I hope one of our state legislators introduces a bill next session to withhold any state funding to departments that cooperate with raids by ATF-FBI-other alphabet agencies.

Will this also apply to immigration law?

How does office judgement play into this? Seems to me that there are an indistinguishable number of ways an officer can "just follow orders"...

Anytime I see CNN or any major news organization article, that motivates me to look for the same story that has been written by some other (hopefully better) source.
Aside from the usual spin they all put on the news, they can't even get their spelling, grammar, or punctuation right in many cases, so the idea they actually use facts and logic in an article isn't a realistic expectation.

For example, here's the actual Supreme Court decision and documents so you can draw your own conclusions, not the ones a biased person wants you to hear.

https://www.documentcloud.org/...42-missouri-petition

Exactly. Both the CNN article and this thread title claim are misleading about what exactly the Supreme Court ruled on.

In a nutshell:

1) Missouri put that law in place, the DOJ sued, and a district court judge ruled after the initial trial that the law was unconstitutional and could not be enforced.

2) Missouri appealed that ruling, and it is still currently pending appeal in the higher appeals court. Missouri asked early on in the appeal for the appeals court to temporarily block the initial district court ruling from going in effect while they worked through the remainder of the appeals process. The appeals court declined to do so, but still hasn't ruled on the actual matter of the law's constitutionality.

3) Missouri then escalated that lone issue to the Supreme Court and asked the Supreme Court to temporarily block that district court ruling from going into effect while the appeal wound its way through the appeals court process.

4) The Supreme Court also declined to block the district court's ruling pending appeal. That's it. They did not make a final ruling on the constitutionality of the Missouri law, because that part of the matter hasn't made it up to them. That part still has to go through the appeals court for them to make a ruling on the appeal, and only then potentially could the constitutionality issue itself be taken up by the Supreme Court.

Basically, this was a very narrow ruling on a specific request from Missouri merely to pause the initial district court ruling from taking effect while they await their day in court on the appeal about the constitutionality of the law, and potentially eventually their day in front of the Supreme Court on ultimate appeal.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
Both the CNN article and this thread title claim are misleading

Noooooooooo, really?

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
Both the CNN article and this thread title claim are misleading

Noooooooooo, really?

I am shocked.

Thank you, Rogue. That was a clear and concise summary.

.gov has too much power