US SUPREME COURT GIVES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT (ICE) THE RIGHT TO PROFILE LATINOS

 If this can happen to one ethnic group, who’s to say that it won’t happen to another one? The Supreme Court of the United States is divided, and one division is a servant of the Executive Branch. It has been for some time now. It violates its own principles or tenets, and rules. These principles show the Court has made a mockery of the meaning of a just justice system, which was not established on the rock of truth, given its underlying structure: Systemic Racism. The Tenets or Principles are worthy of comment.

 The Court has lost its integrity, which should guide the function and conduct of its members. The Court has been damaged by the characters added to it for a lifetime of breaking the validity of them. The “I will” they repeat with their hands on some form of Book of Truth are lies from the beginning. Those true to the meaning of good ethics, their genuine concern for true justice, and cohesiveness in sound practices that correctly guide them are in the minority, and that hurts the people.

 The solution to abuse of power instilled in the Supreme Court is term limits or packing the court. An honorable, packed court, with sensible term limits, is better than a rogue-like, amoral nine-seat criminal-minded set of miscreants, some of them. The Supreme Court is functioning unconstitutionally in concert or fellowship with a dictator and a wish-he-were-a-king.

 

In querying Google AI, “Is the Supreme Court Considered to Have Tenets?:

Yes, the Supreme Court is considered to have a set of core principles or tenets that guide its function and the conduct of its members

These principles come from several sources, including the Constitution, legal tradition, and a formal code of conduct for the justices. 

Constitutional and legal tenets

• Equal justice under law: This is the ultimate responsibility of the Court, ensuring it is the final arbiter for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or federal laws. The words "Equal Justice Under Law" are inscribed above the entrance to the Supreme Court Building.
• Constitutional interpretation: The Supreme Court functions as the guardian and interpreter of the Constitution. A primary part of its role is to interpret the meaning of laws and to decide if a law violates the Constitution.
• Judicial review: Established in Marbury v. Madison (1803), judicial review is the power to declare a legislative or executive act in violation of the Constitution. This serves as a vital check on the power of the other two branches of government.
• Stare decisis: This Latin term, meaning "to stand by things decided," is the principle of following precedent. The doctrine ensures that the law develops in a principled and predictable fashion, contributing to the integrity of the constitutional system. While the Court can overturn its own precedents, it does not do so lightly, reserving the action for when it determines that an earlier decision was an error.
• Judicial independence: The principle that judges should be free from political pressure. The lifetime tenure of justices is designed to ensure they are insulated from the political forces at work in elections. 

Formal code of conduct

In November 2023, the Supreme Court for the first time adopted a formal Code of Conduct for its justices. While the Court noted that these principles were not new and had long guided its members, it issued the code to codify them and "dispel... misunderstanding" that the justices were not bound by ethics rules. 

The code outlines five ethical canons that guide the behavior and ethical obligations of individual justices, supplementing the broader principles of the institution. These canons emphasize upholding judicial integrity and independence, avoiding impropriety, performing duties fairly and impartially, engaging in extrajudicial activities that are consistent with the judicial office, and refraining from political activity. 

 

https://www.tiktok.com/@luisitorio787/video/7548117802486435086

https://bit.ly/469ZW7W Equal Justice Under the Law

https://bit.ly/4gmSDyC About the Supreme Court

https://bit.ly/3VFA0Mv Supreme Court Adopts Formal Code of Conduct

White people still try to usurp Native Americans' rights about their own children

Adoptive couple wants feds to bring girl to SC - Yahoo! News

Sometimes the Supreme Court does things like it deliberately tries to divide people.  I think this is one of those times, once again.

Since local authorities in the states are subject to the federal authorities (FBI etc.), especially where white people are concerned, why would the Supreme Court put the responsibility on the states to decide where a Native American child should live if her biological family is alive and want here in her own "culture" and learning her own cultural history.  Of course the state will decide for the white couple (at least this couple is not black, Native American, etc. meaning they must be white).  This is another instance of white intrusion upon Native Americans where it hurts and where, with their words so far, the complainants threaten to "take the matter into their own hands if necessary."  Very typical, very typical indeed.

This beautiful "Indian" child should have the right to be with her own parent, and her parent has the right to raise his own child - even if the "powerful" takes her from him, which the Law should not allow or it is just another "Indian" law or legislation that has no authority.  People tout that children should be with their parents, then tout this: this child has a live father and should be with him.

Maybe the white people can give Veronica the world including love.  However, she does not need the world, she needs her father and her ethnic culture and history (as her culture would tell it).  What will count against this man (Dusten Brown, the real father) is that a white family wants to "take" his child while accusing him of kidnapping his child, and he is not a white or Veronica's mother is not white, but Native American.  Even if the Council should rule in favor of the complainants, it would be the carrying out of a fishy "command" of some sort from some quarter.