It’s not a temporary ruling. They’re allowing it to continue because no one secured an injunction.
Just as an fyi scotusblog is on no way related to SCOTUS.
You could read your own link, there’s that.
Monday’s order by the Supreme Court puts Frimpong’s ruling on hold while the Trump administration’s appeals continue. In an opinion agreeing with the decision to grant the government’s request for a stay, Justice Brett Kavanaugh emphasized what he characterized as the narrow role of judges in immigration cases. Judges, he wrote, “may have views on which policy approach is better or fairer. But judges are not appointed to make those policy calls. We merely ensure,” he stressed, “that the Executive Branch acts within the confines of the Constitution and federal statutes.”
So, the part where they granted a stay… means nothing?
There didn’t need to be a injunction. The lower courts ruled it illegal. They were forced to stop. The Trump admin appealed, and the Supreme Court granted the Trump admin a stay until the appeal is heard. They were then allowed to continue.
Long story short, the Supreme Court allowed racial profiling to continue.
Why is this so difficult for you to understand? I’m genuinely confused on where your confusion is coming from.
Let me ask a question that might clear this up: Had the Supreme Court done literally nothing, would ICE be allowed to racially profile people?
It means the motion for injunction is denied and the last ruling carries. It’s also specifically not a new ruling.
It did for this stay to exist given that it’s a denial of injunction. Yes, that’s how a stay works. It is amusing that you’re talking down to me about not reading it but it’s quite clear you’ve both not read what you’ve provided nor are you actually familiar with the subject you’re talking about.
Correct, until they rule on it. Again that’s how a stay works.
It’s not difficult, you just don’t know what you’re talking about but confident morons abound so here we are.
Yes. It’s not clearly established until it’s ruled on by the supreme court or ruled by a lower court and the supreme court reviews and affirms it.
Seriously, we could have a conversation but you chose a flight you’re clearly not prepared for.
… Yes. It’s obvious that’s how a stay works. The stay that the Supreme Court decided to give.
And no. If it hadn’t gone to the Supreme Court, or the Supreme Court had decided to not review it, ICE would not be allowed to racially profile.
Literally no one is saying the Supreme Court said it was legal. We are saying the Supreme Court allowed it.
The lower courts ruled against the Trump administration. The stay was to prevent that lower court ruling.
You’re splitting hairs on wording.
I’m done. You’re obviously arguing in bad faith here. Literally all news sources and legal reviews of the situation agree, meanwhile you’re being intentionally obtuse.
If it hadn’t gone before the court yeah, that didn’t happen it was immediately appealed.
And if crocodiles were bananas they might grow on trees. It has nothing to do with reality but fuck it, I guess we’re just tossing out what ifs like they matter. They did not allow it, federal law might allow it, a lower court said it’s not allowed and the supreme court is saying we don’t know, we want to hear it until then continue what you were doing before. They’re just not preventing it because the fed says things would be irreparably harmed and the other movent did not provide a good enough argument for an injunction.
You could say the federal government is allowing it and you’d be right.
You could say a bad argument allowed it, you can’t say taking no action is the same as taking an action when it comes to judgements and rulings.
You’re mad at a flawed legal system that overwhelmingly favors the state which is reasonable. In this case there actually doing it by the book and that’s what we actually want.
You’re splitting hairs on wording.
When speaking of legalities?! Gosh golly I wonder if linguistics and phraseology matter in the legal system.
It’s not a temporary ruling. They’re allowing it to continue because no one secured an injunction.
Just as an fyi scotusblog is on no way related to SCOTUS.
You could read your own link, there’s that.
SCOTUS says “that’s not
isus dawg”.So, the part where they granted a stay… means nothing?
There didn’t need to be a injunction. The lower courts ruled it illegal. They were forced to stop. The Trump admin appealed, and the Supreme Court granted the Trump admin a stay until the appeal is heard. They were then allowed to continue.
Long story short, the Supreme Court allowed racial profiling to continue.
Why is this so difficult for you to understand? I’m genuinely confused on where your confusion is coming from.
Let me ask a question that might clear this up: Had the Supreme Court done literally nothing, would ICE be allowed to racially profile people?
It means the motion for injunction is denied and the last ruling carries. It’s also specifically not a new ruling.
It did for this stay to exist given that it’s a denial of injunction. Yes, that’s how a stay works. It is amusing that you’re talking down to me about not reading it but it’s quite clear you’ve both not read what you’ve provided nor are you actually familiar with the subject you’re talking about.
Correct, until they rule on it. Again that’s how a stay works.
It’s not difficult, you just don’t know what you’re talking about but confident morons abound so here we are.
Yes. It’s not clearly established until it’s ruled on by the supreme court or ruled by a lower court and the supreme court reviews and affirms it.
Seriously, we could have a conversation but you chose a flight you’re clearly not prepared for.
… Yes. It’s obvious that’s how a stay works. The stay that the Supreme Court decided to give.
And no. If it hadn’t gone to the Supreme Court, or the Supreme Court had decided to not review it, ICE would not be allowed to racially profile.
Literally no one is saying the Supreme Court said it was legal. We are saying the Supreme Court allowed it.
The lower courts ruled against the Trump administration. The stay was to prevent that lower court ruling.
You’re splitting hairs on wording.
I’m done. You’re obviously arguing in bad faith here. Literally all news sources and legal reviews of the situation agree, meanwhile you’re being intentionally obtuse.
Good day.
Is there an end to that sentence or what?
If it hadn’t gone before the court yeah, that didn’t happen it was immediately appealed.
And if crocodiles were bananas they might grow on trees. It has nothing to do with reality but fuck it, I guess we’re just tossing out what ifs like they matter. They did not allow it, federal law might allow it, a lower court said it’s not allowed and the supreme court is saying we don’t know, we want to hear it until then continue what you were doing before. They’re just not preventing it because the fed says things would be irreparably harmed and the other movent did not provide a good enough argument for an injunction.
You could say the federal government is allowing it and you’d be right.
You could say a bad argument allowed it, you can’t say taking no action is the same as taking an action when it comes to judgements and rulings.
You’re mad at a flawed legal system that overwhelmingly favors the state which is reasonable. In this case there actually doing it by the book and that’s what we actually want.
When speaking of legalities?! Gosh golly I wonder if linguistics and phraseology matter in the legal system.