One Of Trump's Unconstitutional EOs Is Being Raked Over the Coals By SCOTUS Tomorrow

[Billiejeens]

“ g5000 is just ******* wrong” — justice Thomas during questioning today

Or any day.

 

[BackAgain]

If an executive order violates the U.S. Constitution or any other federal laws, the judges are SUPPOSED to strike them down.

Just because the person issuing the "directive" wants the right to do something doesn't mean that they can go ahead and do so if what they want is not lawful.

If Trump passed an order saying that any Black person in the United States who isn't presently employed is to be rounded up and shipped to some isolated island, do you think that would be legal? No matter how many people support the order?

Again; the QUESTION is whether the EO “violates” the Constitution

One can’t, logically, simply assume, as a premise, that it does “violate” the Constitution. When someone assumes their desired conclusion as a premise, then — of course — one wlll, miraculously, reach that same conclusion.

Since the meaning of the 14th Amendment on this matter is, indeed, unclear, it follows that whether the EO is “unconstitutional” depends on how the 14th Amendment is interpreted.

 

[BackAgain]

Or any day.

And almost any topic.

His “thinking” is almost always just plain .

 

[Zincwarrior]

Marco Rubio isn't a citizen? Interesting .

 

[BackAgain]

It's not my "understanding," it's a fact.

No. It’s your mere opinion. Opinions are not a synonym for “facts.”

 

[BackAgain]

It's not an "assumption," it is reality. A baby is being born somewhere in America right now. That baby is a US citizen regardless of the immigration status of his parents. That is a fact, and it will not change no matter what the Supreme Court decides. If the Constitution is changed, that might affect subsequent births, but that baby being born today will still be a citizen, same as you or me.

Wrong.

Your understanding of the 14th Amendment is the very thing being challenged as a misinterpretation.

The fact is much more simple: it is that the meaning of the 14th Amendment does NOT require your interpretation.

How will SCOTUS decide this issue? I don’t know. But I do know that it isn’t a lock, one way or the other.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

Ah, Birthright citizenship.

I think he will lose this one, which will galvanize Trumpers further.

I am a Trumper but I don't see how he wins this one. I don't much care. When we get illegals outta here, it won't be an issue any longer.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I am a Trumper but I don't see how he wins this one. I don't much care. When we get illegals outta here, it won't be an issue any longer.

I can't blame Trump for trying everything to pull the country out of the nosedive his predecessor put it in.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

I can't blame Trump for trying everything to pull the country out of the nosedive his predecessor put it in.

I agree but this nag is dead last in the race and he should bet on doing away with radical judges acting as co-presidents.

 

[g5000]

I can't blame Trump for trying everything to pull the country out of the nosedive his predecessor put it in.

Which has nothing to do with birthright citizenship. Do try to find a topic that meets your hackney needs.

 

[g5000]

How will SCOTUS decide this issue? I don’t know. But I do know that it isn’t a lock, one way or the other.

I listened to the entire hearing.

The justices spent almost all the allotted time querying the litigants about universal injunctions, and very little time on birthright citizenship.

This implies their rejection of Trump's EO is a foregone conclusion. They didn't even feel the need to discuss it much.

And by the nature of their questions, it doesn't sound like they are going to prohibit universal injunctions, either.

The hypothetical of one state recognizing the birthright citizenship of a baby, and that baby moving to a state which does not recognize birthright citizenship justified the universal injunction.

 

[Billiejeens]

I agree but this nag is dead last in the race and he should bet on doing away with radical judges acting as co-presidents.

That is what this case, at its core really is about.

 

[BackAgain]

I listened to the entire hearing.

The justices spent almost all the allotted time querying the litigants about universal injunctions, and very little time on birthright citizenship.

This implies their rejection of Trump's EO is a foregone conclusion. They didn't even feel the need to discuss it much.

And by the nature of their questions, it doesn't sound like they are going to prohibit universal injunctions, either.

The hypothetical of one state recognizing the birthright citizenship of a baby, and that baby moving to a state which does not recognize birthright citizenship justified the universal injunction.

Maybe. But you’re not exactly a reliable reporter. And your speculations don’t amount to much.

 

[Billiejeens]

I listened to the entire hearing.

The justices spent almost all the allotted time querying the litigants about universal injunctions, and very little time on birthright citizenship.

This implies their rejection of Trump's EO is a foregone conclusion. They didn't even feel the need to discuss it much.

And by the nature of their questions, it doesn't sound like they are going to prohibit universal injunctions, either.

The hypothetical of one state recognizing the birthright citizenship of a baby, and that baby moving to a state which does not recognize birthright citizenship justified the universal injunction.

This case has very little to do with the 14th amendment

The issue is - can a single district court judge due what a single circuit court judge or a single SCOTUS justice cannot do.

That should be any easy decision

 

[Unkotare]

No. It’s your mere opinion. Opinions are not a synonym for “facts.”

No, it's a FACT. A baby is being born somewhere in the US right now. No matter how his parents got here, he IS a citizen. That is a FACT. His parents will be issued a birth certificate indicating his nationality as American. FACT.

 

[Unkotare]

Wrong.

Your understanding of the 14th Amendment is the very thing being challenged as a misinterpretation.

The fact is much more simple: it is that the meaning of the 14th Amendment does NOT require your interpretation.

How will SCOTUS decide this issue? I don’t know. But I do know that it isn’t a lock, one way or the other.

The reality at this very moment is that a baby is being born somewhere in America right now. That baby is a US citizen regardless of the immigration status of his parents. That is a fact, and it will not change no matter what the Supreme Court decides. If the Constitution is changed, that might affect subsequent births, but that baby being born today will still be a citizen, same as you or me.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Trump has put on a lot of theater for the rubes.

A lot.

One of those performances is EO 14160.

To satisfy the large crowd of bigots in the MAGA ranks, Trump signed an Executive Order on the proverbial Day One of his administration which unconstitutionally violated the 14th Amendment. Having never read the Constitution due to its big words, Trump thought he could get away with it.

So far, every court up the chain of command has slapped Trump's, Nazi Stephen Miller's, and third stringer traitor John Eastman's pointy heads down, and tomorrow the Supreme Court will do the same.

Enter your predictions here for what the score will be when the EO is struck down.

I predict 9-0 against the illegal, unconstitutional, bigoted, hateful EO.

You can listen to the sure-to-be-hilarious arguments tomorrow here:

LISTEN: Supreme Court hears arguments on Trump’s challenge to birthright citizenship

The Supreme Court is weighing whether to allow President Donald Trump’s restrictions on birthright citizenship to temporarily take effect in most of the country, even if they might ultimately be found unconstitutional.

www.pbs.org

Listening now....and yes..the Supremes are roasting this dude~

Favorite quote: "You need someone to lose--but no one's going to lose this case to you."

 

[postman]

I’m not seeing how it makes us exceptional/great, tbh. It’s an outdated concept that is often abused by those here illegally, imho.

Many facets of our constitution are rife for abuse.
Take the 6th amendment, where everyone facing criminal charges if they don't have much money, they get free legal representation.

 

[BackAgain]

No, it's a FACT.

Nope. It’s an interpretation of the meaning of the 14th.

A baby is being born somewhere in the US right now. No matter how his parents got here, he IS a citizen.

Reiterating your opinion as a “fact” doesn’t make your opinion factual. Again, the question about “birthright” citizenship is whether the 14th demands it. It has been treated as a question which is settled. It isn’t. SCOTUS has never opined on the topic relative to illegal aliens.

That is a FACT.

Nope; it really isn’t for the reasons I just laid out.

His parents will be issued a birth certificate indicating his nationality as American. FACT.

That is how the 14th Amendment has been passively assumed to require. But I ts silly.

Instead, as a sovereign nation, we get to decide the matter about kids born here to illegal alien parents. And, if the 14th Amendment gets interpreted rationally, we would ll be free to reject the ridiculous notion of birthright citizenship.

 

[martybegan]

Wrong.

Your understanding of the 14th Amendment is the very thing being challenged as a misinterpretation.

The fact is much more simple: it is that the meaning of the 14th Amendment does NOT require your interpretation.

How will SCOTUS decide this issue? I don’t know. But I do know that it isn’t a lock, one way or the other.

I'll take the SC stomping down on national injunctions from District judges.

To me fixing the 14th amendment requires another amendment.

Get rid of anchor babies, and get rid of Morris V Board of Estimates that prevents States from having Senate like legislative bodies.