Trump Is Going To Lose Most Of The Current Federal Court Cases....Then What?

[80zephyr]

I understand far better than you do. Make a counter-argument explaining what Trump is doing is legal...or kindly just shut the **** up with your King Trump MAGA bullshit.

☕️ SWAMP APOCALYPSE ☙ Wednesday, February 12, 2025 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠

Yesterday was a terrible, no-good, very bad day for the Swamp. Trump struck back in a coordinated assault on all fronts. He's not waiting for the courts to do the right thing—nor is he defying them.

www.coffeeandcovid.com

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Mussolini did exactly what the orange cheeto demands to happen and he ended up hanging upside down in the city square being shot and hanged.

Flaming-Hot Benito-Munching

Is that Frito-Lay's new product? Cheesus H. Christ!

 

[Mac-7]

No, they can't. It's part of the hard printed constitution. It's not like the Roe V Wade where it's not covered in the US Constitution.

Only according to the opinion of 5 SC judges

2 other members of the court disagreed

 

[Blisterfinger]

How is birthright citizenship questionable? It's in the 14th Amendment.

It's the interpretation Skippy. Why would you want illegals invading our country?

 

[WEATHER53]

It's the interpretation Skippy. Why would you want illegals invading our country?

They vote Dem

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

One person got elected to be POTUS and not a dozen biased “judges”

He is still a co-equal branch of government not independent at all.

 

[Blisterfinger]

You believe in pardoning violent assholes that attacked the cops on Jan 6.

You can't whine about liberals...this is your fucked-up belief. You have to own that fucked-up belief. The end.

You believe in jailing people that don't think like you do without trial. You are a fascist.

 

[Frankenstein]

No, they can't. It's part of the hard printed constitution. It's not like the Roe V Wade where it's not covered in the US Constitution.

It was added through an amendment for slaves, not people walking one step inside the US dropping a baby out of their vagina, and instantly becoming citizens, you people are obtuse

 

[Frankenstein]

He is still a co-equal branch of government not independent at all.

Oh so those Judges can tell us to go to war?

 

[Slade3200]

Which meaning of what?

Please try to ask concise but meaningful questions.

Jurisdiction. What meaning are you deciding to use.

You really do have a hard time following threads don’t you. Click on the “user name said:” link and it will jump back to the posts for each thread. Maybe if you start doing this you won’t get lost so often.

 

[BackAgain]

Jurisdiction. What meaning are you deciding to use.

You really do have a hard time following threads don’t you. Click on the “user name said:” link and it will jump back to the posts for each thread. Maybe if you start doing this you won’t get lost so often.

No. I just like to pin down slippery liars like you.

What about “jurisdiction” now has you so confused?

And what portion of the original debates about the meaning of the clause in the 14th Amendment (which I have shared, by the way) eludes you?

 

[Slade3200]

The ones ruling are!

Do you really know that or are you just making a lazy argument. No need to answer, that was rhetorical. I know the answer.

 

[Slade3200]

No. I just like to pin down slippery liars like you.

What about “jurisdiction” now has you so confused?

And what portion of the original debates about the meaning of the clause in the 14th Amendment (which I have shared, by the way) eludes you?

Dude, you’re the one that claimed Jusitiction has another meaning but then failed to say what that meaning was. I just asked for you to state it. You’re now dancing around and avoiding the answer. You’re not sly. Answer or don’t if you can’t. Just stop wasting time with these moronic games.

Again, jurisdiction has several meanings.

Another fact you ignorant blowhards can’t grasp.

 

[BackAgain]

Dude, you’re the one that claimed Jusitiction has another meaning but then failed to say what that meaning was. I just asked for you to state it. You’re now dancing around and avoiding the answer. You’re not sly. Answer or don’t if you can’t. Just stop wasting time with these moronic games.

No no, dud.

I offered the words of the Amendment.

At the time the then proposed Amendment was being debated, the question about how it would possibly apply to an alien child born on our soil was raised. That question was answered.

If you don’t like the answer, that’s a you problem, kid.

In the meanwhile, the meaning of the 14th Amendment has received limited judicial scrutiny. The case law therefore leaves a question: should the Amendment now be subject to enclosed scrutiny (particularly about the claimed right of anchor babies to automatically become U.S. citizens).

It certainly should be. Your notion of what the Amendment “means” is wrong.

And, forget the claim that it is somehow “settled” law. The **** it is. And even if it were settled law, that’s no bar to more scrutiny. “Separate but equal” used to also be “settled;” but that got properly tossed, too.

 

[Vrenn]

It was added through an amendment for slaves, not people walking one step inside the US dropping a baby out of their vagina, and instantly becoming citizens, you people are obtuse

Had you left out the insult, I would have flashed a FACT on it. Instead, you get nothing like you deserve.

 

[WEATHER53]

He is still a co-equal branch of government not independent at all.

No one voted for one supposed co equal judge to thwart POTUS . It’s that judiciary branch as a whole that’s co equal, comprised of tens of thousands in the judiciary. Pretty easy for them to screw Trump and Americans over by trying to sell one judge as “co-equal” to POTUS.

 

[WEATHER53]

No no, dud.

I offered the words of the Amendment.

At the time the then proposed Amendment was being debated, the question about how it would possibly apply to an alien child born on our soil was raised. That question was answered.

If you don’t like the answer, that’s a you problem, kid.

In the meanwhile, the meaning of the 14th Amendment has received limited judicial scrutiny. The case law therefore leaves a question: should the Amendment now be subject to enclosed scrutiny (particularly about the claimed right of anchor babies to automatically become U.S. citizens).

It certainly should be. Your notion of what the Amendment “means” is wrong.

And, forget the claim that it is somehow “settled” law. The **** it is. And even if it were settled law, that’s no bar to more scrutiny. “Separate but equal” used to also be “settled;” but that got properly tossed, too.

The children are born under the cloud of illegal circumstance.

 

[Slade3200]

Your notion of what the Amendment “means” is wrong.

BS. My notion of what the amendment means follows precedent set by SCOTUS in the 1800s and the legal system our government has operated by for over a century.

You posted an opposing opinion that reinterpreted the amendment but didn’t use the amendments actual language…. That doesn’t mean squat. The words of the amendment that you highlighted as controversial said “subject to the jurisdiction”

You don’t seem to know what jurisdiction means… you said it had more than one meaning… so explain that. What meaning does it have that would support your argument. Because the basic definition of the word sure as hell supports mine

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

No one voted for one supposed co equal judge to thwart POTUS . It’s that judiciary branch as a whole that’s co equal, comprised of tens of thousands in the judiciary. Pretty easy for them to screw Trump and Americans over by trying to sell one judge as “co-equal” to POTUS.

Nope, one judge keeps Judge in one line up the level.

That is how it has always help.

 

[BackAgain]

The children are born under the cloud of illegal circumstance.

It’s not like they don’t have a nationality. If this goes through, they will simply not become our nationality on that silly simplistic basis. They will merely have mom’s nationality. Or mom’s and dad’s.