Supreme Court rules Führerprinzip is real but does not apply to brokerage accounts
SCOTUS nukes equal protection in West Virginia v PBJ
Strengthening the hand of an oppressive government and taking away people's rights is about all this SCOTUS does
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...24-43_2b35.pdf
Last edited by Winehole23; 2 Weeks Ago at 09:28 AM.
See, people always want to make this just about "sports," but the real upshot here is that, 6-3, trans women can't make a claim under the Equal Protection Clause. And if they can't do that, it's hard to see how they have cons utional rights.
my bad, it also hands election politics to those with the most money to spend, striking down dark money limits
this is NRSC v FEC
there is reportedly exactly one would-be trans student athlete in WV public schools
the mountain is a mole hill
Last edited by Winehole23; 2 Weeks Ago at 09:50 AM.
Sotomayor
SCOTUS rules against Trump's birthright citizenship EO
6-3 on the statutory question, but Kavanaugh dissented on 14A
https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/trump-v-barbara/
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...5-365_4hdj.pdf
Last edited by Winehole23; 2 Weeks Ago at 10:10 AM.
Children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United Statesand are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.
Sources from after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment do not put in doubt the understanding of the Citizenship Clause at the time of (and after) its ratification. In any case, post enactment history cannot override the text. If Congress intended to limit American citizenship to the children of those domiciled in the United States,nothing in the succinct language of the Citizenship Clause conveyed that design; words appearing frequently in the Executive Order—“mother,” “father,” “lawful,” “temporary”—are absent from the Clause. Attempts to narrow Wong Kim Ark by noting that the Court’s opinion repeatedly referred to the domicile of Wong’s parents fail becausethe holding’s underlying reasoning cannot be squared with a domicilerequirement; the Court exhaustively canvassed the text and history of the Citizenship Clause and at no point identified any evidence that the ratifiers thought themselves to be imposing a domicile limitation
What the Court held in Wong Kim Ark was simple: theCitizenship Clause incorporated the common law and granted citizenship to nearly all children born in the UnitedStates. Not surprisingly, then, in the 128 years since, wehave repeatedly understood the rule of Wong Kim Ark to guarantee citizenship to all children born in the United States and subject to its power. See, e.g., United States ex rel. Hintopoulos v. Shaughnessy, 353 U. S. 72, 73 (1957); INS v. Rios-Pineda, 471 U. S. 444, 446 (1985). We see no reason to depart from that view today.
Again and again, the dissents cast the common law as “feudal,” “medieval”—a remnant of “the darkness of the middle ages.” Post, at 4–5, 45, 54, 64, 75–78 (opinion of THOMAS, J.); see post, at 1 (opinion of GORSUCH, J.); post, at 2, 4, 27 (opinion of ALITO, J.).
That was not the view of the Reconstruction Congress.Where the dissents see feudalism, the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment saw emancipation. By the time of the Glorious Revolution in 1688, in fact, the tie created by birthwas less a “duty” than a “right”—the foundation of the “ancient liberties” of “free-born subjects.” H. Muller, Subjects and Sovereign 16–18, 57–58 (2017). That is why Blackstonedescribed the “privileges” owed to the “natural-born.” 1 Blackstone 361–362. That is why the colonists demanded the “rights of Englishmen” more than 250 years ago. B. Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution 192 (1967). And that is why abolitionists lauded the “ancient and universal” rule of citizenship by birth alone as “an ordinance of Heaven.” Yates 36–37; see also M. Jones, Birthright Citizens 89–107 (2018). Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights—to freely participate in our political community. The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to“every free-born person in this land.” Cong. Globe, 39thCong., 1st Sess., at 600 (Sen. Trumbull). We keep thatpromise today.
The judgment of the District Court for the District of New Hampshire is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Kavanaugh urges Congress to pass more exceptions to birthright citizenship
as noted above, Congress in 1940 and1952 enacted a statute, §1401(a), that at the time and since has always been understood to authorize only the four Wong Kim Ark exceptions. If Congress amends §1401(a) orotherwise enacts a statute creating new exceptions along the lines of the Executive Order for children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country, such a statute, as I see it, would pass cons utional muster.
https://bsky.app/profile/jamelleboui.../3mpjahvnx7t2ianyway i think the proper takeaway here is that a bare majority of the court thinks the plain words of the 14th amendment mean what they say, that four members believe there is a secret hidden meaning only recently discovered by hack lawyers
SCOTUS spokesperson knocks down withdrawn NPR report that Alito has retired. "NPR's reporting regarding Justice Alito is inaccurate. And their reporting that there was any kind of court statement is inaccurate." -- Patricia McCabe, Supreme Court spokesperson
Yeah, the fact it isn't 9-0 tells you everything you need to know about this court.
lol
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MaZ...uGlWw44hM/viewI pulled a PDF of the article before NPR took it down, take a look for yourself. It's all a pre-write with quotes already in there, nothing in the content hinged on anything he was saying or doing today. Nina Totenberg just hit PUBLISH in the CMS too soon.
if Sotomayor retires or dies, the Reconstruction Amendments as we've known them all our lives are toast
of course they'll still remain on paper, backfilled with bespoke right-wing content
The supermajority's decision in NRSC allows wealthy donors to cir vent limits on contributions to individual candidates by donating much larger sums to political parties, which can now spend the money in direct coordination with specific candidates.
to avert the vanishingly slight chance of transgender participation in secondary school sports, all the girls participating in secondary school sports in Washington State may be subject to genital exams or testosterone tests
(just the girls)
(and especially black girls)
(vote this November to keep bigots and perverts out of girls' sports)
https://www.kuow.org/stories/transge...chool-studentsStudent athletes in Washington state schools who want to compete in girls' sports would likely have to obtain genital exams to participate, if a controversial ballot initiative passes in November.
The initiative would ensure that “students compete in athletic activities consistent with the gender assigned at birth,” echoing restrictions in 27 other states and effectively blocking transgender girls from joining girls’ middle- and high-school teams.
Language in the initiative claims that kids are already required to undergo verification of their “biological sex” before they can play sports. But KUOW spoke with medical professionals and a school sports official who said otherwise. Paperwork used by medical professionals in sports physicals also shows that the initiative would be a departure from current state requirements for athletic participation.
According to the initiative, students would have several options to confirm their sex: a visual genital exam, a lab test to determine their genetic makeup, or an analysis of testosterone levels in the blood. The genital exam, which a medical professional can conduct without touching the child, would likely be the most accessible option for most kids.
Indeed, one wonders why Congress would attempt to create a US agency that any president at all can take control of by controlling its leadership.Seldom, if ever, has this Court worked such a profound bait and switch on a coequal branch: For more than 90years, Congress believed, with this Court’s express approval, that it was allowed to create a workable Government, including by granting certain agencies tasked with certain responsibilities some independence from Presidential control. In rejecting that project, after decades of promising the political branches that structures like the FTC’s were permissible, the Court creates an Executive Branch that Congress never dreamed of establishing and that it now has little hope of ever reining in.
Also, any Congressional attempt to counterbalance the president now would be likely to run afoul of SCOTUS's brand-new, concierge separation of powers doctrine.
Seems odd that the affected US agencies have not been abolished as offensive to the cons ution: instead the president holds Congress's delegated power and control of its erstwhile agency.
This kind of set-up can only work when you've got one-party rule
Justice Jackson
oops
NPR should fire Totenberg, tbh
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
