Reply With Quote
If the government oppresses the people, the judiciary is powerless to protect the people from it, unless they prevail in individual lawsuits
the curtailment of liberty will be significant, Trump's war on the American people is already extensive
Roberts made Trump king when he made him unable to be prosecuted for his crimes as long as he called them official actions; no reason he wouldn't reinforce that ruling by further protecting Trump from having to follow the law.
If the government oppresses the people, the judiciary is powerless to protect the people from it, unless they prevail in individual lawsuits
the curtailment of liberty will be significant, Trump's war on the American people is already extensive
https://www.lawdork.com/p/scotus-con...-end-universalIn the second zone, however, the executive can enforce uncons utional actions against “those who lack the wherewithal or ability to go to court“ — a reality that “will disproportionately impact the poor, the uneducated, and the unpopular.”
it's no longer overstatement to say that SCOTUS is taking citizenship and racial politics in the USA back to a pre-civil war basis
breathtakingly extreme and radical
without firing a shot so far (besides Vince Boelter)
Its like the civil war era
Why are you even trying to talk about this?
You don't know about it.
for the low effort, low information person
cheap cynicism trumps all
what is the 14th amendment?
what would repealing jus soli mean in the USA?
what would repealing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 look like?
Trump's various EOs contemplate this
14th amendment was ratified in 1868
(We'll need another government like that to fix what Trump is doing)
How many countries in the world don't do birthright citizenship?
I wonder if we asked those who passed the 14th amendment if they thought it should apply to millions in the country illegally. My guess is "no".
They could have written that in the amendment. They didn't. No guessing.
you should read the Congressional Globe on this, i may have posted it upstream.
It's very droll, but the intent is crystal clear
there's not much evidence the immigrant surge presents a public safety hazard exceeding natives
what's the emergency?
We have to judge what they meant and how we apply it even now which is not exactly as written. They could have written that the children of certain foreign diplomats are exempted but they didn't and they are.
Win, win, win
man, that barely makes any sense
are you high?
Of course that's in the amendment.
Any new information on your Walz sleeper assassin conspiracy theory?
Did you win?
It doesn't explicitly state that, we have to make a judgement as to what it means and how we apply it.
Walz appointed
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
