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

[Couchpotato]

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

Birthright citizenship is among several issues the administration has asked the court to deal with on an emergency basis, after lower courts acted to slow Trump’s agenda.

www.pbs.org

The entire point of the EO was to get it in front of the SCOTUS so they would have to rule whether the 14th Amendment bestowed birth rite citizenship. He may lose but the SCOTUS hearing this case was the desired outcome.

 

[Lesh]

Well, the SCOTUS will not find any law which supports the use of these universal injunctions, so they will bring an end to their use.

There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution which authorizes nationwide or universal injunctions by district judges.
The Constitution created courts to resolve cases and controversies between parties, not to give judges authority to issue broad public policy edicts to control the decisions and polices of the President.

There are over 650 federal district judges. If any one of them can issue a universal injunction and halt the president from implementing his Constitutionally authorized policies, our Republic will not be able to function.

Where the fuck do you get this nonsense from?

They are FEDERAL COURTS

They rule on national issues

 

[MayorQuimby]

No different than asking what is the point in passing laws if the courts can just strike them down?

Just because a president signs an EO or Congress passes a law, that doesn't automatically make it Constitutional.

I didn't say they are the same.

I don't understand what EOs really do in your country, but I know that they are different from regular laws, in the sense that they enable the president to do what he wants to do. I am not saying this is what they do or how things should be or any of that. I am just saying that EOs are different from laws. This is my understanding.

Also, I did not say EOs are always constitutional. However, if they can be unconstitutional, which means they can be struck down by judges, which just brings me back to my original point: what's the purpose of EOs?

 

[pknopp]

I didn't say they are the same.

I don't understand what EOs really do in your country, but I know that they are different from regular laws, in the sense that they enable the president to do what he wants to achieve. I am not saying this is what they do or how things should be or any or that. I am just saying that EOs are very different from laws.

Also, I did not say EOs are always constitutional. However, if they can be unconstitutional, which means they can be struck down by judges, which just brings me back to my original point: what's the purpose of EOs?

EO's are the realm of the lazy. Those who are too lazy to put out the effort to get a law passed, sign EO's.

 

[jknowgood]

They have the power to strike down unconstitutional laws and EOs.

For centuries now.

Do try to catch up and stop listening to your lying, uneducated propagandists. You look stupid.

Oh, by the way. Were the Supremes "activist judges" when they repealed Roe V. Wade?

You really don't think this shit through, do you, moron.

Trump is at 53% approval rating. I hope you're disappointed.

 

[MayorQuimby]

EO's are the realm of the lazy. Those who are too lazy to put out the effort to get a law passed, sign EO's.

I see that you don't have an actual answer for me.

Thanks anyway.

 

[Lesh]

EO's are the realm of the lazy. Those who are too lazy to put out the effort to get a law passed, sign EO's.

They are a number of things

They deal with issues quickly

They are workarounds

They attempts to subvert Congress and sometimes the courts

Courts and Congress can always strike them down and have done so many times

 

[pknopp]

I see that you don't have an actual answer for me.

Thanks anyway.

Sorry, but that is the answer.

 

[Care4all]

Do you think people who illegally sneak into our country should be able to have US citizen children as a reward?

Are they a "person"? Are their children born here persons? I say, yes. And that means yes, their children are citizens upon birth.

 

[Orangecat]

Are they a "person"? Are their children born here persons? I say, yes. And that means yes, their children are citizens upon birth.

I disagree. Yes, they are people. No, they shouldn’t be rewarded with an anchor baby just because they fucked on American soil.

 

[Orangecat]

Dumbass pknopp thinks my opinion is “fake news”. Lol.

 

[MayorQuimby]

Are they a "person"? Are their children born here persons? I say, yes. And that means yes, their children are citizens upon birth.

I love how you are focused on a technicality and how you are willing to overlook the fact that they obtained citizenship through questionable means (they snuck into the country illegally to have kids)

I disagree. Yes, they are people. No, they shouldn’t be rewarded with an anchor baby just because they fucked on American soil.

Some of them fucked in Mexico. The wife got preggers in Beaner-Land and travelled to US to shit out a kid.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Gorsuch, Roberts and Amy Souter will join the 3 Liberal moon bats voting against the EO

 

[pknopp]

Dumbass pknopp thinks my opinion is “fake news”. Lol.

It is. Been covered 5000 times. There is no such thing as an anchor baby.

No amount of pointing that out is going to stop you.

Next time you want to make crap up, just let my dismissal of your post go.

 

[Orangecat]

It is. Been covered 5000 times. There is no such thing as an anchor baby.

It’s a common phrase used to describe children born in the US to non-citizen parents. Surely you’re not so ignorant as to not know that.

 

[MayorQuimby]

It is. Been covered 5000 times. There is no such thing as an anchor baby.

No amount of pointing that out is going to stop you.

Next time you want to make crap up, just let my dismissal of your post go.

It feels that you are arguing semantics.

It doesn't matter if the term "anchor baby" exists or not. Do illegals sneak into the country to have kids in the hope of obtaining citizenship? Yes or No.

 

[Lesh]

I disagree. Yes, they are people. No, they shouldn’t be rewarded with an anchor baby just because they fucked on American soil.

Oh well. Pass an amendment

 

[MayorQuimby]

Oh well. Pass an amendment

That's one way, but there can be other ways, if you guys have the political will.

Pieces of shits like you like to cry about constitutionality (like you ever cared about it, LOL) when reality is that you just love giving citizenship to illegal beaners. Get fucked.

 

[Orangecat]

Oh well. Pass an amendment

Or get a clarification on the existing one from the SCOTUS.

 

[Billiejeens]

Oh well. Pass an amendment

Just have the SCOTUS give the appropriate reading of the 14th.

That's coming.