politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Even if the courts eventually shoot down his bullshit orders eventually, they're not allowed to stop him from enforcing them until the case is over, except against the specific plaintiffs in their court.
So assuming that his birthright citizenship order is defeated, as soon as the SCOTUS 30-day pause is up, he can start stripping people of citizenship and deporting them right away. If that order is overturned? Then he'll have to deal with whatever the court says he needs to do, but he'll still have destroyed a bunch of people's lives in the process
They don't need to stop them, because they are unconstituit. You can't make up some bullshit that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and win in court. Any half-assed lawyer can just file the paperwork to get this shit shut down, but that's really the cruz here in that they are expecting people to not have the access to legal services to make it happen in the event they are challenged.
There will be more specific cases about this specific thing immediately being heard by the lower courts, they'll rule against Trump, and this will end up in the Supreme Court again in the next session, no doubt on that.
This is a stalling tactic by Trump's psychos to try and make it look they are able to bend the Constitution to their service, which will not happen because...it's unconstitutional.
Sadly, this is not exactly accurate. See:
These are awful things, but again, you yourself mention "good faith interpretation". This is a procedural problem with lawmaking in general that if you don't specifically have an action codified in law that says "you cannot do this", people will find ways to work around it. This is the case with both of the things you've mentioned, unfortunately.
Now, if the existing laws specifically had mentioned these things are illegal AND were in the constitution, and then somebody tried to enact them, thats a different story.
Instead these things exist because of bad faith interpretation of laws, and need to to be routed out by very specific wording or rulings.
This is exactly how Biden managed to forgive millions of people's student loan debts, before Republicans had the chance to stop him in court.
What? No.
It literally is. He acted through executive orders alone, and .managed to wipe out billions in debt, in several waves. Unfortunately though, those orders were eventually blocked by Republicans, who challenged them in court...but not before millions of Americans had their debts erased.
I thought you were saying Biden was ignoring injunctions to do it.