Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
I clicked on a headline about the Supreme Court declining to reverse the order requiring Trump to facilitate the return of Abrego Garcia, fully expecting a tight 5-4 decision.
Nope. 9-0. Which gave me a glimmer of hope. Maybe “the President can’t just kidnap people and fly them off to an El Salvadoran prison” is something we can all agree on. 

We can’t all agree on that at all.
I’m sure this court, at best, would conclude “he didn’t disappear someone the right way - here’s how he should do it.”
  • Rage+1 2
Posted
58 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


We can’t all agree on that at all.
I’m sure this court, at best, would conclude “he didn’t disappear someone the right way - here’s how he should do it.”

QFMFT.  I fully expect a Thomas dissent, explaining that "while this might have been wrong, I would have been cool with it if they had just done x, y and z [wink, wink]" .... 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:


We can’t all agree on that at all.
I’m sure this court, at best, would conclude “he didn’t disappear someone the right way - here’s how he should do it.”

The decision was a 9-0, this isn't happening. No one thinks this is legal and now we find out if trump can do whatever the fuck he wants or if the courts still matter. 

If the courts don't matter then everyone should just do whatever they want. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 3
Posted

Roberts won't say that people don't actually have rights. He'll just allow Trump several months/years of procedural delays, until Abrego Garcia is killed by prison guards and Roberts moots the case. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 4
Posted
13 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Roberts won't say that people don't actually have rights. He'll just allow Trump several months/years of procedural delays, until Abrego Garcia is killed by prison guards and Roberts moots the case. 

 

Yup this is my concern, my dudes and dudettes.  

Also that Garcia is already dead.

 

  • Rage+1 1
Posted

Summary of SCOTUS take:
1) humans have rights under the Constitution.
2) this guy’s rights were violated.
3) but there is no remedy for that, the Regime can violate anyone’s rights with zero repercussions, answering to no one.
So you can frame the “people have rights” part of that decision and put it on the wall, it’s a pretty decoration and that’s it. What matters is the remedy - can you get one? No? Then nothing fucking matters.

  • Hook 'Em 6
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Captainant said:

 

It would appear that Nicholas Grossman's tweets were pretty prescient ... 

saturday-night-live-no-way.gif

Edited by Gap03
Posted
2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Summary of SCOTUS take:
1) humans have rights under the Constitution.
2) this guy’s rights were violated.
3) but there is no remedy for that, the Regime can violate anyone’s rights with zero repercussions, answering to no one.
So you can frame the “people have rights” part of that decision and put it on the wall, it’s a pretty decoration and that’s it. What matters is the remedy - can you get one? No? Then nothing fucking matters.

Yep. Nothing matters.

Quote

The Supreme Court held that the government must “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and return to the United States. But at the same time, the Supreme Court said that the government cannot be ordered to “effectuate” Abrego Garcia’s return, out of respect for some hazy presidential powers over foreign affairs. So the court drew this blurry line where, I guess, the government can’t be forced to send him back, but it can be forced to try. That raises the question, though: What happens if the government claims it tried and failed? Can the district court not do anything more at all?

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2025/04/supreme-court-anlysis-trump-gulag-justices-chumps.html

Posted
1 hour ago, Satchel said:

Facilitate and effectuate  in context mean all deliberate speed, which means nothing 

Nothing but feculence from SCOTUS lately...

  • Like 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Buuuut.... it's in the Constitution. What will they take on next, that whole "free speech" thing? 

This is a crew who can and will manage to find things that are in the Constitution itself to be "unconstitutional."  Because you see, the test for constitutional vs. unconstitutional is "whatever our divinely appointed sovereign, his royal highness King Trump, long may he reign, wants."

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Red Five said:

Buuuut.... it's in the Constitution. What will they take on next, that whole "free speech" thing? 

“The first amendment limits the power of congress to regulate speech but, consistent with history and tradition in common law, establishes no such limitation on the power of the President, in his capacity as head of government, to prohibit speech that puts national security or defames or otherwise does insult to the sovereign, in the person of the president.” 
- Justice Gorsuch, probably 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Rage+1 3
Posted
1 minute ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

“The first amendment limits the power of congress to regulate speech but, consistent with history and tradition in common law, establishes no such limitation on the power of the president to prohibit speech that puts national security or defames or otherwise does insult to sovereign, in the person of the president.” 
- Justice Gorsuch, probably 

Surly: where the ironic hyperbole actually turns out to be dead-on, balls-accurate.

  • Rage+1 2
Posted
33 minutes ago, Fastbreak said:

wtf does that even mean?

It means that Alito and Ruckus have signaled to Trump's folks that they are willing to rely on some sketchy interpretation of history to read in an unwritten qualification to the 14th Amendment.  While the 14th Amendment seems pretty clear on its face, I look forward to reading a 75-page SCOTUS opinion explaining that, "Hey, because the 14th Amendment was adopted in 1866, it's clear that it was really only intended to allow former slaves born in the U.S. to be treated as citizens and nobody else, especially not those brown and yellow folks ... but maybe we're okay with the Eastern European people ...

Quote

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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

Posted

Apparently, Trump, and maybe others, think that those people who wrote and voted for the 14th amendment never, I mean never, thought it might be used outside the scope of former slaves. I guess they were all pretty dumb.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted

So if place of birth no longer determines US citizenship, what is the test or process for children born on US soil to attain citizenship after 14A is interpreted in that manner?

On another note, I look forward to Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito being deported in the near future.  Because, you know . . .

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

Man I just don't see how you parse this language, but this timeline....

 

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

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

So if place of birth no longer determines US citizenship, what is the test or process for children born on US soil to attain citizenship after 14A is interpreted in that manner?

On another note, I look forward to Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito being deported in the near future.  Because, you know . . .

 

i2ilm1S.jpeg

Edited by Bookman
  • Like 1
Posted
4 hours ago, Surly Bevo said:

Man I just don't see how you parse this language, but this timeline....

 

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

They hold that "browns" aren't people? Or that immigrants aren't subject to the jurisdiction thereof and free to crime as they desire?



×
×
  • Create New...