Nazi court doesn't disappoint (no reason to ask "will they, or won't they"?)

[maxrandb]

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-court-lets-trump-remove-ftc-member-now-2025-09-08/

The administration has repeatedly asked the justices this year to allow implementation of Trump policies impeded by lower courts. The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has sided with the administration in almost every case that it has been called upon to review since Trump returned to the presidency in January.

‐--------------------
Well, at least they only "temporary fired" this civil servant for now.

Please media, explain how temporary firing works?

[Johnny2X2X]

1. I bet they're all making great money on "tips"

Probably getting houses, private jet rides, fancy vacations, maybe even bags of cash as "tips."

[newdeal2]

2. And we are supposed to feel bad for these assholes?

They are a disgrace.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

3. Deadline: Legal Blog--Supreme Court GOP majority grants Trump administration request for 'roving patrols'

Democratic appointees in dissent said the move is “unconscionably irreconcilable with our Nation’s constitutional guarantees.”

Supreme Court GOP majority grants Trump administration request for ‘roving patrols’ Supreme Court GOP majority grants Trump administration request for ‘roving patrols’ www.msnbc.com/deadline-whi...

— 7Veritas4 (@justjonz.bsky.social) 2025-09-08T16:15:43.571Z

https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/supreme-court-los-angeles-roving-patrols-emergency-relief-trump-rcna224611

The Supreme Court’s Republican-appointed majority has granted the Trump administration’s emergency request to lift an order that temporarily restrained the government’s “roving patrols” in Los Angeles. A California judge had ruled that plaintiffs who sued the government, including U.S. citizens, would likely succeed in their claim that officials are conducting such patrols without reasonable suspicion.

The high court’s three Democratic appointees dissented from the unexplained majority order Monday, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor writing for the trio that the Fourth Amendment’s historical protections from arbitrary government interference “may no longer be true for those who happen to look a certain way, speak a certain way, and appear to work a certain type of legitimate job that pays very little.” She called the majority’s move “unconscionably irreconcilable with our Nation’s constitutional guarantees.”.....

Opposing emergency high court relief, the plaintiffs countered that the judge’s order “broke no new legal ground,” writing that it “does not prevent the government from enforcing the immigration laws, conducting consensual encounters, or relying on any or all of the four factors along with other facts to form reasonable suspicion.”

They further wrote that the administration’s “extraordinary claim that it can get very close to justifying a seizure of any Latino person in the Central District [of California] because of the asserted number of Latino people there who are not legally present is anathema to the Constitution.”