SCOTUS and whatnot

[CMRivdogs]

Not the Supreme  Court, but its sure to end up there

 

[CMRivdogs]

 

[smr-nj]

14 hours ago, CMRivdogs said:

 

“Freedom for me, but not for thee”.

[chasfh]

3 hours ago, smr-nj said:

“Freedom for me, but not for thee”.

Wouldn’t surprise me to learn that some dishonest pundit on Fox has pointed out that there are no rights for trans people explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. 

[CMRivdogs]

So, Alito was in the room where it happened? It's time to set term limits on judges...or maybe just age limits

 

[Tigeraholic1]

Common sense.

 

[pfife]

Its not common sense

[CMRivdogs]

 

Edited March 23 by CMRivdogs

[chasfh]

1 hour ago, CMRivdogs said:

 

So adorable how the "[the justices would] be shocked at how well organized and secure [elections] are" poster proceeds from the assumption that they are honest and impartial actors.

[gehringer_2]

2 hours ago, chasfh said:

So adorable how the "[the justices would] be shocked at how well organized and secure [elections] are" poster proceeds from the assumption that they are honest and impartial actors.

The way the system is supposed to work, findings of fact - like how an election works, are supposed to be established at the trial court. Unfortunately, that's a distinction that often doesn't make a difference in the end, because the Justices are still using their own belief system and the 'facts' they hold within that belief system, to make their judgements on matters that in theory are only about 'the law' of a case, but never really are.

In a technological age where the Justices are often totally ignorant about the real world context of what they are deciding, I wonder if the fact that appeal courts are not tasked to retry the facts of cases almost becomes an impediment to good outcomes.

Edited March 23 by gehringer_2

[Tigeraholic1]

8-1, impressive.

 

[pfife]

Thats a magaholic double flusher

[romad1]

Trump is sayng he's actually going to go to the US Supreme Court tomorrow for this

 

That will be interesting.   You know an amendment is sort of a big deal.  It means that the popular will was to ratify that amendment.  Him saying things are just so does not countermand an amendment. 

[buddha]

On 3/31/2026 at 8:00 PM, romad1 said:

Trump is sayng he's actually going to go to the US Supreme Court tomorrow for this

 

That will be interesting.   You know an amendment is sort of a big deal.  It means that the popular will was to ratify that amendment.  Him saying things are just so does not countermand an amendment. 

it will be at least 7-2 against trump's EO.  the odds are better that its 9-0 than the order is upheld.  

[romad1]

29 minutes ago, buddha said:

it will be at least 7-2 against trump's EO.  the odds are better that its 9-0 than the order is upheld.  

One can only imagine the upheaval.  My father is 97 and is a citizen by birth to an immigrant mother and father.   Several Trump children also fall into that category. 

[oblong]

I saw quotes by Barret to the effect of "Yeah but the Constitution"

The solicitor is like "It's a brave new world...." Roberts said "It might be but the constitution is still the constitution"

[buddha]

1 hour ago, romad1 said:

One can only imagine the upheaval.  My father is 97 and is a citizen by birth to an immigrant mother and father.   Several Trump children also fall into that category. 

depends what kind of opinion they write too.  if they make it broad, they might lose thomas, alito, kavanaugh, and maybe gorsuch.  if its just about the EO, maybe they only lose thomas and possibly alito, maybe kavanaugh?

the questioning was pretty favorable to the aclu, even from alito.

[RatkoVarda]

kinda hope it's 5-4 in favor of Trump, and then he deports Marco Rubio to Cuba the next day

[Tiger337]

2 hours ago, romad1 said:

One can only imagine the upheaval.  My father is 97 and is a citizen by birth to an immigrant mother and father.   Several Trump children also fall into that category. 

My father, who lived to 99, was born in the United States to immigrant parents.  He also did more for America than most Americans can even imagine.  He fought in the front lines of WWII.  

[ewsieg]

Just an fyi, and note I don't side with Trump in regards to birthright citizenship, but this wouldn't affect Trumps kids, Rubio, anyones grandpa, etc.

• It would not be retroactive, only from the time the EO was signed.
• Going forward, U.S. Born children, born to parents that are not citizens or have legal status, would not be citizens.

I don't know the status of some of your Grandparents, but this likely would not have effected your parents.  This would not effect Marco (both parents were legal residents), it would not affect any of the Trump kids (father was US Citizen and even if he wasn't, mother was legal resident).  

To me, it's an unconstitutional solution to a legitimate problem, at least a legitimate problem when you refuse (which both sides have) to address over decades.  It almost feels like an extra safeguard to limit one of the benefits of coming here illegally should another president step in and again refuse to address the southern border.  

 

[Tiger337]

1 minute ago, ewsieg said:

Just an fyi, and note I don't side with Trump in regards to birthright citizenship, but this wouldn't affect Trumps kids, Rubio, anyones grandpa, etc.

• It would not be retroactive, only from the time the EO was signed.
• Going forward, U.S. Born children, born to parents that are not citizens or have legal status, would not be citizens.

I don't know the status of some of your Grandparents, but this likely would not have effected your parents.  This would not effect Marco (both parents were legal residents), it would not affect any of the Trump kids (father was US Citizen and even if he wasn't, mother was legal resident).  

To me, it's an unconstitutional solution to a legitimate problem, at least a legitimate problem when you refuse (which both sides have) to address over decades.  It almost feels like an extra safeguard to limit one of the benefits of coming here illegally should another president step in and again refuse to address the southern border.  

 

No, it wouldn't have affected my father.  I was using him as an example to point out the absurdity of it.  

Biden did not refuse to address the southern border.  A bipartisian solutuon was made to address the border, Trump convinced them to go against it.  He wanted the problem to remain so he could run on it. 

Obama certainly didn't fail to address the problem either.  He deported more immigrants than Trump.    

[ewsieg]

1 minute ago, Tiger337 said:

Biden did not refuse to address the southern border.  A bipartisian solutuon was made to address the border, Trump convinced them to go against it.  He wanted the problem to remain so he could run on it. 

Obama certainly didn't fail to address the problem either.  He deported more immigrants than Trump.    

Both sides have been ignoring it for decades, likely at the behest of businesses that enjoyed cheap labor.  Biden's initial 'fix' was to simply reclassify folks as asylum seekers.  It only exacerbated the issue.  

You correct about the bipartisan bill in 2024, but that didn't come until those evil southern states began moving a tiny fraction of what they dealt with for years into northern cities like Chicago which began to freak out about having to take care of a couple hundred people.  You are correct that it was Trump and the republicans fault the bill didn't pass, but that should not negate the liability of ignoring the issue for decades by everyone prior to that either.

[pfife]

Im relieved that maga found a way to innoculate themselves from their eo

[Motown Bombers]

What’s funny is Chicago has been seeing Mexican immigrants coming into the city for years but apparently it was a busload from Texas that put them over the edge. 
 

Even funnier is hot wheels paid to bus them to Chicago and then sent the National Guard to take them back. 

Edited 5 hours ago by Motown Bombers

[Tiger337]

15 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

Both sides have been ignoring it for decades, likely at the behest of businesses that enjoyed cheap labor.  Biden's initial 'fix' was to simply reclassify folks as asylum seekers.  It only exacerbated the issue.  

You correct about the bipartisan bill in 2024, but that didn't come until those evil southern states began moving a tiny fraction of what they dealt with for years into northern cities like Chicago which began to freak out about having to take care of a couple hundred people.  You are correct that it was Trump and the republicans fault the bill didn't pass, but that should not negate the liability of ignoring the issue for decades by everyone prior to that either.

yeah, it's a problem and the solutions are often worse than the problems.