On Monday, the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to use racial profiling in its militarized immigration raids across Los Angeles, halting an injunction that had barred officers from targeting Latinos based on ethnicity. The court did not explain the reason for its shadow docket order, which appeared to split 6–3 along ideological lines. In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned that the decision was “unconscionably irreconcilable with our nation’s constitutional guarantees,” opening the door to violent persecution of Latinos—including American citizens—by “masked agents with guns.” The majority did not respond to this extraordinary charge, perhaps because it is so obviously true.
People put out these ideas, but I rarely see who or how they’d like them to be implemented. Who would you want to initiate the purge? Any democrat president fine?
There are several examples from antiquity that show that the people will solve the problem of the government doesn’t.
The vast majority of the time, the replacement ends up being worse. It’s tricky business overthrowing a government, and the ones that end up on top are usually the most bloodthirsty and least ethical.
Yes. Revolutions are almost always bloody and the result is almost always worse. The people, though, will have a taste for revolution and the second comes easier.
I assume you are pretty confident that you’ll survive the purge in-between. Too bad it won’t be true for everyone, but I’m sure that’s a sacrifice you are willing to make.
That was childish.
And these tough-guy calls for violent revolution aren’t? Please.
Sorry, I’m going to continue this conversation with the adults.
And I guess I’ll watch and learn. Standing by for what I’m sure is about to be a riveting adult discussion.
Expanding the court is the generally anticipated way to do that
There’s a mechanism for impeaching Supreme Court justices, which would apply to the six criminals.
Or, just ignore them and start a parallel court. If they won’t do their job, why keep listening to them?