Yes, the courts ruled that Joe's racial profiling and police detentions were illegal and unconstitutional. In other words, how is the ruling of Melendres v. Arpaio incorrect?
Simple truth, Obama and cronies did not want the immigration laws enforced and got butt hurt when Joe did it. They judge shopped until they found a few that agreed with them. People tend to forget that there were several attempts to get Joe before and all were dismissed until they found lefty judges that would go along.
Since we're trying to stay withing the bounds of what's Constitutionally allowed, instead of detaining them Arpaio should have sent them to internment camps, then he could have held them for as long as he wanted.
Because after all SCOTUS is always correct in their decision, right?
It all depends on whose ox is being gored.
Someone else's ox generally has little bearing on my opinion (or sarcasm).
Oklahoma does that too under the guise of "safety".
It's not.
And I find it just ever so slightly ironic that Trump's little misdemeanor of a pardon has members here all atwitter, yet they just say "oh well, we can't find any hard proof" at Obama's and Hillary's blatant crimes, and they just cruise along wondering why things are so polarized. Friggin amazing...
As a natural born American citizen, my constitutional rights are violated every time I buy a firearm from a dealer,and again when I have to go into the dmv to renew my cdl license, I have prove my residence, and that I'm legally allowed to have one. So what's the big deal, besides that if they are not U.S. citizens they don't have constitutional rights.
You mean they judge shopped until they found U.S. District Judge Murray Snow — a deeply conservative George W. Bush appointee? Is the the lefty judge you're talking about? This is the judge that held Arpaio in contempt for not following court orders to stop his illegal and unconstitutional racial profiling and police detentions. If not him, who are you talking about?
A) Yes, non-citizens do have constitutional rights. That said, nothing you've mentioned has ever been held by the courts to be a violation of rights; detention without suspicion of a crime has been.
B) He was also illegally detaining citizens (and noncitizens who were here legally--this whole case started with his nine-hour detention of somebody here on a valid visa).
C) Are you really arguing that if one person's rights are violated, that makes it okay to violate everybody's?
Careful, YG; using facts is a good way to get called a liberal. Facts subject some people to the unaccustomed burden of thought, and they don't like that.
Similar threads
