Rawley
Diamond Member
- Sep 8, 2014
- 52,907
- 38,941
- 3,645
Dude. It's a Supreme Court case. There are sides. PLaintiff and Defendant. It's how it works.
The Judiciary Act of 1789 didn't anticipate a prez like trump.
- Thread starter berg80
- Start date
Crepitus
Diamond Member
- Mar 28, 2018
- 105,577
- 156,413
- 3,615
YOu shouldn't use words you don't understand.
Rawley
Diamond Member
- Sep 8, 2014
- 52,907
- 38,941
- 3,645
Bullshit. THey wouldn't even let the people vote for their Senators.
Oddball
Unobtanium Member
blablablablablablabla
And you ******* fauxbertarians make the fraudulent claim that you're the "origionalists".
Well, Mr. Everyoneisafascist, what was the original intent of the passage of the 14th Amendment in controversy here?
C'mon, dazzle us all with your next-level professorial knowledge of the subject.
Rawley
Diamond Member
- Sep 8, 2014
- 52,907
- 38,941
- 3,645
And they couldn't anticipate telephones either, but yet the 4th Amendment applies to them
Crepitus
Diamond Member
- Mar 28, 2018
- 105,577
- 156,413
- 3,615
The fourth amendment isn't about a specific object.
Uncle Donny loves you!
Rawley
Diamond Member
- Sep 8, 2014
- 52,907
- 38,941
- 3,645
Neither was the 2nd. "arms"
Oddball
Unobtanium Member
Contumacious
Radical Freedom
PURE UNADULTERATED BULLSHIT
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
THE FOUNDING FATHERS NEVER ANTICIPATED THAT SCUMBAGS LIKE JOE BUYTHEM WOULD BE SELECTED AND INSTALLED BY THE DEEP STATE AS PRESIDENT AND THEREAFTER FOR HIM TO INVITE ILLEGALS TO COME HERE EN MASSE AND BECOME REGISTERED VOTERS
THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY ACT of 1789 never contemplated that politicians in black robes would declare the law WITHOUT FIRST CONSIDERING the Constitution's Preamble in their decision.
The Founding Fathers NEVER ANTICIPATED that the Northern States would declare Martial Law then FORCE THE SOUTHERN STATES AT GUN POINT TO RATIFY THE - SO CALLED - 14A
Last edited:
Whatever. You, inexplicably, stand up for Trump every time he's criticized. It's just weird to see a "libertarian" defend an authoritarian with such gusto.
Darkwind
Diamond Member
- Jun 18, 2009
- 42,156
- 30,747
- 3,615
Please. You shouldn't even post here until you understand more about life and the USA. As it stands, you're just a clown acting out of anger because you lost.
The last Administration was closer to a fascist state than this country has ever been. Trump has broken you.
Crepitus
Diamond Member
- Mar 28, 2018
- 105,577
- 156,413
- 3,615
And you continue to prove you don't understand.
Any you continue to prove you're incapable of stringing words into coherent sentences, little lady
Oddball
Unobtanium Member
"Whatever" isn't an answer...Nor is diverting the issue to me an answer.
You know every-*******-thing about the Constitution and its amendments, so tell us all about the original intent of the citizenship passage in the 14th Amendment in controversy, and how USSC got it wrong.
Put up or STFU.
Contumacious
Radical Freedom
Better yet , WHY did the Northern States declare MARTIAL ******* LAW AND THEN FORCED THE SOUTHERN STATES TO VOTE FOR THE 14A ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
Seymour Flops
Diamond Member
Sore loser threads always make me laugh.
No way the founders envisioned more than seven hundred federal judges, each playing amateur president when carefully judge-shopped cases are brought to them.
No way the founders envisioned more than seven hundred federal judges, each playing amateur president when carefully judge-shopped cases are brought to them.
Oddball
Unobtanium Member
berg80
Diamond Member
- Oct 28, 2017
- 33,737
- 27,494
- 2,820
- Thread starter
- #60
The material affect of the ruling is to make it much, much more difficult to get a nationwide injunction against unconstitutional EO's from the regime by requiring that the plaintiffs are part of a class action suit. So, the Court continues to enable the regime's lawless actions in every way possible. Not surprising for a Court dominated by conservative extremists.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
The US Military Kicked Out of the Middle East!- Started by GLASNOST
- Replies: 10
-
Let the voters overturn Citizens United and the Electoral College!
- Started by merrill
- Replies: 11
-
So It Begins: FL Fraudster Has Naturalized Citizenship Revoked- Started by Doc7505
- Replies: 1
Latest Discussions
-
Let the voters overturn Citizens United and the Electoral College!
- Latest: Nuthin' Fancy
-
-
