SCOTUS and whatnot

[romad1]

I'm not crying about the score.  I'm happy for the win.   The SCOTUS is like the Tiger's bullpen.  They aren't protecting much. 

[buddha]

They went with a broad opinion affirming wong kim ark and the idea that anyone born here is a citizen.  rather than take the moderate way out which would have just been to say the EO itself violated the law.  that's probably why it took so long.

regardless, another loss for trump.

[buddha]

2 minutes ago, romad1 said:

I'm not crying about the score.  I'm happy for the win.   The SCOTUS is like the Tiger's bullpen.  They aren't protecting much. 

someone disagrees with me!  they must be impeached!!!!!!  lol.

[pfife]

Cspan just said scalito is retiring

[romad1]

1 minute ago, pfife said:

Cspan just said scalito is retiring

NO replacement until 2029, thems the rules. 

[romad1]

5 minutes ago, buddha said:

someone disagrees with me!  they must be impeached!!!!!!  lol.

Court reform is definitely needed.  We need to know more about Thomas' wife Jan6 nuttiness. 

[chasfh]

Just now, pfife said:

Cspan just said scalito is retiring

Yup. He's on board with the overall program to to hand Trump 30+ more years of Supreme Court control:

Except he's not bothering to wait until Election Day.

Make way for Supreme Court Justice Aileen Cannon.

I wonder whether Thomas will be next, and when.

[chasfh]

Whoa, hold your horses ... this link:

Just led to this:

I guess we'll see in the new few minutes to hours.

[romad1]

I'm seeing a lot of comic takes on who would replace Alito.  But I guess NPR was too fast on the trigger with that. 

[buddha]

6 minutes ago, romad1 said:

I'm seeing a lot of comic takes on who would replace Alito.  But I guess NPR was too fast on the trigger with that. 

the idea of trump 2.0 appointing a supreme court judge is terrifying.  gorsuch, kavanaugh and barrett are all variations of typical republican appointees, but in trump 2.0 i could see him appoint judge judy, or anyone he likes or gives him the most money.  and republicans in congress are too impotent to stop him.

[chasfh]

30 minutes ago, buddha said:

really 5-4 on the constitutional interpretation issue.  kavanaugh said the EO violates congressional statute, but that the 14th amendment issue is unclear on whether it applies to all people born in the US.

really 5 1/2 to 3 1/2.

Kavanaugh might consider reading the actual amendment:

• 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.

"All persons".

Nothing looks unclear about that to me.

28 minutes ago, buddha said:

They went with a broad opinion affirming wong kim ark and the idea that anyone born here is a citizen.  rather than take the moderate way out which would have just been to say the EO itself violated the law.  that's probably why it took so long.

regardless, another loss for trump.

This could be a short term loss for long term gain.

The 14th Amendment is crystal clear, as we can see above. "All persons", no wiggle room. The only way this can be changed is with a superseding constitutional amendment. And the court knows this. I'm pretty sure the four hardline conservatives worked out the optics with Roberts. They all wanted to vote to overturn it—Kavanaugh just about said as much—but I'm hypothesizing that they decided this had to be at least 6-3, because a 5-4 narrow escape would look bad. No way you could talk Alito or Thomas into upholding the Constitution here, and probably not Gorsuch, either.

But I do think there might be a longer game at play here. By establishing a clear victory for the 14th Amendment, they can hold the decision up to a skeptical public and declare, "See? Told ya we're not totally in the bag for President Trump." That takes the heat off another terrible decision that affects elections: lifting the 50-year-old law limiting political party spending on elections. Now, in concert with Citizen United, unlimited amounts of money can flow from donors like Elon Musk directly to the Party who can turn around and spend it on key marginal elections to help Republicans hold onto their majorities in both houses. In effect, this will allow the White House to directly game local elections in key races, since the White House is the leader of the Party, and the Party has just had its spending shackles removed. Now, it's gonna be Katy, bar the door.

Not for nothing, that law had been upheld in 2001 by another conservative Supreme Court.

 

Edited June 30 by chasfh

[romad1]

5 minutes ago, buddha said:

the idea of trump 2.0 appointing a supreme court judge is terrifying.  gorsuch, kavanaugh and barrett are all variations of typical republican appointees, but in trump 2.0 i could see him appoint judge judy, or anyone he likes or gives him the most money.  and republicans in congress are too impotent to stop him.

Andrew Tate was the one i was seeing.  If he needs someone to protect him on that flank.  Roy Moore is still alive?  He'd be good too for that.  

Then there was the Laura Loomer option but another broad to the Supreme court, no way.  

 

[buddha]

1 minute ago, chasfh said:

Kavanaugh might consider reading the actual amendment:

• 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.

"All persons".

Nothing looks unclear about that to me.

This could be a short term loss for long term gain.

The 14th Amendment is crystal clear, as we can see above. "All persons", no wiggle room. The only way this can be changed is with a superseding constitutional amendment. And the court knows this. I'm pretty sure the four hardline conservatives worked out the optics with Roberts. They all wanted to vote to overturn it—Kavanaugh just about said as much—but I'm hypothesizing that they decided this had to be at least 6-3, because a 5-4 narrow escape would look bad. No way you could talk Alito or Thomas into upholding the Constitution here, and probably not Gorsuch, either.

But I do think there might be a longer game at play here. By establishing a clear victory for the 14th Amendment, that takes the heat off another terrible decision that affects elections: lifting the 50-year-old law limiting political party spending on elections. Now, in concert with Citizen United, unlimited amounts of money can flow from donors like Elon Musk directly to the Party who can turn around and spend it on key marginal elections to help Republicans hold onto their majorities in both houses.

Not for nothing, that law had been upheld in 2001 by another conservative Supreme Court.

 

what does "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" mean?  that's not crystal clear.  the amendment was written to address former slaves, not anyone who happened to be in the country on a visit, or members of indian tribes.

i like the result and agree with the outcome, but it certainly isnt "crystal clear."

you have a lot of conspiracy theories.  the campaign finance decision flows naturally from citizens united.  the roberts court has always taken the "money is speech" thing in that direction.  the court doesnt issue one opinion to cover up for another opinion.  that's chas tinfoil hat junk.

[chasfh]

1 minute ago, romad1 said:

Andrew Tate was the one i was seeing.  If he needs someone to protect him on that flank.  Roy Moore is still alive?  He'd be good too for that.  

Then there was the Laura Loomer option but another broad to the Supreme court, no way.  

 

You know, I had not considered this part: there are already four women on the Court. What are the chances Trump creates a female majority with Aileen Cannon? To your point, probably very low, and he can probably find candidates with pen15es who are more threatening to the Constitution than Aileen Cannon, anyway. How about Markwayne Mullin? Hey, why not? Is there a way Trump can appoint acting Supreme Court Justices without having to run them through the gauntlet of confirmation hearings? I can think of at least three guys who would probably support that.

[chasfh]

1 minute ago, buddha said:

what does "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" mean?  that's not crystal clear.  the amendment was written to address former slaves, not anyone who happened to be in the country on a visit, or members of indian tribes.

i like the result and agree with the outcome, but it certainly isnt "crystal clear."

you have a lot of conspiracy theories.  the campaign finance decision flows naturally from citizens united.  the roberts court has always taken the "money is speech" thing in that direction.  the court doesnt issue one opinion to cover up for another opinion.  that's chas tinfoil hat junk.

Just because it's a theory doesn't mean there's no conspiracy. This is an easy one to both pull of by them and believe by us.

But let's try to set aside the ad hominem junk here: outside of diplomatic missions, how is a person born in the United States not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?

[romad1]

3 minutes ago, chasfh said:

You know, I had not considered this part: there are already four women on the Court. What are the chances Trump creates a female majority with Aileen Cannon? To your point, probably very low, and he can probably find candidates with pen15es who are more threatening to the Constitution than Aileen Cannon, anyway. How about Markwayne Mullin? Hey, why not? Is there a way Trump can appoint acting Supreme Court Justices without having to run them through the gauntlet of confirmation hearings? I can think of at least three guys who would probably support that.

Interim SCOTUS!

[buddha]

11 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Just because it's a theory doesn't mean there's no conspiracy. This is an easy one to both pull of by them and believe by us.

But let's try to set aside the ad hominem junk here: outside of diplomatic missions, how is a person born in the United States not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?

because they are a citizen of another country.

[guy incognito]

[chasfh]

1 minute ago, buddha said:

because they are a citizen of another country.

And born in the United States, they are a citizen of this country. Whether another country confers citizenship on them as well doesn't mitigate that.

One might reply, but their parents' lack of citizenship does not automatically grant the baby jurisdictional status, specifically, if the parents had the baby here while on vacation. To which I would reply in turn, the 14th Amendment specifically does not contemplate the citizenship of the parents when it comes to conferring citizenship on the baby.

[buddha]

1 minute ago, chasfh said:

And born in the United States, they are a citizen of this country. Whether another country confers citizenship on them as well doesn't mitigate that.

One might reply, but their parents' lack of citizenship does not automatically grant the baby jurisdictional status, specifically, if the parents had the baby here while on vacation. To which I would reply in turn, the 14th Amendment specifically does not contemplate the citizenship of the parents when it comes to conferring citizenship on the baby.

look, i like birthright citizenship.  america is a country of immigrants, etc etc.  yadda yadda yadda.  but there are plenty of examples in american history where folks were denied citizenship even if they were born here because their parents were foreigners and subject to the laws of the country in which they were domiciled.

The 14th amendment was not created for the purpose of making every foreigners kid a citizen, it was specifically created so the south couldnt prevent black people who were born here from being citizens.  it was never meant to address any other issue.  

i like the result, i just dont think its crystal clear.  the law rarely is.

 

[CMRivdogs]

Complete quote

Davis to Benny Johnson: “I just want dumb justices who will fall in line. Right? And not justices who think they're the smartest people in the room like Amy Coney Barrett or justices who care only about their image like John Roberts.”

Edited June 30 by CMRivdogs

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, buddha said:

because they are a citizen of another country.

well, lets tease it out, are any citizens of other countries besides those with diplomatic immunity protected from arrest and prosecution for crime, exempt from paying taxes, or even being drafted? (as my  cousin's English Citizen green carded husband was during NAM). What are the  examples where  2nd country citizenship make a person 'not subject'? If it's unclear there have to be case examples to consider.

Edited June 30 by gehringer_2

[romad1]

They really opened the Citizens United can of worms with the campaign finance ruling. 

[buddha]

24 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

well, lets tease it out, are any citizens of other countries besides those with diplomatic immunity protected from arrest and prosecution for crime, exempt from paying taxes, or even being drafted? (as my  cousin's English Citizen green carded husband was during NAM). What are the  examples where  2nd country citizenship make a person 'not subject'?

you're assuming "subject to the jurisdiction thereof's" only possible meaning could be the US can arrest you under its laws.  there are other interpretations of that clause's meaning.

1) wong kim ark, on which the majority relies holds:

"[A] child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States.” 

so it says you have to be permanently domiciled in the united states.  kind of rules out the whole "birth tourism" thing, no?

moreover, the decision on which wong kim ark relies, elk v wilkins, held that an american indian born in the united states was not a citizen by birth because he was not completely subject to the united states' political jurisdiction, because he was a member of a native american tribe and thus a member of another country.

2) you asked for examples.  here are some from the dissent:

The child of a woman named Mary Deveraux was denied citizenship after being born in the United States in 1889. Deveraux was an Irish woman who arrived in New York and promptly went to the hospital to give birth the next day. She was not yet, however, lawfully admitted to the country. Although the baby was undoubtedly “born on American soil,” it was not an American citizen because Deveraux had not yet been lawfully admitted.

Freiderich de Bourry was denied citizenship after being born in the United States to parents domiciled in
Austria. When de Bourry sought protection as an American citizen in 1886 after returning to Europe, 
Secretary Bayard denied his claim to citizenship. Although de Bourry was “born in the city of New York,”
Secretary Bayard explained, his parents were “temporarily resident” and returned to Europe a few years
later.

there are more, but for brevity's sake i wont include them all.

3) the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" has been interpreted to mean "only subject to the jurisdiction of the united states" and not subject to any other country's jurisdiction in other court cases.  

this decision ignores that precedent.

finally, I LIKE THE DECISION, but i take issue with the idea that its so cut and dried that no one could possible come up with another interpretation.  that's not true.  the law can be hard to parse out sometimes.

i just pulled a couple examples from the dissents.  there are more if you want to look.

[buddha]

25 minutes ago, romad1 said:

They really opened the Citizens United can of worms with the campaign finance ruling. 

citizens united is the poisonous tree from which all of this bad fruit has grown.