Page 1
Page 1
Started By
Message

US Supreme Court rejects Biden administration’s emergency request

Posted on 3/22/24 at 6:58 pm
Posted by Placekicker
Florida
Member since Jan 2016
8057 posts
Posted on 3/22/24 at 6:58 pm
Link to article

Police in the US state of Texas will be allowed to arrest migrants attempting to cross the border with Mexico.

The US Supreme Court has rejected an emergency request by the Biden administration.

The request says states cannot legislate on immigration issues.

The decision means police in Texas will be able to enforce a law, imposing criminal penalties on migrants attempting to cross the border.
Posted by JackieTreehorn
Malibu
Member since Sep 2013
29035 posts
Posted on 3/22/24 at 6:59 pm to
frick Joe Biden and every single person dead or alive who voted for him.
Posted by CDawson
Louisiana
Member since Dec 2017
16399 posts
Posted on 3/22/24 at 6:59 pm to
Amazing the court has to rule to allow law enforcement to enforce the law. Clown world.
Posted by Trevaylin
south texas
Member since Feb 2019
5794 posts
Posted on 3/22/24 at 7:00 pm to
its been reversed 4 times in the last 48 hours. Please time stamp your link
Posted by Hayekian serf
GA
Member since Dec 2020
2509 posts
Posted on 3/22/24 at 7:00 pm to
He is going to win in November and they know it.
Posted by momentoftruth87
Member since Oct 2013
71256 posts
Posted on 3/22/24 at 7:02 pm to
Good. Now displaced and Roger can’t give them weapons
Posted by Homesick Tiger
Greenbrier, AR
Member since Nov 2006
54202 posts
Posted on 3/22/24 at 8:27 pm to
quote:

The contentious law also grants judges in Texas the power to import people back to Mexico.


Hot damn.
Posted by loogaroo
Welsh
Member since Dec 2005
30391 posts
Posted on 3/22/24 at 8:30 pm to
Interesting.
Posted by ezride25
Constitutional Republic
Member since Nov 2008
24274 posts
Posted on 3/22/24 at 11:24 pm to
quote:

Amazing the court has to rule to allow law enforcement to enforce the law. Clown world.


If it hasn’t occurred yet, I would think this is the moment where honest people will come to the inevitable conclusion that left or right, members of government are working on behalf of themselves alone.

Our fragile republic hangs by the thread of a Supreme Court whose number cannot agree in totality about what constitutes a female.
Posted by PsychTiger
Member since Jul 2004
98801 posts
Posted on 3/22/24 at 11:40 pm to
quote:

members of government are working on behalf of themselves alone.


Been true for at least 100 years.
Posted by trinidadtiger
Member since Jun 2017
13313 posts
Posted on 3/23/24 at 6:45 am to
quote:

Amazing the court has to rule to allow law enforcement to enforce the law. Clown world.


And we cheer it as a big win, while we lose the other nine times they used "policy" to make laws against the best interest of the people....all the while falling further into the abyss.
Posted by udtiger
Over your left shoulder
Member since Nov 2006
98540 posts
Posted on 3/23/24 at 6:51 am to
This appears to be a report from an Aussie source about the stay ruling earlier in the week.
Posted by tenderfoot tigah
Red Stick
Member since Sep 2004
10386 posts
Posted on 3/23/24 at 12:02 pm to
Why can't Democrats just adopt policies that help the middle class? Why is it always trying to get the fringe or special interest voter?
Posted by Indefatigable
Member since Jan 2019
26070 posts
Posted on 3/23/24 at 12:04 pm to
quote:

Why can't Democrats just adopt policies that help the middle class? Why is it always trying to get the fringe or special interest voter?

Neither party has given a frick about the middle class for a very long time. The middle class just goes about its business providing for its families.

The parties only care about winning the next election, and courting whatever specific demographic group is needed to accomplish that goal.

Our system needs changes. Perpetual election cycles are not healthy for the United States and does not encourage the federal government to improve the lives of a majority of Americans. Having an election every other year is a huge detriment to governance at this point.
Posted by lake chuck fan
westlake
Member since Aug 2011
9126 posts
Posted on 3/23/24 at 1:46 pm to
quote:

Our system needs changes. Perpetual election cycles are not healthy for the United States and does not encourage the federal government to improve the lives of a majority of Americans. Having an election every other year is a huge detriment to governance at this point.


Explain please. Suggestions?
Posted by Homesick Tiger
Greenbrier, AR
Member since Nov 2006
54202 posts
Posted on 3/23/24 at 1:57 pm to
quote:

Why can't Democrats just adopt policies that help the middle class?


Because the have-nots in this country are a very majority voting bloc and the Dems have sold their souls to the have-nots and their votes.
Posted by Indefatigable
Member since Jan 2019
26070 posts
Posted on 3/23/24 at 2:12 pm to
quote:

Explain please. Suggestions?

Suggestions could come in several tiers. Ideally, I'd want to employ a combination of the Westminster Parliamentary system and the federal mixed-representation system that the German's used until this most recent election.

For instance:

A House of Representatives that is elected via a multi-vote, mixed representation system. For the House, everyone casts two votes---one vote for an individual candidate running to represent their specific district (like we do now), and then one statewide "party list vote".

The district votes remain the same. 435 members will be elected by the consituents of their specific districts. However, the party list votes are used to add seats to the House to ensure that each state's delegation proportionally represents the voting proportions in the state "party list" vote. Ex: Lets say California has an even 50 districts (I know it has more). Then lets say that 40 of the 50 districts elect Democrats, but the statewide "party list" vote is only 60-40 democrat. This would mean that Republican "party list" representatives are added to CA's delegation so that 40% of CA's representatives are Republicans. It doesn't remove any of the Democrat's members, it only adds GOP ones. Yes, that means that the House will never have a fixed number of members, but it does ensure that the states' delegations are not massively one-sided, leaving the minority party with zero representation there. Think about Massachusetts, where all of its seats are held by Democrats, but Republican compromise 35-45% of the statewide House votes. This would also apply to red states.

This is intended to provide actually representative government, and remove the perils of "first past the post" single-member districts.

I would also do away with the two-year term for House members. I would borrow from the parliamentary systems for this. House elections must be scheduled no more than 6 years from the prior election---but an election can be triggered via a motion of no confidence (which is basically what a motion to vacate is, in practice) This removes the lurching two year cycle that, when combined with the POTUS cycle, results in a single "governable" year out of every four years in our current system. That is untenable.


For the Senate, I would repeal the 17th Amendment. The Senate should be appointed by the State legislatures. If people cannot get off their arse enough to care about State legislative elections, then we don't deserve our republic and should just move to a unicameral Congress. Because as it stands now, the Senate is nothing more than a smaller House of Representatives with larger districts.

ETA: I would also ideally include a limit on the amount of time for political campaigning--say six weeks or so, but that has First Amendment and other Constitutional concerns that are not easily tackled in the US like in other places.
This post was edited on 3/23/24 at 2:29 pm
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram