SCOTUS and whatnot

[buddha]

6 hours 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.  

 

Maybe.

The government is seeking only prospective relief, meaning that the EO is looking to end birthright citizenship for a particular class of persons moving forward.  as you state.

However, when the SG was asked at oral argument whether the administration would seek to apply its order retroactively, the SG refused to say that it would not.  In other words, the government did not commit that it would not look to rescind the citizenship of US citizens who were naturalized under old laws.

As Justice Sotomayor noted, the US has done this before when it rescinded citizenship for american indians.  Given the cruel nature of this administration in regards to non-white immigrants, and the bipolar nature of donald trump, i dont think you can say with any certainty he would not look to deport as many brown people as his government agents could get their hands on.  

And if you disagree, why dont you ask stephen miller what he thinks.

[MichiganCardinal]

11 hours 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.  

I'm predicting 7-2... 6-3 is possibly depending on how far gone Kavanaugh is. I agree that 9-0 is more likely (with several concurrences) than upholding the EO.

[ewsieg]

I don't disagree that Miller (via Trump) will continue to push further.  But what is in front of the court right now is not at the level you folks were mentioning, perhaps joking about before.  As for the administration refusing to answer a question about going further back, just shows he's not a completely incompetent lawyer as no lawyer should feed into "perhaps" statements.  I also would put more money on 9-0 than I would that SCOTUS holds up the EO.

[buddha]

27 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

I don't disagree that Miller (via Trump) will continue to push further.  But what is in front of the court right now is not at the level you folks were mentioning, perhaps joking about before.  As for the administration refusing to answer a question about going further back, just shows he's not a completely incompetent lawyer as no lawyer should feed into "perhaps" statements.  I also would put more money on 9-0 than I would that SCOTUS holds up the EO.

lawyers answer "perhaps" questions all the time at oral argument.  especially at the supreme court.  i understand what youre saying, but this particular administration cannot - and should not - be trusted on this issue.  or any issue, really.

in fact, if the SG had argued ONLY that the EO should be applied as a way to end "birth tourism" then they might have had a better chance. but they didnt.  they went for the full "ark should be overturned" type analysis.

[romad1]

38 minutes ago, buddha said:

lawyers answer "perhaps" questions all the time at oral argument.  especially at the supreme court.  i understand what youre saying, but this particular administration cannot - and should not - be trusted on this issue.  or any issue, really.

in fact, if the SG had argued ONLY that the EO should be applied as a way to end "birth tourism" then they might have had a better chance. but they didnt.  they went for the full "ark should be overturned" type analysis.

Funnily enough you know who really benefited from birth tourism in the recent past (maybe still, I have not reviewed this lately) was wealthy Russians in Miami.  

[oblong]

Isn’t there a fundamental issue that EO’s are not laws?  Regardless of the scope of their intent the law is the law and the constitution is the constitution. If the court were to agree that this anchor baby stuff going forward should be negated isn’t the place that’s done via an amendment or law and not an order?  I’m assuming there is something I am missing I guess