LAC Vol.2 New Fraqqle Rock thread

[Sgfeer]

 

[Sgfeer]

 

[Sgfeer]

 

[Sgfeer]

 

[Sgfeer]

 

[Sgfeer]

 

[BamaRidger]

 

[orng_blud]

 

[Scratchmyvolsroughly]

LOL look at that little beta in the UT gear.

Die in a fire you faggot

 

[orng_blud]

Michael McCune​

March 27 at 6:18 PM ·

𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐋𝐀𝐖 𝐃𝐎𝐄𝐒𝐍’𝐓 𝐒𝐀𝐘 “𝐌𝐀𝐘” — 𝐈𝐓 𝐒𝐀𝐘𝐒 “𝐒𝐇𝐀𝐋𝐋”
𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭 𝐉𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐑𝐮𝐥𝐞𝐝: 𝐈𝐂𝐄 𝐌𝐔𝐒𝐓 𝐃𝐞𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧 — 𝐍𝐨 𝐁𝐨𝐧𝐝 𝐇𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 𝐑𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐝
The ICE debate just got real and you're going to love it! While everyone’s distracted by the noise… the law just moved in silence.
Everyone’s glued to the loud debates, headlines, Iran, and outrage cycles.
But on March 25, 2026, something big happened that almost nobody is talking about.
It didn’t come from a press conference or viral clip.
It came from a federal courtroom in the 8th Circuit... And this is a HUGE knockout blow to democrats!

𝐎𝐧𝐞 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐝 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐠𝐚𝐦𝐞
A federal appeals court ruled that, under existing U.S. law, certain illegal immigrants
𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐛𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝
Not “maybe”
Not “if ICE feels like it”
Not “depending on who’s in the White House”
NOT "even if Trump wanted them released"
𝐒𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥
That’s not a policy preference.
That’s a legal requirement.
As the head of the executive branch Donald Trump is required to enforce this law.
And whether they like it or not, the Democrats are required to abide by this law.
𝐒𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐃𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐝 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩 𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐬𝐭 𝐜𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐝𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐫…
We’ve heard the same argument over and over:
“Trump is breaking the law”
“He’s ignoring the Constitution”
“This isn’t how the system works”
But this ruling forces a different reality:

Trump was right all along!

Trump would be breaking both the law and would be derelict in his duties if he did not enforce it!
𝐁𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐩𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐧
And they’re not rewriting anything
They’re pointing back to the text created by both Democrats and Republicans.

“𝐒𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥” 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥
𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐫𝐮𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐟𝐥𝐢𝐩𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐩𝐭 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐲
ICE did not write or choose this law. Neither did Donald Trump.
They have simply been doing what both Congress and the law has required of them. Democrats can disagree, however, disagreement does not allow them to abandon the law as written.
𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐰𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞 “𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥”
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐞𝐧𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐜𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐭
If the law says “𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐝𝐞𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧”…
Then both the Executive Branch and ICE has an obligation to enforce it as written.
Not ignore it
Not reinterpret it
Not apply it selectively

𝐄𝐧𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐜𝐞 𝐢𝐭
𝐌𝐢𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐨𝐭𝐚 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐜𝐚𝐬𝐞
One man — Joaquin Herrera Avila — who had been in the U.S. for over 20 years.
Lower court: “Give him a bond hearing.”
8th Circuit (2–1 decision):
𝐍𝐨. 𝐃𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐝
That ruling now binds judges across Minnesota and six other states in the 8th Circuit.
And get this: The 8th Circuit ruled that ICE MUST detain many illegal entrants even without a bond hearing before a judge — mandatory detention under federal law applies even for those arrested deep inside the U.S. regardless of how long they have been here.
𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐭 𝐠𝐞𝐭𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠
Minnesota has been ground zero for protests, pushback, and lawsuits over recent enforcement actions
Now a federal court has just handed those operations clear legal reinforcement

You can feel the momentum shifting
𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐡… 𝐈’𝐦 𝐰𝐚𝐭𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐬 𝐧𝐞𝐱𝐭
Especially when you picture Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker reading this ruling.
I can just see it now: eyes bulging, face turning red, steam practically shooting out of his ears like a classic cartoon character whose evil plan just got foiled.
His whole “sanctuary resistance” brand — the press conferences, the protective bills, the dramatic stands — just ran straight into a solid federal brick wall made of plain statutory text.
After years of watching sanctuary leaders tie everyone’s hands and block enforcement… this feels like sweet, long-overdue justice.
Heads must be exploding in real time. Pass the popcorn.

𝐒𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬 — 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧
They can choose to limit local cooperation.
They can pass their resolutions.
But they cannot:
• Change federal law
• Override federal authority
• Control what happens once ICE takes someone into custody
𝐋𝐨𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐯𝐬 𝐟𝐞𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧
It just got real...
𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐥𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐞𝐥𝐝
It’s no longer about opinions or political spin.
It comes down to one clear question:
𝐃𝐨 𝐰𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐚𝐰 𝐚𝐬 𝐰𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐧… 𝐨𝐫 𝐧𝐨𝐭?
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐫 𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧
First — the law shifts quietly in the courts.
Then — enforcement follows.
Then — the public finally reacts.
Most people are still waiting for step three

You’re seeing 𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐩 𝐨𝐧𝐞 and it's going to get interesting.
𝐅𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧
If the law has always said “𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥”…
Who decided it was optional all this time?
𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐭𝐡 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐠𝐞
𝐡𝐨𝐩𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐟𝐞𝐚𝐫