No. of Recommendations: 4
ROTFLMAO! Classic little ummie, the most butthurt person on the interwebs.
1. You are being dishonest. That is not a good way to help with your credibility problem. Can you point to any evidence of me "having a tendency to misattribute"? I bet not. Just more to laugh at you for.
2. The case is Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo. It was a "shadow docket" ruling issued in September 2025 where the Supreme Court lifted a lower court's temporary restraining order that had blocked Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents in Los Angeles from making stops based on factors including a person's apparent race or ethnicity. The alleged Sexual Assaulter (you know how the GOP love their leaders to have engaged in sexual assault....) Brett Kavanaugh even wrote a concurring opinion that implied agents could use race as a factor in police stops for immigration enforcement.Starts off with an insult - and always claims everyone has a "credibility" issue, then goes into an assertion.
In this case:
a) "The case is Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo. It was a "shadow docket" ruling issued in September 2025 where the Supreme Court lifted a lower court's temporary restraining order"
lUmmie gets this right. I haven't really checked but since the libs never link source material, here is the actual case:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/25a169...The application for stay presented to JUSTICE KAGAN and
by her referred to the Court is granted. The July 11, 2025
order entered by the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, case No. 2:25–cv–5605, is
stayed pending the disposition of the appeal in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and
disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if such a writ
is timely sought. Should certiorari be denied, this stay shall
terminate automatically. In the event certiorari is granted,
the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the
judgment of this Court.
JUSTICE KAVANAUGH, concurring in the grant of the
application for stay.So all this is is just...issuing a stay while the matter plays out in the 9th Circuit.
b)"blocked Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents in Los Angeles from making stops based on factors including a person's apparent race or ethnicity"
Here lUmmie automatically assumes racist intent on ICE. But Brett Kavanaugh reminds the dUmm among us that
The Immigration and Nationality Act authorizes
immigration officers to “interrogate any alien or person
believed to be an alien as to his right to be or to remain in
the United States.” 66 Stat. 233, 8 U. S. C. §1357(a)(1).
Immigration officers “may briefly detain” an individual “for
questioning” if they have “a reasonable suspicion, based on
specific articulable facts, that the person being questioned
. . . is an alien illegally in the United States.” 8 CFR
§287.8(b)(2) (2025); see United States v. Brignoni-Ponce,
422 U. S. 873, 884 (1975); United States v. Arvizu, 534 U. S.
266, 273 (2002). The reasonable suspicion inquiry turns on
the “totality of the particular circumstances.” Brignoni
Ponce, 422 U. S., at 885, n. 10; Arvizu, 534 U. S., at 273. ...there is ample statutes and case law indicating that that ICE can you know, do their jobs.
c) "The alleged Sexual Assaulter"
This troll can't go 3 seconds without using hyperbole or other insulting language, because of its limited mental capacity.
d)"Brett Kavanaugh even wrote a concurring opinion that implied agents could use race as a factor in police stops for immigration enforcement"
Let's test this one. We know none of the libs actually read the order:
Not surprisingly given those extraordinary numbers,
U. S. immigration officers have prioritized immigration
enforcement in the Los Angeles area. The Government
sometimes makes brief investigative stops to check the
immigration status of those who gather in locations where
people are hired for day jobs; who work or appear to work
in jobs such as construction, landscaping, agriculture, or car
washes that often do not require paperwork and are
therefore attractive to illegal immigrants; and who do not
speak much if any English. If the officers learn that the
individual they stopped is a U. S. citizen or otherwise
lawfully in the United States, they promptly let the
individual go. If the individual is illegally in the United
States, the officers may arrest the individual and initiate
the process for removal.That's called "logical". One can see why our board's population of libruls can't process it.
Ummie made an assertion that "Brett Kavanaugh even wrote a concurring opinion that implied agents could use race as a factor in police stops for immigration enforcement".
But the actual ruling from the lower court...
Immigration stops based on reasonable suspicion of
illegal presence have been an important component of U. S.
immigration enforcement for decades, across several
presidential administrations. In this case, however, the
District Court enjoined U. S. immigration officers from
making investigative stops in the Los Angeles area when
the stops are based on the following factors or combination
of factors: (i) presence at particular locations such as bus
stops, car washes, day laborer pickup sites, agricultural
sites, and the like; (ii) the type of work one does;
(iii) speaking Spanish or speaking English with an accent;
and (iv) apparent race or ethnicity.1
The Government contends that the injunction will
substantially hamper its efforts to enforce the immigration
laws in the Los Angeles area. The Government has
therefore asked this Court to stay the District Court’s
injunction.BK reviews the rules of stays when he says
To obtain a stay from this Court, the moving party must
demonstrate a fair prospect that, if the District Court’s
decision were affirmed on appeal, this Court would grant
certiorari and reverse. The moving party also must show a
likelihood that it would suffer irreparable harm if a stay
were not granted. Those two factors are the “most critical.”
Nken v. Holder, 556 U. S. 418, 434 (2009). Particularly in
“close cases,” the Court also considers the balance of harms
and equities to the parties, including the public interest.
Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U. S. 183, 190 (2010)
(per curiam); see Nken, 556 U. S., at 435.
In my view, the Government has made a sufficient
showing to obtain a stay pending appeal. ...and then explains his last statement:
To begin with, given the significance of the issue to the
Government’s immigration enforcement efforts, this Court
would likely grant certiorari if the Court of Appeals
affirmed the District Court’s injunction. See, e.g., United
States v. Texas, 599 U. S. 670 (2023); Biden v. Texas, 597
U. S. 785 (2022).No race there. Ummie isn't off to a good start.
First, under this Court’s decision in Los Angeles v. Lyons,
461 U. S. 95 (1983), plaintiffs likely lack Article III standing
to seek a broad injunction restricting immigration officers
from making these investigative stops. No race there. Kavanaugh goes on to shoot down the BS "logic" that says Because Something Bad Happened Some Time Ago That Means I'm Exempt From The Possibly Of The Bad Thing For All Time.
Second, even if plaintiffs had standing, the Government
has a fair prospect of succeeding on the Fourth Amendment
issue. See Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S. 873; Arvizu, 534 U. S.
266; Application 22–30; Reply 9–14.
To stop an individual for brief questioning about
immigration status, the Government must have reasonable
suspicion that the individual is illegally present in the
United States. See Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S., at 880–882;
Arvizu, 534 U. S., at 273; United States v. Sokolow, 490
U. S. 1, 7 (1989).
Reasonable suspicion is a lesser
requirement than probable cause and “considerably short”
of the preponderance of the evidence standard. Sounds like the lower court needs a course in Law Enforcement 101.
But here's the killshot to Umm's lazy nonsense:
To be clear, apparent ethnicity alone
cannot furnish reasonable suspicion; under this Court’s
case law regarding immigration stops, however, it can be a “relevant factor” when considered along with other salient
factors. Id., at 887. Here's where Ummie read something he didn't understand and will try to claim victory...but BK says, "nope". To spell it out, saying "Brett Kavanaugh even wrote a concurring opinion that implied agents could use race as a factor in police stops for immigration enforcement" is a dishonest reading of the opinion as BK is
clearly citing case law.
Whoops. Add yet another Umm fail to his 20+ years of futile posting and walking with a limp. All because he lacks the brainpower to think for himself.
But let's dunk on him (and all the other libs) some more.
Under this Court’s precedents, not to mention common
sense, those circumstances taken together can constitute at
least reasonable suspicion of illegal presence in the United
States. Importantly, reasonable suspicion means only that
immigration officers may briefly stop the individual and
inquire about immigration status. If the person is a U. S.
citizen or otherwise lawfully in the United States, that
individual will be free to go after the brief encounter. Only
if the person is illegally in the United States may the stop
lead to further immigration proceedings.
In short, given this Court’s precedents, the Government
has demonstrated a fair prospect of success both on
standing and Fourth Amendment grounds. To conclude
otherwise, this Court would likely have to overrule or
significantly narrow two separate lines of precedents: the
Lyons line of cases with respect to standing and the
Brignoni-Ponce line of cases with respect to immigration
stops based on reasonable suspicion. In this interim
posture, plaintiffs have not made a persuasive argument for
this Court to overrule or narrow either line of precedent,
much less both of them. So no, libs, we're not overturning how law enforcement works in this country because you lot have the IHATETRUMPPUTINHITLERRUSSIA vapors. Your librul hate isn't relevant to the real world.
Learn logic. Learn civics. Learn how to think.
Or you're end up bitter, perpetually butthurt, and...very, very stupid. Just like Ummie has.
Kavanaugh's coup de grace:
especially weighty legal interest.
To be sure, I recognize and fully appreciate that many
(not all, but many) illegal immigrants come to the United
States to escape poverty and the lack of freedom and
opportunities in their home countries, and to make better
lives for themselves and their families. And I understand
that they may feel somewhat misled by the varying U. S.
approaches to immigration enforcement over the last few
decades. But the fact remains that, under the laws passed
by Congress and the President, they are acting illegally by
remaining in the United States—at least unless Congress
and the President choose some other legislative approach to
legalize some or all of those individuals now illegally
present in the country. And by illegally immigrating into
and remaining in the country, they are not only violating
the immigration laws, but also jumping in front of those
noncitizens who follow the rules and wait in line to
immigrate into the United States through the legal
immigration process. For those reasons, the interests of
illegal immigrants in evading questioning (and thus
evading detection of their illegal presence) are not
particularly substantial as a legal matter.Boom.
Take the L, bitch. I'll check back on you in another 10 years to see if you've gotten any smarter. The current data says "no".
