- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
“Blatantly unconstitutional”
Look at this judge pretending the law still means anything to the guy in office.
luckily the country doesn’t run on executive orders like a dictatorship and we have judges saying things like that still…
The first couple might but eventually it will get before the supreme court and it will get rubber stamped
depressing but realistic
This week.
oh i’m not holding my breath
I mean, it does. And it always has. The executive ultimately has all the power as both other branches have failed to maintain armed forces of their own to enforce the checks and balances.
the armed forces are trained to disobey illegal orders
Yeah, I’m sure they’ll feel great when they’re killed by someone that doesn’t think it’s an illegal order.
they don’t just shoot people for not doing things…
Refusing orders can be seen as treason depending on the circumstances. While the ideal is you disarm and arrest the member to stand trial, if that’s not possible and they present immediate danger lethal force can be used.
You seem to be thinking everyone is armed to the teeth pointing weapons at each other at a briefing. It’s usually people sitting at tables or desks like a classroom.
Edit: weapons usually aren’t even allowed anywhere near briefing rooms
deleted by creator
By my read, this temporary injunction applies ONLY to the plaintiff states - Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon. It doesn’t stop it from being applied in the rest of the country.
Anyone who attempts to enact this will similar be struck down. This is the constitution we’re talking about, not a states thing. Anyone being told this the law now can just file for an immediate injunction to a federal court in one of these states, and that order will still apply because… constitution. Literally any federal judge can shut this down every single time.
Literally any federal judge can shut this down every single time.
“Can” is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. What if the federal judge is Aileen Cannon?
She wouldn’t even have grounds to write an opinion on it. It’s the constitution. It would immediately get scrapped. SCROTUS can’t even say anything about it.
You’re more optomistic than I am.
If SCOTUS attempts to change the constitution, without the required support of congress, then it gives the ok for the American people to remove them.
Technically they haven’t done anything illegal yet
They are there to interpret the law. The plan isn’t to remove or challenge it, but to change its meaning into however they want. There is no -lawful- means of removing them from power.
Again the constitution isn’t law, but laws are required to adhere to as close to the constitution as possible, and those changes cannot be made by Judges
By what method?
In theory a twelve gauge and a dream.
In practice a civil war which would kill millions and most likely dissolution or heavily decentralize the federal government.
The constitution covers that too
Sadly SCOTUS has some wiggle room here. They get to interpret what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means. If a majority view that the parents having no legal standing to be on US soil and that somehow means they aren’t considered to meet that criteria… Well there they go
I do think the portion targeting people with Visas and such couldn’t even possibly stand.
That would hold either, because it would mean that ANY visitor, legal or not, is not subject to any federal laws at all. Not just constitutional…ANY. If that’s their aim, then free for all on Trump and his team.
Expecting them to be consistent in messaging from one subject to the next is an exercise in futility. They don’t even maintain consistency within the same subjects.
They don’t care about the rules or laws or Constitution one bit beyond how they can use it as a club to beat anyone that opposes them.
In 1898, some Justices argued that it excluded people that had citizenship to another jurisdiction… So it has happened, and this SCOTUS doesn’t mind overturning precedent one bit.
Never heard of this one. Link?
If they’re not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then they can’t arrest them. That language is clearly meant to exclude diplomats.
It excludes far more than diplomats, and that’s what makes this approach so dangerous.
In a “Red Dawn” situation, local police certainly can arrest members of the invading army. “Enemy Combatants” are not subject to the laws of the United States. Enemy combatants cannot be charged with crimes under US law simply for engaging in hostilities. They can be held indefinitely as POWs. They don’t have to involve the judicial system to “repatriate” them to their country of origin, rather than deporting them.
Invading enemy soldiers are not born in the United States. That’s the other important part of the sentence. I don’t think the major issue is pregnant invading soldiers. To be clear, what I meant is that if you have embassy staff with diplomatic immunity and they have kids while in the US, those children do not get birthright citizenship, because as children of diplomats, they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Note that there were SCOTUS justices that already did this in US v. Wong Kim Ark:
The court’s dissenters argued that being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States meant not being subject to any foreign power[8]—that is, not being claimed as a citizen by another country via jus sanguinis (inheriting citizenship from a parent)—an interpretation which, in the minority’s view, would have excluded “the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country”.
While the majority at that time did not hold it, we know this SCOTUS has no particular regard for precedence.
Here’s the thing about SCOTUS, they can say.
In the 1898 case, two justices in their dissent interpreted “subject to the jurisdiction” to mean “exclusively subject to the justification”, and thus the amendment applies only when the person being born would otherwise be stateless.
Now it’s a strange take that requires inserting at least one word, and was settled by the SC in that case the other way, but this SCOTUS doesn’t really mind overturning precedent.
I am hopeful that at least two of the conservative justices balk at effectively having to imagine stuff not written. But if they did side with Trump, what would be the remedy? Easiest path would be to pass a law codifying the current understanding, but with this congress, that isn’t happening.
How would the judge know that? The White House deleted their link to the constitution Points to own head cleverly
I wonder if it’s legal to share it over BitTorrent. It sounds like we need better public access to it but settling for BitTorrent feels extreme.
The fact that an insurrectionist is president is also blatantly unconstitutional.
This is how they overturned Rowe vs Wade.
First a little punch, then another and another. These people deserve to never hold office again.
Supreme Court: Hold my scotch!
Poor “I LIKE BEER” Kavanagh
agreed. “boofing” that scotch is gonna tear up his insides. :-/
