For civil discussion of US politics. Be excellent to each other.
Rule 1-3, 6 & 7 No longer applicable
Rule 4: Keep it civil. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a jerk. It’s not acceptable to say another user is a jerk. Cussing is fine.
Rule 5: Be excellent to each other. Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, ableist, will be removed.
The Epstein Files: Trump, Trafficking, and the Unraveling Cover-Up
Info Video about techniques used in cults (and politics)
Bookmark Vault of Trump's First Term
Media owners, CEOs and/or board members
How many of you can actually PROVE that your parents were here legally when they were born?
I don't mean "of course, my parents were Americans." I mean what do you have actually ON PAPER in your pocket or in your home that PROVES that? Do you have your parents birth certificates handy? Got their passports with you? This can be used to fuck over just about everyone in this country if they want it to, and guess what? They do.
More importantly: would paper make a difference?
Got their passports with you?
You mean the fraudulent passports your parents acquired with their fraudulent birth certificates? Don't worry about trying to figure out which hospital they were born at, we already booked their tickets to Cambodia
Fucking.... Fuck.
The constitution literally says:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
How can a presidential order.... effectively a wishlist or at best guidance for how the executive branch should behave overturn the fucking Constitution.
Does that mean the next Democrat can do an executive order wiping out the 2nd amendment?
What in that absolute fuck is Roberts thinking?
Does that mean the next Democrat can do an executive order wiping out the 2nd amendment?
No. Keyword there being Democrat. It will be unconstitutional because a Democrat wants to do it, it would be ruled the other way if it was a Republican trying to do it.
It's the product of the clown show fake SCOTUS we have currently: desired outcomes first, rational to justify second.
"Calvinball jurisprudence"
Some americans unironically believe that piece of parchment to be almighty, self-evident, irreproachable, and universally revered.
Unfortunately those in power have transferred that belief to Trump. That's all it took to abolish the rule of law.
subject to the jurisdiction thereof
They're not going to directly overturn anything, they're going to argue that people who aren't in the US legally aren't "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", even though they're subject to it's jurisdiction enough to be arrested, tried and convicted. It's generally been understood that the clause was meant to exclude people with diplomatic immunity or something like it, but SCOTUS will ignore that in the name of "originalism".
If they're not subject to its jurisdiction, that would mean that other laws do not apply to them
So being born here becomes illegal, therefore no citizenship? To whom would that amendment then apply? Only white folk?
Not to mention the craziness of applying this to births. There have been people harassed by ICE with Real IDs who have been told those are forgeries - do we expect parents to bring passports to the hospital to make sure their kids "count"?
Because the constitution is just words unless people act as though they are binding to all government officials. The republican party pushed through cynical movements to ensure that those who truly believe weren't going to be nominated to the court under their presidencies
Since this is Trump's supreme court, I can safely say; So it doesn't, good to know.
Trump'll just give a crisp $1 bill to Clarence to vote his way.
Trump's about to make the ice cream flavors he doesn't like illegal and it will be upheld by the supreme court.
I think we all know how Scotus will go
6-3 unsigned, drops Friday evening
OK, bet you a crisp $20 bill they uphold birthright citizenship. Meet me back here next summer.
SCOTUS makes or defers to lower court's decisions on "liberal" matters all the time. They defy Trump all the time. It's like no one here actually reads the news and thinks they get real-life points for cynicism.
I mean, this case is so blatantly meritless that it's a pretty bad sign that they even took it. You would have to intentionally misinterprete both the spirit and letter of the 14th Amendment to even begin to believe that the EO is constitutional, and every lower court has come to that conclusion. There's really no reason for them to not decline the case and let the lower courts' decisions stand.
Also, their earlier decision to limit lower courts power to grant national injunctions means they've functionally ruled in this cases' favor once already. I would like to think that even a court as nakedly partisan as this one wouldn't let a President's EO overrule the Constitution, but so far, the signs aren't good.