Thread: Hot Off The Press!!

Originally Posted by tinybobidaho

Originally Posted by redpony353

I think the above may be it. I havent read all the way through it yet. What do you think?

As the Court of Appeals did not hold that the detention was prolonged by the questioning, there was no additional seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Hence, the officers did not need reasonable suspicion to ask Mena for her name, date and place of birth, or immigration status.

It looks to me like the 9th circuit court of appeals heard this case first, then it was referred to the Supreme Court who upheld this decision. Or is the 9th Circuit part of the Supreme Court. I'm not sure how this works. I do know that Arizona's immigration laws have continuously been upheld in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

I am not sure either. It says Supreme Court at the top though. Thats why I asked everyone what they think. We might have to do more searching.

Originally Posted by redpony353

Originally Posted by tinybobidaho

Originally Posted by redpony353

I think the above may be it. I havent read all the way through it yet. What do you think?

As the Court of Appeals did not hold that the detention was prolonged by the questioning, there was no additional seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Hence, the officers did not need reasonable suspicion to ask Mena for her name, date and place of birth, or immigration status.

It looks to me like the 9th circuit court of appeals heard this case first, then it was referred to the Supreme Court who upheld this decision. Or is the 9th Circuit part of the Supreme Court. I'm not sure how this works. I do know that Arizona's immigration laws have continuously been upheld in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

I am not sure either. It says Supreme Court at the top though. Thats why I asked everyone what they think. We might have to do more searching.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI...This was a Supreme Court Decision. The lower court was the 9th Circuit.

Originally Posted by NoBueno

Originally Posted by redpony353

Originally Posted by tinybobidaho

Originally Posted by redpony353

I think the above may be it. I havent read all the way through it yet. What do you think?

As the Court of Appeals did not hold that the detention was prolonged by the questioning, there was no additional seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Hence, the officers did not need reasonable suspicion to ask Mena for her name, date and place of birth, or immigration status.

It looks to me like the 9th circuit court of appeals heard this case first, then it was referred to the Supreme Court who upheld this decision. Or is the 9th Circuit part of the Supreme Court. I'm not sure how this works. I do know that Arizona's immigration laws have continuously been upheld in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

I am not sure either. It says Supreme Court at the top though. Thats why I asked everyone what they think. We might have to do more searching.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI...This was a Supreme Court Decision. The lower court was the 9th Circuit.

Yeehaw! You can't get any higher than the Supreme Court. So, Obama, go ahead, try to fight this.

Yeehaw! You can't get any higher than the Supreme Court. So, Obama, go ahead, try to fight this. Wink

Yes and No. The Supreme Court may decline to hear a case---and I believe they do decline most of them---and let a lower court ruling stand. In this case they did reverse the federal appeals court. But it's probably good for us---otherwise groups like the ACLU would just keep appealing up the ladder, even though immigration law has very solid precedents.

Appeals from the 9th District Court of Appeal go to the US Supreme Court. The 9th Circuit is considered the most liberal court in the nation, and even it has come out with a couple of anti illegal immigration decisions in the last couple of years.

It is no wonder that Obama, and the Justice Department have been very circumspect in disucssions of a possible lawsuit to block the AZ law given this US Supreme Court case.

However, we are not free and clear. The ACLU has filed a suit and I understand just from newspaper reports, which of course can be widly inaccurate, that they are alleging that the AZ law causes or is likely to cause racial profiling. That could be considered an issue that the US Supreme Court did not decide in its case.

But this US Supreme Court case is sure going to make it harder to make that racial profiling argument! And I bet AZ is enacting guidelines that make it very difficult for the police to cross the line and racially profile people.

I wonder if Obama told Calderon that the AZ was probably legal. I read here on Alipac that on Fox News, Calderon mentioned a legal challenge to the AZ law but then added something like, if the court rules it legal then we will respect that. ,,,as if it is any of Mexico's business.

But it really is fascinating that this US Supreme Court decision has been hidden by the media.

They want amnesty. They want North American Union.

Originally Posted by NoBueno

Originally Posted by redpony353

Originally Posted by tinybobidaho

Originally Posted by redpony353

I think the above may be it. I havent read all the way through it yet. What do you think?

As the Court of Appeals did not hold that the detention was prolonged by the questioning, there was no additional seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Hence, the officers did not need reasonable suspicion to ask Mena for her name, date and place of birth, or immigration status.

It looks to me like the 9th circuit court of appeals heard this case first, then it was referred to the Supreme Court who upheld this decision. Or is the 9th Circuit part of the Supreme Court. I'm not sure how this works. I do know that Arizona's immigration laws have continuously been upheld in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

I am not sure either. It says Supreme Court at the top though. Thats why I asked everyone what they think. We might have to do more searching.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI...This was a Supreme Court Decision. The lower court was the 9th Circuit.

Thank you!! I was not sure. This is GREAT NEWS!

So, unless an officer called a person an ethnic name or admitted he asked for ID just because of the color of someone's skin, I guess it would be pretty hard to win a racial profiling case just because a cop asked for immigration papers.

Coming up next on Bill O'Reilly. You guys can listen to Megyn for yourself. He had her on at the beginning of his show.

Originally Posted by tinybobidaho

So, unless an officer called a person an ethnic name or admitted he asked for ID just because of the color of someone's skin, I guess it would be pretty hard to win a racial profiling case just because a cop asked for immigration papers.

Frankly, I dont see the problem. Cops ask people for ID all the time. It might be real hard to prove racial profiling...especially since cops dont normally walk around asking just anyone to identify themselves....they dont have time. It is usually under circumstances that involve some kind of problem or suspicious activity. Or where there are loiterers just hanging out and someone reports it. Or a normal traffic stop or something. Cops always ask for ID under these types of circumstances. I dont see why foreigners should be any different.

If they stop someone and ask for ID and they dont have any ID, then they next logical question would be to ask their status. THAT IS WHY THEY ISSUE GREEN CARDS. The green card is suppose to be carried at all times. The issue is with citizens who were foreigners. If we dont issue driver's licenses to illegals, then anyone with a driver's license is probably legal. Some illegals will still fall through the cracks, but most will get caught sooner or later. I dont see the big deal...really.

Good Lord is it any wonder that law enforcement agencies should enforce the laws of this land? This is what is so insane about illegal lovers and the politics as usual folks in Washington. The laws to solve these problems are on the books in plain English (maybe that is the problem?). Law ENFORCEMENT Agencies are suppose to enforce the laws. That is why the Supreme Court would rule that police can demand documentation to ensure people are documented.

The illegal loving politicians need early retirement -- help them please -- remember to help them by voting NO to them between now and November 2012. Oh and don't forget to pray they get offshored too. Have a nice day...