It’s an open and shut case. There is no rational legal argument for ending birthright citizenship.
Unfortunately, this court doesn’t seem to feel bound by little things like laws, precedents, the constitution or reality. If I had to bet on the outcome, I’d assume they will give Trump what he wants yet again. I want to be wrong about that, but at this point I think it’s a safer bet to assume this court will always do the worst thing possible.
According to Grok, the threshold is 50% of humanity. Apparently Elon Musk dying is as bad as or worse for humanity than a Thanos snap.
Judges should be part of the judicial branch, not the executive.
The reasonable solution would have been to include a mechanism for quickly and efficiently overruling these decisions when needed. They have to report to congress about anything that is withheld, but as far as I know they didn’t include a provision that would allow them to reject the given justification and order the release.
Everyday that I look at the feed I am reminded of the old /r/theonion + /r/nottheonion feed I used to love back in the day. The guessing game got less fun when it took over all the news.
These are the same shit stains that refer to legal immigrants and refugees as criminal illegals. The ones that condemn the idea of politicized prosecutions and claim no one is above the law while pursuing politicized prosecutions of people for daring to hold Trump accountable and not treating him as entirely above the law. These are the ones touting transparency while cracking down on whistle-blowers.
I could go on all day with this. Everything they say is in bad faith. They don’t care about being right, they just want to throw out soundbites to be repeated by propaganda outlets. Illegal orders are lawful. Following the constitution is seditious. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. There are five lights. The Star Wars sequels are just as good.
And the fact that they know they must lie is all the more damning.
As long there isn’t one of those fucking wind farms out there wrecking the environment and giving whales autism, right?
“Operation Charlotte’s Web”
The one where they send in some pigs.
Great idea. I hear the epstein files have info on some filthy whore that was sucking Clinton’s dick.
He doesn’t admit defeat, he claims some kind of win or deal and then backs down.
To achieve the status of measles elimination, a country must have no ongoing local transmission of the disease for at least one year. It will lose that status if it has a chain of cases that spread from person to person for more than one year.
We’ve been heading in that direction, but we won’t have officially lost our measles-free status until the current outbreak has continued for a full year.
Dems made them promise to put those ACA measures back in next year.
They got Thune to promise a separate vote in the senate on the ACA credits, probably in December. Even if that passed in the senate, Johnson won’t schedule a vote on it in the house. And if by some miracle it passed the house, Trump would just veto it.
It’s nothing. It’s absolutely nothing. At most they got Republicans to vote against ACA credits specifically, which is nothing compared to other shit they’ve already voted on, and will be far less effective than letting them take the heat for the shut down. The fact that they were willing to prolong the shut down just to kill the ACA credits says a lot more than a simple vote would.
They may not have felt that this was a good case for their purposes. Or enough of them may have felt that this was a bad time for it. Hell, maybe a couple of the conservative justices just don’t care enough to want to revisit the issue.
But respect for the law, the constitution, and the rights and wellbeing of the people hasn’t been evident in many of their recent opinions. Letting half the states pretend a fraction of marriages never happened wouldn’t even be the most disruptive thing they’ve done. They endorsed racial profiling, made racial gerrymandering presumptively legal, made prosecuting bribery essentially impossible, overturned abortion rights, and crowned Trump as king and gave him a license to kill. And that’s ignoring all the shenanigans happening on the shadow docket where they don’t even bother justifying their decisions. That they’ve at least drawn something of a line against the Trump administration trying to eliminate due process altogether makes sense only because letting go of due process would mean giving up some of their own influence.
I never said they would actually do it, only that they wouldn’t find it difficult to write that opinion. Seeing as they’ve had multiple cases in recent years where the opinion was completely untethered from law, precedent, and fact, there’s basically no position so extreme that I would assume they can’t rationalize it.
If they can invent presidential immunity despite there being absolutely nothing in the constitution to justify it, I’m sure they have no problem writing an opinion that allows bans on gay marriage.
My best guess would be that they would frame it as being about the right of the states to regulate marriage. If the state can decide how many people can be in a marriage, how old you have to be to marry, how closely related you can be and still marry, the requirements for starting or ending a marriage, and so on, then what’s one more criteria? Add some tangents about the history of marriage in the US, some comments about how government is involved in marriage specifically because of how it connects to issues relating to reproduction, cite some cases from the 19th century, and twist some more recent precedent to reverse its meaning so that you can pretend to be following existing case law and you have a pretty standard ruling for this court.
Noticed some anti-voting accounts pop back up this week after being dormant since last November. Must have gotten spooked by the election results on Tuesday and want to get a head start on trying to suppress turnout for next year.
Any deal that doesn’t put everything in one bill is worthless.
Let’s pretend for one moment that Republicans actually joined Democrats in passing the extension of ACA credits and any other concessions they got in the negotiations. Even if they passed the bill, Trump can just veto it. As long as he gets what he needs in a separate bill, he can veto anything else. And if there’s enough support for the compromise to overturn a veto, there’s enough to prevent it by passing it all as one bill.
But I’m sure Schumer will happily explain how Republicans voting against the ACA credits will be on their permanent record and how that will make this all worthwhile.
How long before the announcement that they are awarding one of their billionaire buddies with a no bid contract to replace air traffic control with an LLM based system?
This whole administration: Better that 100 innocents suffer than that 1 innocent not suffer.
Unless they had probable cause to believe there was a bomb, that’s absolutely no excuse for a search. Might as well just get rid of the fourth amendment altogether if police can just imagine the possibility of a dangerous object and excuse searching anything at any time.
If she really thought there was a bomb, she is recklessly handling this herself instead of calling in a properly trained and equipped bomb squad. But far worse, she claims she needed to check it so as not bring a bomb to the station, but apparently has no problem potentially handling a bomb around a bunch of innocent bystanders.
That she is lying in order to justify what she knew to be an illegal search is actually the least damning interpretation. Either way though, the evidence should be thrown out along with her career.