Yes, where is that article? Also the question should be not why she took, but why was she given resources if she was not entitled to them?
You only sound angry with one side, but this applies to both sides, right? The government ignored laws in this case, they were clearly supposed to follow the judges orders before deportation.
The article you linked says the judge recommended this, not “requested” it.
I did state that you could take issue with them zigging when they should’ve zagged, if you must. Same result, but one way was how it was supposed to be done and they didnt.
The headline says “declines judge’s request”. Regardless, requested recommended or whatever, how does illegally giving this girl legal status rectify the situation and why is a judge interjecting at all?
Japans Conservative Party won a big margin, with their leader endorsing strong US ties and increasing defense against China.
Japan’s Takaichi Scores Landslide Win in Election Gamble
https://www.wsj.com/world/asia/japans-takaichi-scores-major-election-victory-62f094a2
Takaichi’s Liberal Democratic Party and its coalition partner, the Japan Innovation Party, won 354 seats in the 465-seat lower house in Japan’s parliament. That hands Takaichi’s government a more than two-thirds majority in the lower house, giving it overwhelming control of that chamber and the ability to overrule the smaller upper house to push through its agenda.
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/02/10/texas-immigration-detention-rulings-00774124
“Allows judges to reject Trump’s policy?!?!?!?” “Circumvent the appeals court decision?”
Judges are to determine if policies are lawfully or not. It sounds like these judges know the policy is legal, they just don’t like it.
How is this not these judges going rogue? The Judges should be impeached and removed from the bench.
Uhm… the article you linked does not contain the words you included in quotes. Article says that judges used a different legal justification, one which is not in conflict with the appeals court ruling.
Looks like that voter ID law isn’t going to pass the senate due to filibuster rules requiring a 60%+ majority.
I’m sure the democrats will tell us requiring an ID to vote is racist and some evil plot.
Those words were there when I posted the link. Even now the headline is “Judges may have found a way to bypass 5th Circuit ruling”, which is a softer way of saying “circumvent”. Along with this:
Two Texas judges, who are bound by the circuit’s ruling, outlined a legal rationale allowing them to continue granting immigrants’ release.
Federal judges may have found a workaround to reject the Trump administration’s mass detention policy after an appeals court backed the approach.
Again, why are judges arguing the case they’re deciding? It removes all concept of impartiality, they already decided on the outcome they want and are now concocting legal theories to try to validate their predetermined ruling. Not to mention their “bosses” have already overruled them and yet they continue trying to justify ignoring them.
The opposition is standing firm, so now the liberals are starting to turn the court system into a self-serving farce as well. What they want is what’s “right”, so they’re justified in using whatever means necessary to get it. Ignore the fact that no matter how much they want to conjure up such things, immigration law simply does not include squatters rights.
The gerrymander, it’s what’s on the menu for everyone.
The redistrcting so far. Subject to litigation depends on SCOTUS decision
| STATE | STATUS |
|---|---|
| California | New map enacted |
| Missouri | New map enacted |
| North Carolina | New map enacted |
| Ohio | New map enacted |
| Texas | New map enacted |
| Utah | New map enacted |
| STATE | STATUS |
|---|---|
| Florida | Considering voluntary redistricting |
| Maryland | Considering voluntary redistricting |
| Virginia | Considering voluntary redistricting |
| New York | Subject to ongoing litigation |
| Louisiana | Subject to ongoing litigation |
| Georgia | Subject to ongoing litigation |
The Democrats don’t even like dogs.
Florida Rep. Randy Fine pulled a masterful move this week. By simply tweeting he’d support our right to keep dogs over the Muslims who would ban them (as Muslims see dogs as “unclean”), he helped expose this undeniable truth: the Democrats will do whatever it takes to not be seen as racist. If that means banning Fido, so be it.
Good opinion piece by a pollster on why Trump and the Republicans have been losing lately (in polls and special elections), and are weak in the polls going into midterms.
Basically not doing what their campaign promised and getting distracted by other foreign and domestic issues.
Socialism, Spanish style. So good they have to import 1M illegals and legalize them outside of the elected legislature to find people who would actually vote for them.
The Spanish government approved the Spain migrant amnesty through a royal decree, allowing the plan to move forward without a full parliamentary vote.
That’s an extra 2% of voters, in a closely divided country. Nothing says “Saving Our (Spanish) Democracy” like using a royal decree as an end-run around Congress who wouldn’t pass your asylum bill. And now a word from our leading 2028 Socialist candidate:
SCOTUS says Trump can’t impose tariffs the way he has…
Meantime in California, will the last company to leave turn off the lights.
Voters are likelier than not to support the measure. But it’s not overwhelming, according to a new poll by POLITICO and its partners.
https://nypost.com/2026/03/02/real-estate/mark-zuckerberg-in-contract-to-buy-a-200m-miami-mansion/
The move from Democrat run states to Republican states continues
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/yet-another-tech-titan-flees-california-texas
Yet Another Tech Titan Flees California For Texas
The exodus of Silicon Valleytitans from California is gaining momentum as the state weighs a proposed wealth tax aimed at billionaires, including potential levies on unrealized gains, a measure that has stirred significant concern in the tech sector.
Uber co-founder Travis Kalanick revealed this week that he relocated from California to Texas last winter.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/energy/exxon-seeks-move-legal-home-from-new-jersey-to-texas
Published March 10, 2026 12:01pm EDT
While this is a not the rank choice voting favored by some here, it’s another weird system that can lead to perverse results. This time it may not favor the left so I predict there will be major changes of mind about this system.
https://www.newsweek.com/republicans-could-flip-california-democrats-poll-11699725
Republicans Could Flip California in Nightmare Scenario for Democrats—Poll
California’s jungle primary system has created a path for Republicans to flip the state in a nightmare scenario for Democrats, according to new polling that shows the Democratic field splintering while GOP candidates consolidate.
The Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies poll, conducted March 9-15, has Republican commentator Steve Hilton at 17 percent and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco at 16 percent, while the leading Democratic candidates are scattered below them. Representative Eric Swalwell and former Representative Katie Porter each sit at 13 percent, businessman Tom Steyer at 10 percent, and former HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra at 5 percent.
I certainly hope so, it’s a stupid system.
Isnt this so-called “jungle primary” just an “election”?
It’s a free-for-all primary where the top two vote-getters (regardless of party affiliation) continue to the general election. The more candidates running, the smaller the winning pluralities. It’s unrepresentative to begin with, but it becomes worse if there are more majority-party candidates that end up splitting the majority vote so much that none of them get a winning plurality. This is the scenario that might play out this time.
But sure, I guess it is just an “election”, a stupid one. Party-specific primaries would be better (I think it’d be more representative in any scenario, not just our specific one, as then at least the plurality party would be more likely to win even if it wasn’t a majority). RCV / runoff would be best.
That’s pretty much my point. A primary is where each party selects their candidate for the general election. In this California free-for-all, it’s just a general election to fill two spots, then a second general election only including those top two. It is essentially the same as RCV, but with new voting for the “ranked” options instead of having it all on one ballot.
