SC "allowed ICE to resume its racial profiling while the matter continues to be litigated in the lower courts"?? And once the litigation is completed? Then SC votes again??
Yes.
"The application for stay presented to JUSTICE KAGAN and by her referred to the Court is granted. The July 11, 2025 order entered by the United States District Court for the Central District of California, case No. 2:25–cv–5605, is stayed pending the disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if such a writ is timely sought. Should certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court."
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/25a169_5h25.pdf
Can you translate this into layperson language? Thank you.
My apologies. It's a temporary decision to stop a lower court ruling so that ICE may continue its operations while the case works its way through the lower courts. Eventually it will end back up at the Supreme Court.
Well, what is racist's Kavanaugh lofty position in the South Koreans that were marched out of the Korean car plant? They did not speak Spanish or appeared to be Hispanic. What of the Canadians or Irish who have been illegally held by ICE for a period of time for small-time travel visa violations? No Mexican appearing individual there. What of the attempts to make Haitians return to their war-torn country? Absolutely no Hispanics there that I could see. What a piece of shit this guy is, and SCOTUS is absolutely lost to the American people. This court should simply be abolished.
"The Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection prevents people from being stopped based on race."
That's true, but race wasn't the only condition for making the stops, as Justice Kavanaugh noted:
"Reasonable suspicion is a lesser requirement than probable cause and “considerably short” of the preponderance of the evidence standard. Arvizu, 534 U. S., at 274. Whether an officer has reasonable suspicion depends on the totality of the circumstances. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S., at 885, n. 10; Arvizu, 534 U. S., at 273. Here, those circumstances include: that there is an extremely high number and percentage of illegal immigrants in the Los Angeles area; that those individuals tend to gather in certain locations to seek daily work; that those individuals often work in certain kinds of jobs, such as day labor, landscaping, agriculture, and construction, that do not require paperwork and are therefore especially attractive to illegal immigrants; and that many of those illegally in the Los Angeles area come from Mexico or Central America and do not speak much English. Cf. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S., at 884–885 (listing “[a]ny number of factors” that contribute to reasonable suspicion of illegal presence). To be clear, apparent ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion; under this Court’s case law regarding immigration stops, however, it can be a “relevant factor” when considered along with other salient factors. Id., at 887."
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/25a169_5h25.pdf
Hal, it's meaningless to say that "ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion" but
"it can be a “relevant factor” when considered along with other salient factors." The primary factors are skin color, education, economic status and willingness to do certain kinds of work.
I lived in NYC when Mayor Guiliani had it cleaned up. They didn't target people because of the foregoing factors. They targeted everybody who violated the law. I recall the NY Times publishing a big, prominent piece explaining that anybody who violates the law (including by letting dogs run off leash in a park, failing to curb a dog, jumping turnstiles or even taking up two seats on a subway car) could wind up being arrested and booked. That's how government employees do things when they're really not violating our Constitution.
Jack, it's not my opinion. And it will be hashed out again once the case works its way through the lower courts. We'll see what the other justices say then.
Hal, why did you highlight that part of the opinion?
Because I thought it was the most relevant to his decision.
So it does reflect your opinion.
Like I said, I thought it was most relevant to his decision. If you want to infer anything else, that's your opinion. I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on Substack.
Cf. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S., at 884–885 is about STOPPING CARS AT THE BORDER, not roving masked yahoos throwing people to the ground in the middle of Los Angeles — which is 134 miles to the north and in no sense could be construed as the necessary ‘functional equivalent’ of the border! And where does this idiot rapist wannabe kav get his information about ’an extremely high number and percentage of illegal immigrants in the Los Angeles area’. Yeah, that's real precise. There is so much that is just wrong about his weak attempt at justification: as usual the fascist 6 are full of forking crap and we all pay the price.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/422/873/
"Cf. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S., at 884–885 is about STOPPING CARS AT THE BORDER..."
Part of the decision stated:
"The effect of our decision is to limit exercise of the authority granted by both § 287(a)(1) and § 287(a)(3). Except at the border and its functional equivalents, officers on roving patrol may stop vehicles only if they are aware of specific articulable facts, together with rational inferences from those facts, that reasonably warrant suspicion that the vehicles contain aliens who may be illegally in the country. [Footnote 9]"
Footnote 9: "As noted above, we reserve the question whether Border Patrol officers also may stop persons reasonably believed to be aliens when there is no reason to believe they are illegally in the country. See Cheung Tin Wong v. INS, 152 U.S.App.D.C. 66, 468 F.2d 1123 (1972); Au Yi Lau v. INS, 144 U.S.App.D.C. 147, 445 F.2d 217, cert. denied, 404 U.S. 864 (1971). The facts of this case do not require decision on the point."
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/422/873/
What’s your point? One more time:
1. Downtown LA is neither the border nor its 'functional equivalent' so this case does not apply at all. You can’t just take precedent out of context/cherry pick what you like and ignore the rest, although that’s what this SCOTUS excels at. To be clear, this case is a veeeeerrrrry loooooong way from ‘on point’.
2. ‘[O]fficers on roving patrol may stop vehicles only if they are aware of specific articulable facts, together with rational inferences from those facts, that reasonably warrant suspicion that the vehicles contain aliens who may be illegally in the country’. I would have thought this was self-explanatory. ICE HAS TO HAVE SPECIFIC ARTICULABLE FACTS THAT REASONABLY WARRANT SUSPICION THAT THE CAR CONTAINS ILLEGAL ALIENS. THESE ARE LEGAL TERMS OF ART/CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS ('aware of specific, articulable facts', 'together with rational inferences from those facts', 'reasonably warrant suspicion') NOT JUST THROW AWAY WORDS TO SOUND SMART.
3. This is about CARS. Nowhere does it say ICE can attack a delivery guy walking out a door just because he’s a BROWN delivery guy.
4. Did you read the footnote? It mutes the point you seem to be trying to make. The Court DID NOT DECIDE 'the question whether Border Patrol officers also may stop persons reasonably believed to be aliens when there is no reason to believe they are illegally in the country.’
5. And again — it’s about CARS.
"What’s your point? One more time:"
I guess it really doesn't matter to you except to have an argument. So be it. Until then I'll just wait until the case eventually returns to SCOTUS. Maybe in the interim you can get with the professor and write an amicus brief for the Court. Have a good day.
'If the court does not uphold the Constitution and the rule of law, is there anything to protect our constitutional democracy?’
You betcha, there is. We the people don’t need no stinkin’ corrupt SCOTUS to protect our democracy, especially since the fascist 6 religious fanatics are among the greatest threats. We will do it ourselves. I live in WA where my AG has already put out a statement:
“The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling allows ICE to resume racially profiling and detaining members of the Latino community in the Los Angeles area, whether they have reason to believe an individual is undocumented or not. This is a terrible decision. It harkens back to some of the court’s most notorious and regrettable decisions, and it communicates to the Latino community, and other people of color in the U.S.—whether citizens or not—that they are second-class citizens. I condemn this decision and reaffirm my office’s commitment to protecting the rights of all Washingtonians under the law.”
https://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/ag-brown-issues-statement-condemning-us-supreme-court-ruling-immigration-related
VOTE BLUE
VOTE BLUE
VOTE BLUE
This is inaccurate: "But the Supreme Court, in an apparent 6-3 ruling, reversed and allowed ICE to resume its racial profiling while the matter continues to be litigated in the lower courts." ICE denies "racial profiling," declaring instead that the criteria they're using is constitutional. Thus, those facts and arguments should be litigated before the SCOTUS gets the case.
I wonder if Judge Kavanaugh would rule the same if those being stopped and handcuffed were Irish visitors.
Kavanaugh … “profoundly misunderstands the Fourth Amendment: It protects the right of every person—citizen or non-citizen—to be free from being stopped by the police unless there is at least reasonable suspicion.”
Misunderstands or intentionally flaunts given his inherent racism
Clarence Thomas is quite sure he is protected by his wife's white privilege, isn't he?
Roberts previously said the Korematsu decision that justified the imprisonment of 126,000 people of Japanese descent was no longer applicable. What the supreme court is now doing is reinstating the Korematsu decision through the back door. If the standard is the "common sense" elements that the drunk Kavanaugh identified, a case could be made that the people of Japanese descent could be imprisoned for common sense reasons: the United States had been attacked by Japan, many of the people imprisoned were not citizens (people born in Japan could not be citizens), many had studied in Japan, blah, blah blah. This erosion of our liberty is frighening and appaling.