Crepitus
Diamond Member
- Mar 28, 2018
- 105,577
- 156,413
- 3,615
YOu can say that again!
The Judiciary Act of 1789 didn't anticipate a prez like trump.
- Thread starter berg80
- Start date
MarathonMike
Diamond Member
Mac1958 thinks having Iranian Regime collaborators like Obama and Biden for President was a good thing.
Coming from the side that calls us “Nazis” and “fascists” all the time, don’t really give a **** what you think about our attitude.
Your side supports abortion, homosexuality, transgenderism, human trafficking, and endless wars. It’s your actions that are killing us.
Well, Oddball claims he doesn't vote. And I'm inclined to believe him. But his continual defense of Trump doesn't make sense. Maybe it's just a personality thing. I dunno.
Crepitus
Diamond Member
- Mar 28, 2018
- 105,577
- 156,413
- 3,615
It's like you kids take turns with the same 4 brain cells...
**** your sides. Just **** your sides.
- Mar 3, 2013
- 89,379
- 53,690
- 2,605
would you be okay with a single teacher setting policy for all schools in a district?
Federal Judiciary Act (1789)
EnlargeDownload Link Engrossed Judiciary Act, September 24, 1789; First Congress; Enrolled Acts and Resolutions; General Records of the United States Government; Record Group 11; National Archives. View All Pages in the National Archives Catalog View Transcript One of the first acts of the new...www.archives.gov
In so many ways, our system was not designed to deal with the autocratic impulses of a prez.
The Government does not ask for complete stays of the injunctions, as it ordinarily does before this Court. Why? The answer is obvious: To get such relief, the Government would have to show that the Order is likely constitutional, an impossible task in light of the Constitution’s text, history, this Court’s precedents, federal law, and Executive Branch practice. So the Government instead tries its hand at a different game. It asks this Court to hold that, no matter how illegal a law or policy, courts can never simply tell the Executive to stop enforcing it against anyone.
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/articl...t-partial-stay-in-birthright-citizenship-case
As is the case in many instances where the founding documents come in to play, like the Judiciary Act of 1789, the men of the era who wrote them did not contemplate a future petty tyrant issuing a blatantly unconstitutional order.
The thing about the Roberts court is in previous rulings it has gone beyond the scope of the case before it to put its radically conservative, ideological stamp on the matter at hand. Naturally, in this case they did not rule on the constitutionality of Dotard's EO since it has no hope of surviving scrutiny on those grounds.
The Supreme Court’s birthright citizenship reasoning reveals a startlingly myopic view
Despite the fact that the question before them was limited to whether federal trial court judges can issue injunctions that apply nationwide, the justices seemed incapable of distinguishing between that question and the underlying issue of birthright citizenship. In fact, that difficulty demonstrates the fallacy behind trying to limit or do away with nationwide injunctions because the underlying issue is always inextricably interwoven with whether an injunction is needed.
Today’s 6-3 decision fails to resolve this conundrum. Rather, it only further highlights the problems raised at oral argument — with the conservative majority focusing only on the authority of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions, while the liberal minority dissents accuse the majority of turning a blind-eye to the potentially blatant illegality of Trump’s executive order.
In a coldly beautiful piece of legal writing, Justice Amy Coney Barrett manages to capture the votes of all of the conservative justices with a deep dive into the history of the 1789 Judiciary Act. She concludes that in 1789, there was no contemplation of nationwide injunctions and, thus, using them likely exceeds the authority of the federal courts.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent — joined by Justice Elana Kagan, accuses the majority of enabling legal “gamesmanship” by the Trump administration that makes it so that “No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates.” In a separate, even more blistering dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson argues that the majority gives the executive branch “permission to engage in unlawful behavior.”
The Supreme Court’s birthright citizenship reasoning reveals a startlingly myopic view
The conservative wing of the court overly relies on the emergency shadow docket and shouldn't have entertained the administration's birthright argument.www.msnbc.com
Mac1958
Diamond Member
I mentioned in another threat that I recently stumbled into a theory about that. It explains the psychological attachment, and it's called "Identity Fusion". Pretty interesting: Identity Fusion
Mac1958
Diamond Member
Papageorgio
The Ultimate Winner
Biden, Obama, Bush, Clinton, FDR and other Presidents signed EO’s that were blatantly unconstitutional, not just Trump. The Biden’s loan forgiveness obsession was definitely unconstitutional and Biden tried like hell to game it.Federal Judiciary Act (1789)
EnlargeDownload Link Engrossed Judiciary Act, September 24, 1789; First Congress; Enrolled Acts and Resolutions; General Records of the United States Government; Record Group 11; National Archives. View All Pages in the National Archives Catalog View Transcript One of the first acts of the new...
In so many ways, our system was not designed to deal with the autocratic impulses of a prez.
The Government does not ask for complete stays of the injunctions, as it ordinarily does before this Court. Why? The answer is obvious: To get such relief, the Government would have to show that the Order is likely constitutional, an impossible task in light of the Constitution’s text, history, this Court’s precedents, federal law, and Executive Branch practice. So the Government instead tries its hand at a different game. It asks this Court to hold that, no matter how illegal a law or policy, courts can never simply tell the Executive to stop enforcing it against anyone.
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/articl...t-partial-stay-in-birthright-citizenship-case
As is the case in many instances where the founding documents come in to play, like the Judiciary Act of 1789, the men of the era who wrote them did not contemplate a future petty tyrant issuing a blatantly unconstitutional order.
The thing about the Roberts court is in previous rulings it has gone beyond the scope of the case before it to put its radically conservative, ideological stamp on the matter at hand. Naturally, in this case they did not rule on the constitutionality of Dotard's EO since it has no hope of surviving scrutiny on those grounds.
The Supreme Court’s birthright citizenship reasoning reveals a startlingly myopic view
Despite the fact that the question before them was limited to whether federal trial court judges can issue injunctions that apply nationwide, the justices seemed incapable of distinguishing between that question and the underlying issue of birthright citizenship. In fact, that difficulty demonstrates the fallacy behind trying to limit or do away with nationwide injunctions because the underlying issue is always inextricably interwoven with whether an injunction is needed.
Today’s 6-3 decision fails to resolve this conundrum. Rather, it only further highlights the problems raised at oral argument — with the conservative majority focusing only on the authority of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions, while the liberal minority dissents accuse the majority of turning a blind-eye to the potentially blatant illegality of Trump’s executive order.
In a coldly beautiful piece of legal writing, Justice Amy Coney Barrett manages to capture the votes of all of the conservative justices with a deep dive into the history of the 1789 Judiciary Act. She concludes that in 1789, there was no contemplation of nationwide injunctions and, thus, using them likely exceeds the authority of the federal courts.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent — joined by Justice Elana Kagan, accuses the majority of enabling legal “gamesmanship” by the Trump administration that makes it so that “No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates.” In a separate, even more blistering dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson argues that the majority gives the executive branch “permission to engage in unlawful behavior.”
The Supreme Court’s birthright citizenship reasoning reveals a startlingly myopic view
The conservative wing of the court overly relies on the emergency shadow docket and shouldn't have entertained the administration's birthright argument.
Two parties, plenty of hypocrisy to go around.
They warned. They warned of a fiat currency and had fights with each other over it. They warned of tangling overseas agreements. I say to you. Cut the checks and benefits sent put to people in half for an economic disaster, and we all will change our views. Our system is no schmoozed by this. The constitution was freedom. We of course have legitimate complaints on how we are treated or treat each other.
- Mar 3, 2013
- 89,379
- 53,690
- 2,605
justoffal
Diamond Member
- Jun 29, 2013
- 38,463
- 31,407
- 2,905
berg80
Blah blah blah bullshit.
Birthright citizenship was a concession to the shameful construct of black slavery and applied only to those indigenous peoples who had been oppressed thusly. It was never meant for anything else.
There's no deep meaning behind any of this shit.
The law has been abused and extended to illegal aliens on behalf of politically concentric interests. Nothing more than that. Abusing it in that manner destroys the rights of all legal citizens. There's nothing mysterious about any of this. The left was caught red-handed perverting a constitutional component and turning it against the country It was supposed to benefit.
Game over.... And oh what a surprise that three liberal puppet judges are trying to serve their political masters instead of the Constitution. Who gives a flying ****?
Blah blah blah bullshit.
Birthright citizenship was a concession to the shameful construct of black slavery and applied only to those indigenous peoples who had been oppressed thusly. It was never meant for anything else.
There's no deep meaning behind any of this shit.
The law has been abused and extended to illegal aliens on behalf of politically concentric interests. Nothing more than that. Abusing it in that manner destroys the rights of all legal citizens. There's nothing mysterious about any of this. The left was caught red-handed perverting a constitutional component and turning it against the country It was supposed to benefit.
Game over.... And oh what a surprise that three liberal puppet judges are trying to serve their political masters instead of the Constitution. Who gives a flying ****?
Last edited:
Which is three more than you posess.
CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 160,859
- 87,300
- 2,645
Didn’t the Colonists steal and use cannons?
The Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Boston was a PRIVATE militia artillery unit founded in the mid 1600's.
Americas 1st artillery unit belonged to private individuals.
Rawley
Diamond Member
- Sep 8, 2014
- 52,907
- 38,940
- 3,645
Sure they did. WHat they didn't anticipate is a single District Court Judge in Podunk issuing a nationwide injunction and exercising dominion over the PresidentFederal Judiciary Act (1789)
EnlargeDownload Link Engrossed Judiciary Act, September 24, 1789; First Congress; Enrolled Acts and Resolutions; General Records of the United States Government; Record Group 11; National Archives. View All Pages in the National Archives Catalog View Transcript One of the first acts of the new...
In so many ways, our system was not designed to deal with the autocratic impulses of a prez.
The Government does not ask for complete stays of the injunctions, as it ordinarily does before this Court. Why? The answer is obvious: To get such relief, the Government would have to show that the Order is likely constitutional, an impossible task in light of the Constitution’s text, history, this Court’s precedents, federal law, and Executive Branch practice. So the Government instead tries its hand at a different game. It asks this Court to hold that, no matter how illegal a law or policy, courts can never simply tell the Executive to stop enforcing it against anyone.
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/articl...t-partial-stay-in-birthright-citizenship-case
As is the case in many instances where the founding documents come in to play, like the Judiciary Act of 1789, the men of the era who wrote them did not contemplate a future petty tyrant issuing a blatantly unconstitutional order.
The thing about the Roberts court is in previous rulings it has gone beyond the scope of the case before it to put its radically conservative, ideological stamp on the matter at hand. Naturally, in this case they did not rule on the constitutionality of Dotard's EO since it has no hope of surviving scrutiny on those grounds.
The Supreme Court’s birthright citizenship reasoning reveals a startlingly myopic view
Despite the fact that the question before them was limited to whether federal trial court judges can issue injunctions that apply nationwide, the justices seemed incapable of distinguishing between that question and the underlying issue of birthright citizenship. In fact, that difficulty demonstrates the fallacy behind trying to limit or do away with nationwide injunctions because the underlying issue is always inextricably interwoven with whether an injunction is needed.
Today’s 6-3 decision fails to resolve this conundrum. Rather, it only further highlights the problems raised at oral argument — with the conservative majority focusing only on the authority of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions, while the liberal minority dissents accuse the majority of turning a blind-eye to the potentially blatant illegality of Trump’s executive order.
In a coldly beautiful piece of legal writing, Justice Amy Coney Barrett manages to capture the votes of all of the conservative justices with a deep dive into the history of the 1789 Judiciary Act. She concludes that in 1789, there was no contemplation of nationwide injunctions and, thus, using them likely exceeds the authority of the federal courts.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent — joined by Justice Elana Kagan, accuses the majority of enabling legal “gamesmanship” by the Trump administration that makes it so that “No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates.” In a separate, even more blistering dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson argues that the majority gives the executive branch “permission to engage in unlawful behavior.”
The Supreme Court’s birthright citizenship reasoning reveals a startlingly myopic view
The conservative wing of the court overly relies on the emergency shadow docket and shouldn't have entertained the administration's birthright argument.
Yep. It's been a problem for a long time. And it's getting worse.
Rawley
Diamond Member
- Sep 8, 2014
- 52,907
- 38,940
- 3,645
Nah - you lost. THe rest of us won.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
So It Begins: FL Fraudster Has Naturalized Citizenship Revoked- Started by Doc7505
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
Huckabee-Sanders kicked out of restaurant because of views- Started by LeftofLeft
- Replies: 14
-
