good lord.... Civics 101
The 9th is a bench collectively loonier than a shit house rat.
However, this ruling is pretty much a piece of non news.
Police can camp out in front of your home if they want. They can put a ladder on the sidewalk and look in. etc etc etc Your lack of familiarity with the law doesn't mean we're going to hell in a hand basket.
This hardly expands the scope of searching permissible by the police.
Procedural rules are just that; procedural rules. The House and Senate get to make their own parliamentary rules. Violating procedural rules is not a constitutional violation.
arrgggg
Congress attempted to ban political speech with the McCain Feingold Act (said corporations couldn't spend their own money on political advertising). The Supreme Court struck the law censoring political speech.
Neither declared corporations to be people. Further, political speech is the highest form of protected speech. Even more, people own corporations. They may use that collective to speak if they wish. Moveon.org is... a corporation. The New York Times is... a corporation. Do you support the notion that they must not endorse candidates? Publish editorials on candidates etc? If not then you're on the side of SCOTUS (and me) with striking the law that was censoring politcal speech.
I suspect you're talking about the Administration suing Arizona. Yes, it is very odd that the Feds would sue AZ for doing what the Feds are specifically obliged to do.
However, there is a very well established body of law on the issue. It is called preemption. Check it out at your leisure. In essence the Feds can perempt the field from the states if they wish. However, in the instant case the fact that the Feds often rely on and ask the states for assistence is pretty solid evidence that the feds didn't mean to clear tyhe field. Lastly, even the crazy shit house rats on the 9th have upheld the state's attempts to deal with illegals.
How many relatives do you have in the service? I have many. All of whom served in combat zones. They take their duty seriously and do not deserve your scorn. The officers under McChrystal acted like insubordinate fools and deserved to be drummed out. However, to extrapolate that into par for the course is an overbroad generalization.
Overbroad generalization. How many people in DC do you know? Which ones are corrupt and in what manner? (I'm happy to accept Waters and Rangle as read).
I'm knee deep in irony here