Here is the deal: Wong Kim Ark was decided by the same court (more or less) that decided Plessy. My point being even that group of nimrods knew the 14th amendment meant what it said. At least as far as birth right citizenship.
Fun fact: Harlan dissented in Wong Kim Ark. So maybe instead of principled, he was just a contrarian.
The [President] has no clothes! He's too busy trying to steal the powers of the Legislative and Judicial Branches to put anything on his bloated, disgusting personage! Harrumph!
Ok hear me out…a reality tv show hosted by Kristi Noem where babies are pitted against one another in a vicious cage match where the loser dies while the winner gets citizenship. Now, are there downsides? Yes, because chainsaws will need to be miniaturized for baby hands. But the ratings! Like the Puppy Bowl but with babies with chainsaws!
Thank you for coming to my TED Talk here at Homeland Security.
If Chump wins on this one, I guess the next Democratic President can EO the shit out of the Second Amendment. After all, when it was written, the founders were only aware of the existence of single-shot muzzle-loaders. They never intended to arm the citizenry with enough firepower to individually take on the entire Continental Army and win.
There was no witchcraft until the Puritans brought it with them to the Plymouth Colony in 1620. That is, unless Sam Alito discovers that the Spanish Inquisition held witchcraft trials in Mexico. I"m sure he'd agree that all the indigenous people of the Americas practiced witchcraft, or at least paid a tithe to their neighborhood witch. It actually makes sense that they would, because at that time, witches were much more competent at curing people than priests were. Witch doctors were quite knowledgeable about curative plants. The only thing priests could do was give you a dose of Extreme Unction.
There were good arguments made that it's impossible to separate the underlying question - is Trump's EO unconstitutional - from the application the government made to overturn the national injunctions. Justice Jackson helpfully simplified it for us, saying something like "All the lower courts have ruled that this is illegal, and told you to stop doing this illegal thing while the cases work their way to us. You're asking us to let you keep doing this illegal thing to everyone except the people who have sued you. Are you fucking kidding me?" (I made up the last part. She didn't say that. Out loud.)
Outside the silliest justices (Thomas and Alito), it seems that no one on the court is silly enough to ignore the plain language of the Constitution.
The question of nation wide injunctions is interesting, but it seems that even the far right justices are of two minds. They like it when it serves their political purposes (a single judge in Texas where you have no other judge that could be selected handing down decisions on abortions or school loans), but don't want it when it goes against them (stopping the proven rapist Trump from throwing people out of the country because they looked at him wrong). But there seems to be a reasonable solution to this problem.
First, a court may not issue an injunction that extends past its district unless the case was randomly assigned to them. If you are the only judge, you are limited to your district. That takes care of the crazy Texas cases.
Second, an injunction may only be resisted by or provided to a party nationwide if that party is trying to uphold establish law. If the party asking for an injunction or resisting the injunction is doing so on novel grounds are in the face of established precedent, the court must provide relief to the other party as requested.
In the birthright citizenship case we have a great example. 1) We have three cases that were randomly assigned to their judges (no one judge and only one judge forum shopping, so a national injunction can be granted. 2) The side asking for the injunction is asking to preserve the status quo based upon an over 100 year-old precedent and consistent with establish law, so they may ask for a national objection. 3) The side (the proven rapist Trump) trying to prevent an injunction is relying on an admitted novel theory that has never been granted, so they cannot resist the relief sought by the other side.
This would take care of most of the problems. We don't end up with a patch work of decisions where rights vary by state or even districts within a state, we preserve the status quo, and we allow the case to move forward without anyone being harmed. The Trump administration can't avoid the consequences of their bad actions, and can't continue to abuse people of their rights until they individually bring a suit. This would address most of the concerns voiced by both sides while not allowing a party like the proven rapist Trump to take away people's rights for years until the courts finalize everything.
Nothing is perfect, but this would make sense. Instead, we will probably get some gobbly-gook like Roberts Immunity decision that really doesn't say anything and that Trump will declare a victory and ignore (see, e.g., the decision requiring him to "facilitate" the return of Abrego Garcia).
I heard a willingness on both sides to get a handle on national injunctions - just not in this case, where overturning it would cause a lot of harm by allowing the government to do a thing that is almost certainly unconstitutional.
Since the court is considering nationwide injunctions, my hope is at least five justices recognize how f*ked we'd be with this administration, and Republicans more broadly, if they ruled them illegal.
I liked the argument the lawyer from CASA made ... basically, yes, there have been a lot of nationwide injunctions, but that's just because there have been so many EOs of - at best - questionable legality.
It's a version of the argument on Trump's persecution complex: It you'd stop criming, they'd stop hauling you into court, dude.
Birthright citizenship is the bedrock of United States citizenship. It has existed since the Revolution, and defense of Jus Soli was one of the main reasons for the War of 1812. The 14th Amendment was added primarily to guarantee that it was extended to freed slaves. Without Jus Soli, we would ALL be British citizens, there would be NO US citizens. It's fairly clear why Trump wants to eliminate it. Without it he can legally deport anyone.
Jus Soli was accepted by all the American nations going back to independence. There might be a few holdouts among the recently independent (or semi-independent) countries in the Caribbean, but I can't think of any.
I find it funny that Mexico's constitution goes so far as to include being born on a Mexican flagged ship, airplane or oil platform (I suppose it COULD happen) also qualifies as "birthright citizenship".
Yes, had it not ben for Jus Soli all of the immigrants to the New World would have been citizens of the countries from whence they came. Trump tries to frame it as some sort of recent "liberal open borders" policy
The Tubes won the Country Music Award for Song of the Year with a song called "Proud To Be An American."
After winning the award, they were returning to their hotel in a rented van when they were pulled over by a Nashville cop. When the driver rolled down his window, smoke billowed out.
They explained who they were, where they were coming from, and showed the cop the CMA award.
“THE SUPREME COURT IS BEING PLAYED BY THE RADICAL LEFT LOSERS, WHO HAVE NO SUPPORT, THE PUBLIC HATES THEM, AND THEIR ONLY HOPE IS THE INTIMIDATION OF THE COURT, ITSELF. WE CAN’T LET THAT HAPPEN TO OUR COUNTRY!”
I recall that, some time ago (convicted felon cheetolini 1, perhaps) Texas refused to grant a newborn a birth certificate because the parents (presumably undocumented) could not provide documentation that they were who they were. I am not sure how it ended up.
Yesterday, when asked about the American citizen toddlers Nazi Barbie had deported (including at least one with cancer), she said they were sent back to their “own country.” Which, just for the record, was not the country they were born in.
Here is the deal: Wong Kim Ark was decided by the same court (more or less) that decided Plessy. My point being even that group of nimrods knew the 14th amendment meant what it said. At least as far as birth right citizenship.
Fun fact: Harlan dissented in Wong Kim Ark. So maybe instead of principled, he was just a contrarian.
Is that two votes total or two votes per cat? I think per cat would be more fair.
The [President] has no clothes! He's too busy trying to steal the powers of the Legislative and Judicial Branches to put anything on his bloated, disgusting personage! Harrumph!
Ok hear me out…a reality tv show hosted by Kristi Noem where babies are pitted against one another in a vicious cage match where the loser dies while the winner gets citizenship. Now, are there downsides? Yes, because chainsaws will need to be miniaturized for baby hands. But the ratings! Like the Puppy Bowl but with babies with chainsaws!
Thank you for coming to my TED Talk here at Homeland Security.
If Chump wins on this one, I guess the next Democratic President can EO the shit out of the Second Amendment. After all, when it was written, the founders were only aware of the existence of single-shot muzzle-loaders. They never intended to arm the citizenry with enough firepower to individually take on the entire Continental Army and win.
There was no witchcraft until the Puritans brought it with them to the Plymouth Colony in 1620. That is, unless Sam Alito discovers that the Spanish Inquisition held witchcraft trials in Mexico. I"m sure he'd agree that all the indigenous people of the Americas practiced witchcraft, or at least paid a tithe to their neighborhood witch. It actually makes sense that they would, because at that time, witches were much more competent at curing people than priests were. Witch doctors were quite knowledgeable about curative plants. The only thing priests could do was give you a dose of Extreme Unction.
There were good arguments made that it's impossible to separate the underlying question - is Trump's EO unconstitutional - from the application the government made to overturn the national injunctions. Justice Jackson helpfully simplified it for us, saying something like "All the lower courts have ruled that this is illegal, and told you to stop doing this illegal thing while the cases work their way to us. You're asking us to let you keep doing this illegal thing to everyone except the people who have sued you. Are you fucking kidding me?" (I made up the last part. She didn't say that. Out loud.)
Outside the silliest justices (Thomas and Alito), it seems that no one on the court is silly enough to ignore the plain language of the Constitution.
The question of nation wide injunctions is interesting, but it seems that even the far right justices are of two minds. They like it when it serves their political purposes (a single judge in Texas where you have no other judge that could be selected handing down decisions on abortions or school loans), but don't want it when it goes against them (stopping the proven rapist Trump from throwing people out of the country because they looked at him wrong). But there seems to be a reasonable solution to this problem.
First, a court may not issue an injunction that extends past its district unless the case was randomly assigned to them. If you are the only judge, you are limited to your district. That takes care of the crazy Texas cases.
Second, an injunction may only be resisted by or provided to a party nationwide if that party is trying to uphold establish law. If the party asking for an injunction or resisting the injunction is doing so on novel grounds are in the face of established precedent, the court must provide relief to the other party as requested.
In the birthright citizenship case we have a great example. 1) We have three cases that were randomly assigned to their judges (no one judge and only one judge forum shopping, so a national injunction can be granted. 2) The side asking for the injunction is asking to preserve the status quo based upon an over 100 year-old precedent and consistent with establish law, so they may ask for a national objection. 3) The side (the proven rapist Trump) trying to prevent an injunction is relying on an admitted novel theory that has never been granted, so they cannot resist the relief sought by the other side.
This would take care of most of the problems. We don't end up with a patch work of decisions where rights vary by state or even districts within a state, we preserve the status quo, and we allow the case to move forward without anyone being harmed. The Trump administration can't avoid the consequences of their bad actions, and can't continue to abuse people of their rights until they individually bring a suit. This would address most of the concerns voiced by both sides while not allowing a party like the proven rapist Trump to take away people's rights for years until the courts finalize everything.
Nothing is perfect, but this would make sense. Instead, we will probably get some gobbly-gook like Roberts Immunity decision that really doesn't say anything and that Trump will declare a victory and ignore (see, e.g., the decision requiring him to "facilitate" the return of Abrego Garcia).
I heard a willingness on both sides to get a handle on national injunctions - just not in this case, where overturning it would cause a lot of harm by allowing the government to do a thing that is almost certainly unconstitutional.
Since the court is considering nationwide injunctions, my hope is at least five justices recognize how f*ked we'd be with this administration, and Republicans more broadly, if they ruled them illegal.
I liked the argument the lawyer from CASA made ... basically, yes, there have been a lot of nationwide injunctions, but that's just because there have been so many EOs of - at best - questionable legality.
It's a version of the argument on Trump's persecution complex: It you'd stop criming, they'd stop hauling you into court, dude.
Birthright citizenship is the bedrock of United States citizenship. It has existed since the Revolution, and defense of Jus Soli was one of the main reasons for the War of 1812. The 14th Amendment was added primarily to guarantee that it was extended to freed slaves. Without Jus Soli, we would ALL be British citizens, there would be NO US citizens. It's fairly clear why Trump wants to eliminate it. Without it he can legally deport anyone.
Jus Soli was accepted by all the American nations going back to independence. There might be a few holdouts among the recently independent (or semi-independent) countries in the Caribbean, but I can't think of any.
I find it funny that Mexico's constitution goes so far as to include being born on a Mexican flagged ship, airplane or oil platform (I suppose it COULD happen) also qualifies as "birthright citizenship".
Yes, had it not ben for Jus Soli all of the immigrants to the New World would have been citizens of the countries from whence they came. Trump tries to frame it as some sort of recent "liberal open borders" policy
"I was born... an American
I was raised... an American
And I'll die... an American
In America,
With Armenians!"
-- Firesign Theatre
The Tubes won the Country Music Award for Song of the Year with a song called "Proud To Be An American."
After winning the award, they were returning to their hotel in a rented van when they were pulled over by a Nashville cop. When the driver rolled down his window, smoke billowed out.
They explained who they were, where they were coming from, and showed the cop the CMA award.
He let them off with a warning.
And the name of that cop? Jethro Tull!
Is that you Georgie Tirebiter??
That would be Porgie Tirebiter, Mutthead!
I stand corrected. Pass the groot cakes and 30 weight, please.
You sound like a Commie Martyrs grad!
Cum Laude Class of ‘75
if the supreme’s haven’t figured out they are in donnie’s crosshairs yet i won’t tell them …
Trump toot today:
“THE SUPREME COURT IS BEING PLAYED BY THE RADICAL LEFT LOSERS, WHO HAVE NO SUPPORT, THE PUBLIC HATES THEM, AND THEIR ONLY HOPE IS THE INTIMIDATION OF THE COURT, ITSELF. WE CAN’T LET THAT HAPPEN TO OUR COUNTRY!”
"I'll take what is irony?" for $500, Alex.
Did you get that image by typing "BABYCAKES" into Google Images?
I recall that, some time ago (convicted felon cheetolini 1, perhaps) Texas refused to grant a newborn a birth certificate because the parents (presumably undocumented) could not provide documentation that they were who they were. I am not sure how it ended up.
Yesterday, when asked about the American citizen toddlers Nazi Barbie had deported (including at least one with cancer), she said they were sent back to their “own country.” Which, just for the record, was not the country they were born in.
The regime is already defying the court orders.