re: Judge orders Trump administration to halt indiscriminate immigration stops

So you have the nerve to interject some rationality. Congrats…

quote:

---

a) The rule that a search or seizure is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment absent individualized suspicion of wrongdoing has limited exceptions. For example, this Court has upheld brief, suspicionless seizures at a fixed checkpoint designed to intercept illegal aliens, United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U. S. 543, and at a sobriety checkpoint aimed at removing drunk drivers from the road, Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U. S. 444

---

This is exactly why I mentioned Sitz. It is literally an exception to constitutional law that was not legislated. It’s the justification of the ruling and legislating from the bench that is commonly criticized. The criticism is not a defense of drunk driving — it’s a criticism of how the court came to its conclusion.

Maybe this will make more sense now:

quote:

---

I’ve always thought it was a somewhat disconcerting precedent to say “it’s okay if this is unconstitutional by the letter, if the high court thinks it’s for the best.”

---

Even if I agree with the court that it’s “for the best”, courts aren’t supposed to work backwards from perceived consequences. They are supposed to interpret codified law.

Furthermore, a restriction of DUI checkpoints is that they have to be announced days in advance. Whereas, the opinion of DHS is that revealing the locations of ICE raids should be illegal.

However you feel about immigration, that does not look great if you can look at this objectively, from an apolitical legal perspective, and without emotion.

quote:

---

Immigrant advocates accuse immigration officials of detaining someone based on their race, carrying out warrantless arrests, and denying detainees access to legal counsel at a holding facility in downtown

---

So has anyone been able to confirm the actual evidence of any of this, especially the "arrested while brown" one, that was presented to the judge?? I mean this had to be done for her to make this ruling, right?...right??

quote:

---

No. Tyranny was democrats flooding the country with illegal aliens to try to fvck over the real Americans

---

Yes it was. You're no different than them. I'm always amazed at how many people don't understand that tyranny is generally popular. Nearly every tyrant in the history of the world came to power with popular support. He did it by convincing people that as long as they weren't the ones being fricked it was okay to frick everybody else. It was only later when the people who thought that was a great idea looked up and discovered that they could find themselves on to get fricked list that they realized tyranny was a bad idea. Usually this was too late.

People like you are why tyranny always comes back. Because there's always some stupid frick who's excited by tyranny as long as it's not them in the firing line.

quote:

---

I’m not proposing fricking everyone else. Only drunk drivers, and illegal aliens, both of whom are law breakers and thus deserve to be fricked.

---

Um, not everyone stopped for NO REASON at a DUI checkpoint is drunk.

Not everyone stopped FOR NO REASON to check immigration status is illegal.

So yeah. You're a tyrant. You figure odds are, YOU won't end up dealing with any of the inconvenience so, you're ok with it.

But, if some future Dem admin decides they need to check all cars that appear to be owned by people with a conservative lean because, ya know, supposedly conservatives migth be white nationalist terrorists, SUDDENLY, you'd rediscover your love of freedom.

You have absolutely ZERO foresight or ability to see how your own stupid ideas can come home to haunt you. Which, pretty much describes every supporter of every tyrant in history.

I sometimes think you geniuses believe all prior tyrants came to power with like 5% support. NO. They were frickING POPULAR! That's how they came to power!

quote:

---

decision in United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U. S. 543 (1976), that it was in no way designed to repudiate our prior cases dealing with police stops of motorists on public highways. Martinez-Fuerte, supra, which utilized a balancing analysis in approving highway checkpoints for detecting illegal aliens,

---

stopping traffic for signs of illegal aliens is clearly allowed. Another way to put it...parts of the 4th amendment do not apply to illegal aliens in the country.

quote:

---

DeathByTossDive225

---

The OTHER problem with shite like what the TSA does or what happens at DUI checkpoints is this.

We are TOLD it's because Drunk Driving is soooooooo bad a thing that in THIS case, frick the 4th.

Yet, ALL research shows the citations given at DUI checkpoints are OVERWHELMINGLY NOT for DUI. And, for the TSA, virtually NOTHING they do actually involved stopping terrorists.

It has just basically become a back door into nailing people for shite you couldn't have even caught them for otherwise.

So, I MIGHT be a little more amenable if they would say, "DUI checkpoints can ONLY check for impaired driving or something similar.

Sorry state. Want me for something else, catch me the old fashioned way.

quote:

---

And so they just go about their business. Like when a cop points a radar gun at me when I’m going the speed limit, or when I have to pass through a metal detector in a government building or airport.

---

When he radar guns you, is he interfering with you in ANY way?

Nope.

I get it. You people like having a government daddy. It's weird, but, OK. That's who you are.

quote:

---

No. And when he pulls over drunks, or checks Mexicans’ paperwork, he’s not interfering with me either. Maybe drunks should just stay off the road, and Mexicans in Mexico.

---

Are the police you speak of psychic?

Do they know IN ADANCE that the car they've pulled over FOR NO REASON definitely has a drunk or a Mexican in it?

I mean, if you know a way we can hire nothing but psychic cops, then great!

quote:

---

I mean, if you know a way we can hire nothing but psychic cops, then great!

---

A not insignificant number of people here only like the constitution when it’s convenient.

One of these guys openly admitted to running to chatGPT for arguments after being called out for describing Indianapolis v Edmund as “a state law about open containers”.