Racial profiling in immigration stops and detention greenlighted by the Supreme Cort

The 6-3 Supreme Court just gave the green light to ICE to snatch people off the street because they look Hispanic and sound Hispanic. It is racial profiling, pure and simple. I am disgusted. The voice of dissent, Justice Sotomayor, wrote:"We should not have to live in a country where the Government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low-wage job," she wrote. "Rather than stand idly by while our constitutional freedoms are lost, I dissent." Trump's Supreme Court is chipping away at civil rights with no explanation other than "it's not our job to set immigration enforcement policy," and we need to call them out. That should send a chill through anyone who does not look white for the precedent this sets. Supreme Court gives no explanation as it hands Trump another win

The old warning to anyone who looks Hispanic (or even native Americans), carry your papers ready to show them on the spot, is no real protection as even green card holders and those born here have birth certificates, get detained by ICE. ICE is putting many in holding pens while they "sort it out", and even then, whether the detainee can afford an attorney or even speaks English is a question. Their chance for a "due process" hearing after waiting days in a slammer is a roll of the dice and the hope that some non-profit comes to their rescue.

This is sheer terror, as told to me by my Hispanic friends. Even showing an ICE agent your papers is not always helpful. There are no figures released by the Trump regime that report numbers of those wrongfully detained and even deported, but there are past studies that detail that there were plenty of wrongful detentions dating years before ICE was given a quota ot snatch anyone to make their daily tally. Anecdotal evidence that it is happening now is plentiful if you do a Google search.

La Corte Suprema, con 6 votos a favor y 3 en contra, acaba de dar luz verde al Servicio de Inmigración y Control de Aduanas (ICE) para que secuestre a personas en la calle por su apariencia y sonido hispanos. Es discriminación racial, pura y simplemente. Estoy indignada. La voz disidente, la jueza Sotomayor, escribió: "No deberíamos tener que vivir en un país donde el gobierno pueda detener a cualquiera que parezca latino, hable español y parezca tener un trabajo mal pagado". "En lugar de quedarnos de brazos cruzados mientras se pierden nuestras libertades constitucionales, disiento". La Corte Suprema de Trump está socavando los derechos civiles sin más explicación que "no es nuestra responsabilidad establecer políticas de control migratorio", y debemos denunciarlos. Esto debería estremecer a cualquiera que no parezca blanco por el precedente que esto sienta. La vieja advertencia para cualquiera que parezca hispano (o incluso nativo americano): llevar sus documentos listos para mostrarlos en el acto no es una protección real, ya que incluso los titulares de tarjetas de residencia y los nacidos aquí con certificados de nacimiento son detenidos por el ICE, que simplemente los pone en celdas mientras "resuelven sus problemas". Aun así, si el detenido puede pagar un abogado o si habla inglés, tiene la oportunidad de una audiencia de "debido proceso" después de esperar días en una cárcel es una cuestión de suerte, y la esperanza de que alguna organización sin fines de lucro venga a rescatarlo es un juego de azar. Esto es puro terror, como me contaron mis amigos hispanos. Ni siquiera mostrarle los documentos a un agente del ICE sirve de nada. El régimen de Trump no ha publicado cifras que informen sobre el número de detenidos injustamente e incluso deportados, pero sí hay estudios anteriores que detallan que hubo muchas detenciones injustas años antes de que el ICE tuviera una cuota para capturar a cualquiera por día. Hay abundante evidencia anecdótica de que esto está sucediendo ahora si se busca en Google.

Messaging again, Democrats: loser: I'm not Trump. Winner: here's how I will fix your pain

Democrats will lose if they just say," Vote for me because I am not Trump.' Instead, Democrats need to tell what they would do in the future and actions they support instead of vague theories and worn platitudes...Here are examples of what I mean:

I am hearing moe and more voices saying that Democratic candidates will lose if they just say," Vote for me because I am not Trump.' Their platform seems to be that Biden was right by inference. That is no winner, and it was the reason Trump won in 2024. Instead, Democrats need to tell what they would do in the future to fix what's wrong, though the issues are the same as in 2024, and Trump has failed to deliver on some key ones, like the economy, which impacts both red and blue states and individuals regardless of political affiliation, race, or religion. Keep it brief, steer clear of the wonky weeds, and focus on specific actions. Avoid worn platitudes and vague theories.

Mamdani in New York did two things:" I feel your pain, and your pain is you cannot afford to live here, and here is exactly how I will help"...all in one sentence. He dwelt and focused on what actions he would take that would help those who are not rich. Avoid poli sci theories or cultural issues terms, which can devolve to divisive name-calling. The exception to using poli sci terms could be branding Democrats as pro democracy, not pro-dictatorship. Put it in terms of fairness or American values of all to pursue life, liberty, and happiness.. As an obvious issue, independents and even some Trump voters will get why Trump is a wannabe dictator because others will be making that issue on behalf of Democrats. Others will use terms of class warfare, but as a candidate, many elections will hinge on swing voters.

The other issues not addressed by Mamdani on crime and immigration cannot be ignored, either. Admit there is a crime problem in red and blue cities; i.e., put a cop on every block in high crime areas; good, the border is closed but let us treasure the good migrants who contribute to our economy and are our neighbors.

For the affordability issues, restore the health care cuts to Medicaid and ACA and make Medicare sounder, but reduce the costs to consumers by competitive bidding of prescription drugs and charges for participating in these popular programs.

..support early childhood education and give financial support to those. providing childcare to make it affordable.

.. support making groceries more affordable by supporting market competition and opposing monopolies, stopping tariffs on imported food, and providing enduring work permits for migrant farm workers (the old bracero method?).

.. support the building of more affordable housing and housing for the homeless. including tax breaks and some funding, etc.

...To the question of how we should pay for all of this? Reverse the outrageous tax breaks to the very rich. ...(this is one way to address class warfare by emphasizing the result of Trump's actions without talking about it that would be a turnoff to moderates needed to win)

'''reverse Trump's tariffs to what they were before and use tariffs in the future to support national security interests, not as a government fundraising project,

...Under the topic of fairness to everyone, not just to billionaires and those who pledge and show loyalty to one president:

.. will not govern by using the iron fist of the military against our own citizens or threaten criminal accusations against opponents without any evidence

..improve our free and fair elections, and make sure your vote will be counted, no matter who you vote for (if needed: this is why I support democracy, not dictatorship)

... end political and racial gerrymandering, end untraceable

campaign money,

... work to keep the federal government and a single man from controlling state-run elections, limiting ballot access, and managing the tabulations of votes.

(Note the lack of reference to the damage done by MAGA in cultural and racial issues; those victimized by such, we hear plenty of that from other organizations, but in a federal election campaign, fairness is a value all can subscribe to.)

The false pretext: President loses a power grab strategy with Harvard, California, migrant due process rulings

The President is losing a power grab strategy with his action on Harvard, the deployment of military in California, and migrant due process ICE policies. The courts are not buying his use of pretexts to justify his actions.   Is Trump using false pretexts to justify military actions to seek regime change and revisit denied court actions, as he kills 11 Venezuelan drug sailors and floods the Caribbean with US military assets in a Wag the Dog scenario and reclassifies drug smugglers as "terrorists"? His most flagrant example of a false pretext is the misuse of revenge on Colorado's mail-in ballot system as a pretext for moving the space command center to Alabama. Trump has been trying to move the center since 2016, but had never tied it to mail-in ballots until now.

  One of the tools of terror to force institutions, private and public, to bend to Trump's power grabs is to use unrelated issues in order to get compliance with his policies and to justify anti-constitutional acts of withholding funding.  The pretext is false, and courts are not being fooled in recent lower court decisions. Most of these rulings will end up in the Supreme Court. (Oxford dictionary:Pretext: a reason given in justification of a course of action that is not the real reason.)  I would add that even the pretext itself can be used and abused and distorted, and it can be just as false as the issue and facts to which they are referring are false, as well.("False Pretense"is the word used in common language, but it also has a meaning  in the law closely associated with criminal real estate transactions so I am using "pretext" to avoid any confusion.)

Trump's attempt to force Harvard to change their curriculum and admissions polices, contrary to Trump's interests, by using the issue of anti-Semitism, just hit the fan.  A judge ruled that Trump's withholding of $2 billion in federal research grants unless Harvard complied with demands that were unrelated to anti-Semitism actions on campus was illegal. Judge says Trump administration unlawfully blocked $2 billion from Harvard | CNN Politics This ruling will be appealed, but in the meantime, the Trump strategy to scare all, including private institutions, engaged in higher ed that dare teach a liberal viewpoint, and the intellectual debate of multiple views, to change curriculum and staff to support his one-sided view, is being stopped.  Trump's attempt to control the ability of all Americans at any level of education to hear or learn views other than Trump is also obvious from attempts to force the Smithsonian to remove or reduce references to the ills of slavery in American history and the resulting civil rights movement. 

The grand daddy of false pretexts: to deploy military, national guard, or active duty contrary to the Posse Comitatus Act as applied to states' rights, is that there is a "national emergency", a loophole that would give him the power to do it. That one also was shot down in flames regarding the deployment of troops to California, and my also echo in other incidents, including his attempt to hype up the crime issue in blue states, when ignoring the even worse rate of crime in red states. After ruling against LA Guard use, Trump vows more deployments : NPR   Next on  Trump's plans: send troops into Chicago.  The use of federal troops in DC is a different situation, since Washington, DC, is not a state, but is subject to degrees of federal control and home rule.. It is obvious that such a declaration of national emergency serves his political ambitions to pull a trick out of the magic political hat." Democrats are always soft on crime, so fear them, and Republicans are hard-nosed." Watch that controversy to be on the top burner if Trump continues with plans in Chicago and Baltimore.

 So far, lower courts have ruled against the pretext of a "national emergency" as a means to circumvent the Constitutional provisions that Trump sees as standing in the way of his power grabs. Many of these rulings will likely be appealed to the Supreme Court.  The terms "abuse of power " and"overreach" are too kind. Recent cases are examples of power grabs by strong leaders who seek to wield the same powers as a dictator, ruling by one person who declares what the law is, rather than being established through a democratic process, subject to compliance and interpretations to justify Trump's real power grab attempts.

 As a recent example, Trump's order to move the space command from Colorado Springs to Alabama because Colorado defied his newest anti-voter access to the ballot box by mail. Trump says he's moving Space Command HQ to Alabama because of Colorado's mail-in voting system. This is purely a matter of revenge (against a blue state) to favor a supporter (red Alabama). In reality, the location of the space command has always been a matter of politics, since his first term, regardless of any financial or military considerations, and mail-in ballots were never linked to the move until now. The false pretext  Trump made in his announcement was not even disguised: He was moving it because of Colorado's mail-in system as retaliation.

 In fact, the anti-mail-in ballots argument rests on a false pretext itself.  There was widespread fraud, ballot harvesting, etc in 2020, caused by mail-in ballots, when nearly every opportunity in courts (at least a minimum of 60 court rulings), or for John Q Public to provide evidence in the past five years has failed.  Conservative group finds ‘absolutely no evidence of widespread fraud’ in 2020 election

Is he now planning military action against Venezuela (yes, we are at war now) to justify defying the Constitution clauses regarding due process and/or breaking international maritime laws and/or force regime change in that country?   Trump announced our military attacked a drug smuggling boat, and now he wants to get Venezuela's drug smugglers classified as terrorists, though, why? I suspect it is either to give legal cover to the US violating territorial waters, or to justify his illegal attempt to violate Venezuelan migrants' due process rights by zealous ICE action, already claiming Venezuela was at war with the US.  under the Alien Enemies Act.  An appeals court rejected the abuse of that act. US appeals court rejects Trump's use of Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelans | Reuters  For those engaged in conspiracy theories, it would not be put past Trump to declare the US was at war against Venezuela in order to take even more action against migrant mass deportation, regardless of whether they had committed any crimes. Secretary of State Marco Rubio from Florida has also had a long held desire to end the Maduro dictatorship. Wag the dog, the use of a false pretext for war can even itself be a false pretext. Inventing and provoking an incident is not just a strategy found in literature and movies.

Sometimes, the pretext to justify an action is not due to a scheme or grand plan, but sheer ignorance or perceived opportunity to make a point without knowing the facts. Within the same 24 hours, Trump confused 5-year-old videos with current facts, and AG Pam Bondi tried to cherry-pick examples of dangerous migrants in big blue cities, when the incidents did not happen in the city she claimed they did. It may also happen because Trump has only yes people advising him, who could intervene and correct him before he opens his mouth and sticks his foot in it. Here is an example of that: Trump, watching FOX, did not realize he was watching a 5-year-old video of George Floyd protests and claimed "last night" he saw Portland being destroyed, so it was time to threaten to send the military into the city and put that city on his list to try to oppress. I wonder how many in MAGAland thought that Portland, Oregon, was being destroyed last night?    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-threatens-to-send-troops-to-city-he-says-he-saw-being-destroyed-last-night-but-it-wasn-t/  In the same24 hour span, AG Pam Bondi claimed migrants committed horrific crimes to justify military action on blue cities when the examples she used took place miles from the city of Boston.  https://www.thedailybeast.com/pam-bondi-takes-aim-at-boston-citing-crimes-from-elsewhere/

Will the Supreme Court's legacy be they killed off democracy?

Will the Supreme Court's legacy be" they killed off democracy'?"Trump's "I can do anything I want" attitude had at first been fed by the friendly Supreme Court ruling that he cannot be prosecuted for a crime while in office, and recent 6-3 Court decisions. Those are now on full display and a matter of public record. Trump is now consolidating power and seeking more, acting and ruling as if he is already a dictator, with little in sight to stop him. Over the years, during and since Trump's first term, the GOP Senate leadership has managed to install a Court dominated by ideologues of various extreme think tanks, such as those favored by the Heritage Foundation and screened by other think tanks for ideological purity. With this kind of control by ideologues who want a unitary or much stronger executive branch, no wonderTrump feels comfortable he can gamble by letting "his' Supreme Court decide whether his power grabs have gone too far. In the upcoming session, the Supreme Court will decide whether its 6-0 majority, with a recent track record of usually granting the power he desires whenever the issue is before it, will continue to do so. Three major decisions will be looming, if not more, that will decide if the Court caves to his power grab or not. The Supreme Court's heritage could be known as the enabler of the end of democracy, of, by, and for the people, and instead gives the permission slip to a power-hungry president, allowing it to become a government of, by, and for Trump. There are some crucial tipping point decisions soon before the Supreme Court this fall. With such power in his hands, Trump has the luxury of being able to ignore the economic needs of those who voted for him and other campaign promises made in 2024, especially those thinking that he would reduce their cost of living. 

This is a Supreme Court, comprising those with a 6-3 Trump-favoring majority, packed over recent years with ideologues who are presumed to be loyal to the concept of a more powerful executive branch, a unitary system that undermines checks on executive power. They were screened by "conservative" think tanks like the Federalist Society for their tilt before they were nominated, and their Senate approval process was strategized by GOP leadership to prevent even other nominees from being considered. 

Those who have advocated for years for the extremist goal of turning the executive branch into a "unitary" government, which is another term for eliminating the checks and balances that Congress and the Judiciary once had, is a goal of the Heritage Foundation. Until the emergence of Trumpism and Trump himself, who seeks to accumulate more power and wealth for himself (no secret at all), the inclination of the Court was to prevent a wannabe from becoming a full-blown dictator. They are now in control of the appointments to keep power positions, and fellow traveler Trump is using the hammer of a totally politicized justice department to threaten and control past and present "enemies".

 The goals of the Heritage Foundation in the 2024 elections were also no secret. It was in print and online, available for all to read.  The irony is that the name of this foundation is not a reflection of the democratic heritage of the republic founded by our forefathers, but rather the opposite. It has been the promotion of the executive branch's power, aiming to turn it into a form of dictatorship, while maintaining the form of checks and balances, yet subverting the judiciary's and legislature's ability to effectively check the executive branch's power. The founders of our Republic warned us against exactly what Trump is trying to do and set up a form of government that kept the executive branch in check, giving the power of the purse to Congress, and an executive branch that was concerned about whether laws or governmental actions were in keeping with the intent of the Constitution. The Supreme Court and the independent judiciary were tasked with ruling on whether laws conformed to the Constitution. The duties of the executive branch were outlined in the "take care" clauses throughout the document.

 It was the rule of law, not the rule of a king, a tyrant, foreign or domestic, that shaped the founders in devising the Constitution in 1789. Kings and tyrants were to be feared and prevented. That is the heritage we have, not the one the Heritage Foundation's deceptively named think tank supports and now dominates the Trump administration, in tune with their leader, who also wants to be an autocrat, too. (Autocrat: another name for a dictator, as "autocrat" sounds to a degree to be less all-powerful or threatening). 

  Trump is now consolidating his power in various ways that resemble those of a dictator, testing the limits of his authority until the Supreme Court intervenes.  He has indicated he will stand by what the Supreme Court rules, but on that promise, we should not trust, as he has a history of breaking promises to get elected. (i.e., I will reduce your cost of living, end the Ukraine war on day one). Instead he has been obsessed and consumed by getting revenge and frightening with threats into keeping mouths shut or into actual verbal compliance with his purposes

.Now Trump is hell bent by tariffs, labor shortages due to mass deportation, and making sure everyone in government or receiving federal funds, top to bottem is loyal to him but not to the empty pledges of loyalty oaths to the constitution, his attempt to put the federal governent in control of tabulation and methods of voting instead of the states, his attempted firing of officials of once hands off independent agencies, his trampling of civil rights and due process, his attempt to frighten so many into subservience to him by using his department of justice to launch investigations without probable cauise except for the crime of being disloyal to him. and his ordering state governors to rediscrt to give him continued control of the House..  

Update: 9 9 2025. The 6-3 Supreme Court just gave the green light to ICE to snatch people off the street because they look Hispanic and sound Hispanic. It is racial profiling, pure and simple. I am disgusted. The voice of dissent, Justice Sotomayor, wrote:"We should not have to live in a country where the Government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low-wage job," she wrote. "Rather than stand idly by while our constitutional freedoms are lost, I dissent." Trump's Supreme Court is chipping away at civil rights with no explanation other than "it's not our job to set immigration enforcement policy," and we need to call them out. That should send a chill through anyone who does not look white.

MUFTIC FORUM BLOG: So is Trump now appealing for the pro dictator vote while he says he is not one?

 The Supreme Court has expanded Trump’s power. He’s seeking much more.

Full List as Supreme Court Rules for Donald Trump 15 Times in a Row - Newsweek

Supreme Court Keeps Ruling in Trump’s Favor, but Doesn’t Say Why - The New York Times

Project 2025 Tracker | 

Meet the powerful group behind Trump’s judicial nominations   about the Federalist Society

McConnell went 'nuclear' to confirm Gorsuch. But Democrats changed Senate filibuster rules first.