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 2
  • 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?

Posted (edited)

The founders barely gave any thought to citizenship or naturalization.

The "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," almost certainly referred exclusively to Native Americans, because even way back then, it was generally recognized that although they lived in the territory of the United States, they remained their own sovereign nation, sort of without territory, some with reservations of various types and flavors and some without.  So even though they may have been born in the territory of the United States, in some abstract way, it was as if they were born in another country, within our country.  And to attain US citizenship, had to undergo naturalization.

This wasn't wholly an act of disrespect, either.  Many Natives didn't want to be regarded as citizens of the US without some overt action on their part.

The sovereignty of Native Americans on reservations, and reservations themselves, have become gradually more and less formalized, but even today, we recognize that Indian tribes may have many of their own laws and jurisdiction to enforce them.  But we also passed the Indian Citizenship Act in 1924 that undid that aspect of the 14th Amendment.  And, in keeping with the foregoing, some tribes were opposed to it.

Trumpco is trying to extend that notion, that Native Americans were only partially subject to the jurisdiction of the US and therefore not citizens by birth, to citizens of any nation.  It kind of fits in an abstract way, but I don't think was at all what the drafters of the 14th Amendment intended.

Also, there is a "common understanding" of birthright citizenship under the 14th, but only a handful of legal decisions explicating it.  And as was the usual case with century-old decisions and statutes, a bit of ambiguity.

 

Edited by TwiceHorn
Posted
4 hours ago, Cousin Strawberry said:

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

The idea is that if both parents aren't citizens, they aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and birthplace is irrelevant.

Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Kyrie Eleison said:

you’ve been practicing copyright/patent/trademark law way too fucking long, my guy.  
 

go have a drink, relax, take the afternoon and play with the kids.  
 

Just explaining the argument.  It was for the Indians.  End of story.  Trumpco is trying to extend it some other way.  He should fail, but it's possible he wont.  See Breuen.

The justsecurity article goes into gorier detail and there's a similar one on lawfare from some months back that I'll try to find. https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/no--native-american-citizenship-does-not-support-limits-on-birthright-citizenship

Edited by TwiceHorn
Posted

there’s enough fucking stare decisis dumbass textualist that i’m not worried about it.  
 

7-2, Kavanaugh writes it, Alito and Thomas do their regular whiny-ass pretext fuckabout. 

Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Kyrie Eleison said:

there’s enough fucking stare decisis dumbass textualist that i’m not worried about it.  
 

7-2, Kavanaugh writes it, Alito and Thomas do their regular whiny-ass pretext fuckabout. 

Funny, I think the argument for Trump's variation is pretty purely textual, as opposed to originalist, while the argument against it is more originalist, that is the intent and understanding at the time of ratification

Edited by TwiceHorn
Posted (edited)

You all understand that this is nothing more than Calvinball right?  
 

If a majority of the court wants to support the EO they’ll come up with some way to justify it. 
Simple as that. 

Edited by DDD Dad
  • Like 1
Posted
3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

The founders barely gave any thought to citizenship or naturalization.

The "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," almost certainly referred exclusively to Native Americans, because even way back then, it was generally recognized that although they lived in the territory of the United States, they remained their own sovereign nation, sort of without territory, some with reservations of various types and flavors and some without.  So even though they may have been born in the territory of the United States, in some abstract way, it was as if they were born in another country, within our country.  And to attain US citizenship, had to undergo naturalization.

This wasn't wholly an act of disrespect, either.  Many Natives didn't want to be regarded as citizens of the US without some overt action on their part.

The sovereignty of Native Americans on reservations, and reservations themselves, have become gradually more and less formalized, but even today, we recognize that Indian tribes may have many of their own laws and jurisdiction to enforce them.  But we also passed the Indian Citizenship Act in 1924 that undid that aspect of the 14th Amendment.  And, in keeping with the foregoing, some tribes were opposed to it.

Trumpco is trying to extend that notion, that Native Americans were only partially subject to the jurisdiction of the US and therefore not citizens by birth, to citizens of any nation.  It kind of fits in an abstract way, but I don't think was at all what the drafters of the 14th Amendment intended.

Also, there is a "common understanding" of birthright citizenship under the 14th, but only a handful of legal decisions explicating it.  And as was the usual case with century-old decisions and statutes, a bit of ambiguity.

 

There’s not actually any ambiguity about it at all. The reason there isn’t a bunch of precedent is because it was understood on the level that “water is wet” was understood. There’s literally no scholarship supporting an anti-birthright citizenship reading of the law, which is why there’s three or four “originalists” pretending they suddenly found historical support for that position after they took office and writing op eds about it instead of actual scholarly work. 
 

You really don’t fucking gotta play devils advocate for every position, man.



×
×
  • Create New...