"Blatantly unconstitutional"
Look at this judge pretending the law still means anything to the guy in office.
this post was submitted on 23 Jan 2025
404 points (99.5% liked)
politics
19625 readers
3423 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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
load more comments
(10 replies)
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
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.
It would not be against this text alone to create a 2-tier citizenship depending on whether you are born to US citizens. Since the US federal government is not a state, they can deprive the "not born to US citizens"-tier of their privileges, immunities etc.
load more comments
(1 replies)
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
Which clause? I'm not remembering any that covers removal of a justice and I'm not finding it, unless you're considering this from article 3 section 1 to be what you said: The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour... I'm not seeing any mechanism enforcing that "good behavior", any definition of it, or who would enforce it
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
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?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark
The dissent is the part to look at for what I fear the SCOTUS of today will latch onto.
load more comments
(3 replies)
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.
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.
I don’t think the major issue is pregnant invading soldiers.
That's because you're using a logical, rational definition of "soldier". Texas isn't, and neither is Trump.
They are treating immigration as an actual invasion. They are saying that "soldiers" are coming in to the US and having kids.
They haven't been quiet about what they are doing, but so far, we have been treating it as hyperbole. It isn't hyperbole. They are acting on it.
They think lots of stupid illogical things. But here in the real world, immigrants are not soldiers, and they’re not ever treated as soldiers by the legal system, so they are, in fact under the jurisdiction of the United States.
Yet another case of Shroedinger’s immigrants. They are simultaneously fleeing their “s***hole” home country for purely economic reasons (not political oppression) while being so loyal to their home country that they will spend their entire lives raising children in a country they are invading.
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. :-/
view more: next ›