• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

'Forgotten' Supreme Court decision and its impact on our politics

I don't think anyone who doesn't support your somewhat extremist views would "impress" you. Do you claim that you support the boy scouts being able to exclude gay or atheist scout leaders? Did you support the baker who didn't want to bake for a gay wedding

Where on earth did you get me favoring the exclusion of gay or atheist scout leaders? I defy you to produce evidence of me saying anything of the kind.

Shame on you for being so dishonest.

I'm thoroughly impressed with concerned puma and we agree on almost nothing. So you are wrong again.

Leave me alone.
 
Last edited:
The 'Forgotten' Supreme Court decision and its impact on our politics
The 'forgotten' Supreme Court decision and its impact on our politics | Fox News
Amid the current national debate over immigration policies, racial discrimination, LGBTQ rights, and executive power, the anniversary of an important legal and political dispute that has directly shaped that debate will pass quietly, its legacy all but forgotten. In September 1958, sixty years ago next week, the United States Supreme Court finally earned its hard-fought reputation as a co-equal branch of the federal government, in a courtroom drama filled with urgency and uncertainty. For perhaps the first time, the high court put muscle behind its mandate, asserting in unequivocal terms that its interpretation of the Constitution was the "Supreme Law Of The Land," and ordering immediate state compliance.

~~~~~~
Odd isn't it, how Democrat have changed, they hate the constitution and try to politicize it. they believe the Constitution is a living document and have been trying to subvert and destroy it in every move.
I wonder what will happen when the USSC rules that States having passed Sanctuary City Laws are Unconstitutional let’s see what the lemmings do.
If Cooper v. Aaron is 'Settled Law,' (a 'concept very near and dear to Progressive Democrats like Diane Feinstein et al.), then the idea of Sanctuary States and Cities are illegal, on their face. SCOTUS has decided immigration law in the decision against the state of Arizona's making their laws on illegals more supreme than federal law. So why aren't Jerry Brown, Andy Cuomo, Rahm Emanuel and all their co-lawbreakers being perp walked into a federal courthouse and indicted for violating FEDERAL law?
Hmm...., Over fifty years later and this nation still suffers the consequences of Democrat LBJ and Congress's) Great Society program, and LBJs appointed Federal judges. Thus fifty plus years later Blacks now prefer and practice self-segregation and only recognize and celebrate Black History over desegregation and American History; so goes the battle. What they want, unless it otherwise offers great benefit and doesn't conflict with their tribal culture and ancestral propagation of hatred and no assimilation, is "Black separate but equal." In other words, they want to be plantation kept, never disciplined, and to own the plantation.
If based upon settled law, SCOTUS being the law of the land...and in the words of Democrats, Immigration is a function of the Federal Government. How can State Governors and Mayors defy immigration laws? Trump needs to send in the National Guard, just as presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy did for School Segregation. Remember Governor Oravl Faubus, Bull Connors, and George Wallace.... Democrats All.

The problem is there is no specific federal law banning "sanctuary" states, counties, cities or any other municipality.

There is no federal legal definition of what a sanctuary city is. We may believe we know what that means, but if Congress has not written federal statutes against these entities...we are left with the USAG using other federal laws to combat what the Trump administration believes are sanctuary cites or states.

Can you post the federal law that bans "sanctuary cities".

note: Just because a city or state has labeled themselves as "sanctuary" does not mean that designation is an official US federal designation.
 
Last edited:
It appears that president Dwight D. Eisenhower didn't have a problem with stemming the flow of illegal immigration from Mexico.

How Eisenhower Dealt With America’s First Illegal Crisis
https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/how-eisenhower-dealt-with-americas-first-illegal-crisis
How Eisenhower Dealt With America’s First Illegal Crisis. By ... Eisenhower became the first American president forced to deal with problems stemming from illegal immigration. "Operation Wetback".... 50,000 illegals had been captured and deported, while nearly half a million more fled the country to avoid arrest. By September 1954, 80,000 more illegals had been removed from the state of Texas alone, and between 500,000-700,000 more had fled the country.

It is disingenuous to portray Eisenhower's deportation action as "capture and deported". Most of the Mexicans in this country for work were allowed by federal government and were under tight control of state and the federal government.

The federal government knew exactly where to go and whom to deport.
 

If Cooper v. Aaron is 'Settled Law,' (a 'concept very near and dear to Progressive Democrats like Diane Feinstein et al.), then the idea of Sanctuary States and Cities are illegal, on their face..


Ok, i’m missing the connection. Your assertion can only be true if there was a Federal law or Supreme Court decision requiring states to assist in immigration enforcement. It’s possible there is such a law or decision putting that obligation on states or or cities, but I’ve never heard of one. The Brown and Cooper cases clearly established a responsibility on the states to desegregate: what law or order are you claiming sanctuary cities are violating?
 
~~~~~~
All Federal Law is De Minimus Law. State Home rule laws may in some cases be more restrictive. Case in Point: The Second Amendment to the Constitution gives the Right of all citizens to bear arms. Yet individual states can and have restricted that right by licensing, taxing and restricting the types of arms or the number of bullets they may contain.

Therefore, as in the case of Gov. Faubus and his violation of equal rights desegregation in the schools of Kansas, President Eisenhower was right and correct in sending the 101st Airborne division to enforce the law.

My aunt was one of only a few white Little Rock High School girls who befriended the black girls who enrolled in the school that year in spite of democrat objections.
 
We don't hate the constitution.

It seems every right winger is the same, post the same dumb talking points and lies over and over again, then deflect. They are complete idiots and have absolutely no shame in their dishonesty and hypocrisy. Coming from people that support firiing and discrimination against gay people, that's rich

Errr, communist, dems hate the constitution, the same dumb **** over and over
 
It seems every right winger is the same, post the same dumb talking points and lies over and over again, then deflect. They are complete idiots and have absolutely no shame in their dishonesty and hypocrisy. Coming from people that support firiing and discrimination against gay people, that's rich

Errr, communist, dems hate the constitution, the same dumb **** over and over

What do you expect from the same people who couldn't even give Judge Garland a hearing on his SCOTUS nomination for almost a year and then turn around and say there isn't time enough to release all the documents needed to adequately examine Judge Kavanaugh's complete record?

And then they have the gall to turn around and accuse Democrats of politicizing the SCOTUS confirmation process.
 
Summary of OP's post #1: Democrats are bad.

COOPER v. AARON, (1958) is very different than what the OP imagines. The said case settled that the Governor and Legislature of a State have a duty to obey federal court orders resting on this Court's considered interpretation of the United States Constitution in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 . P. 4.

It is not expanded to "sanctuary cities" as there was no court order requiring States to do anything.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom