Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So uninformed its pathetic. Arpaio was given an injunction to stop enforcing civil provisions of federal immigration law without another state-level crime being committed. There was never a ruling that his actions violated 4th amendment rights.....only that they COULD if there was no evidence of a state crime to go with it. Arpaio refused to stop immigration enforcement. There is no semantics, only the facts, of which you don't seem to have a single clue.
Wrong
Quote:
Today, U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow issued a decision in Melendres v. Arpaio that found the policies and practices of Arpaio and his office are discriminatory, violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
I well recall (I started law school in 1980) the 8 years that Ronald Reagan was President. People then also spoke of how he would change the judiciary for two generations. He appointed close to 400 Federal judges.
Hilarious thread by you Cult 45 worshipers. Carry on.
TRANSLATION: I can't refute the fact that Donald Trump is appointing hundreds of conservative judges who will decide against liberal government expansion for the next 30-40-50 years. So I'll call people names and try to ignore what they said instead.
Court order to stop violating 4th amendment rights.
You want to play semantics, go ahead, the fact is that according to a court, Arpaio was ordered to stop violating 4th amendment rights and Arpaio refused.
That wasn't the court order. It was an order to stop using a valid police tool (profiling) in conjunction with pretextual stops. It was a politically motivated order, not a judicial order based on fidelity to the law.
The "theory" of "disparate impact" is nothing but leftist nonsense designed to end-run the law and further the agenda of Identity Politics to subvert the nation and the rule of law. Alinsky's Rules For Radicals 101.
Trump needs to pack the court with conservative judges under the age of 50 so that we will have a Democrat proof majority for the next 40 years, that can rein in the communists the next time they manage to seize power.
Trump needs to pack the court with conservative judges under the age of 50 so that we will have a Democrat proof majority for the next 40 years, that can rein in the communists the next time they manage to seize power.
The only communist is the one in the White House. Well, at least he is a wannabe communist.
Hilarious thread by you Cult 45 worshipers. Carry on.
Says the person who belongs to the Obama/Hillary cult. Oh, the irony!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
