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

[Slade3200]

As I correctly said, “barely.”

Yes you correctly said barely. Which affirmed I was correct

 

[BackAgain]

Yes you correctly said barely. Which affirmed I was correct

Which means that I was correct.

Thank you for focusing on the minor quibble but climate admitting the truth.
Now let’s see ou do as much on the rest.

Still waiting patiently.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

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

Yes.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

As I correctly said, “barely.”


Not at all. It’s easy to shit can your pathetic fail arguments. Maybe you should try harder. Or admit your error.

Really? Are you sure that’s what the case involved?

Please establish that the Asian parents were “illegal aliens.”

I’ll wait.

So no. It doesn’t control the matter we’re discussing.

Slade owns this discussion. BackAgain argues what he can't prove and Slade never has to do.

 

[BackAgain]

Slade owns this discussion. BackAgain argues what he can't prove and Slade never has to do.

Other than the fact that I’ve bested him at every turn, you might have a point.

As things stand, of course, you’re just blowing smoke up your girlfriend’s ass, retarded horses.

 

[Slade3200]

Which means that I was correct.

Thank you for focusing on the minor quibble but climate admitting the truth.
Now let’s see ou do as much on the rest.

Still waiting patiently.

You were correct in affirming that I was correct. You were incorrect to claim my statement was incorrect. You stepped right over your own words

Aside from the obvious fact that it barely goes back as far as you incorrectly stated,

 

[Dr.Know]

Below is the current situation regarding all of Trump's Federal court cases. Trump is getting his ass handed to him right now by the Federal judges. --

Everything Trump is doing is blatantly unconstitutional. A 10 year old civics student can tell you that. Most of these court cases will just be laughed out of court.

What is Trump going to do when he ultimately loses most of these cases? Is he just going to ignore the rulings and become King Trump? That's my guess.

And his pathetic lackey JD Vance is already encouraging Trump to do just that.

View attachment 1077707

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/02/07/trump-lawsuits-executive-orders-actions-legal-challenges/

ok genius, whats the alternative to Team Trump,,,,more pharmaceutical kickbacks, more illegal wars, more taxes, 80 million more illegals that are undermining American living standards, using people as guinea pigs for dangerous / untested mRNA drugs with no legal recourse if harmed ????? Tell us who you would vote for to bring us your idiotic Utopian fantasy that the FBI has brainwashed you into believing is possible.

BTW fascist boot licker, your not going to get your UBI regardless of how much you throw a temper tantrum and you are going to spend the rest of your life flipping burgers if you are lucky.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Why? You people are hopelessly stupid.

Nobody sane, rational, and educated votes for Trump.

Look at the voting stats -- the vast majority of college educated Americans did not vote for Trump.

You people believe in bullshit.

You were convinced Commiela would win so your judgment isn't very good.

 

[Slade3200]

Thank you for focusing on the minor quibble but climate admitting the truth.
Now let’s see ou do as much on the rest.

I made one mistake by claiming the case I pointed out involved illegal immigrants. I should have said non citizens. Regardless the case covered the exact line you highlighted.”Subject to the jurisdiction of”

It also covered the civil rights act of 1866 and its language that gave citizenship to all who were born in our soil with exception to tribal Indians. The result of the case clarified who were subjects to the jurisdiction of in which aliens were a part of.

This is all explained in more detail in the link I sent you. Instead of ignorantly calling me a liar you should do yourself a favor and read/ask questions more. You’re not as smart as you think you are.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Unfortunately, it's come to this.
America has zero chance of recovery unless these far left, anti-American, activist judges are removed. I support arresting them all.

I am fairly certain that nearly all American citizens and those who value their nation would wholeheartedly agree.

Your brainwashing is complete. You now literally get off on watching a fat rapist charity thief felon billionaire break the law, while considering those opposing his criminal acts -- as is their duty -- to be the corrupt criminals.

I wonder if, 15 years ago, you would ever have envisioned yourself like this.

 

[Slade3200]

Other than the fact that I’ve bested him at every turn, you might have a point.

Your so called boasts only exist in your head. Anybody can see the holes in your arguments when you evade or steer the topic in a different direction and it’s very apparent when dismiss the topic all together and resort to petty insults.

It’s apparent what your position is with this issue. But you’re trying to hard to mold the constitution to back your point. The 14th amendment, civil rights act, scotus decisions and legal operations in the country all supports my argument. That’s just how it is.

 

[BackAgain]

You were correct in affirming that I was correct. You were incorrect to claim my statement was incorrect. You stepped right over your own words

No no. Do try to follow along.L and be honest for a change. I was right in declaring that you were barely right. Otherwise your assertion was wrong and so I was right to note that you were wrong you’re welcome.

 

[OKTexas]

Don't need to. The DNC doesn't even need lawyers to win these cases, since what Trump is doing is so blatantly unconstitutional.



Yeah....good luck with that, Kleetus.

The MAGA "solution" is for an eccentric billionaire like Elon Musk, who by himself owns more wealth than around 30% of Americans combined, to find "corruption" in our government. That sounds like a brilliant plan.

That might be a good idea for a simpleton MAGA QAnon religion disciple such as yourself, but not for the vast majority of Americans.

So quote Article, Section and Clause of the Constitution that he's violating. If it's as blatant as you claim, this should be an easy thing to do.

.

 

[BackAgain]

I made one mistake by claiming the case I pointed out involved illegal immigrants. I should have said non citizens. Regardless the case covered the exact line you highlighted.”Subject to the jurisdiction of”

It also covered the civil rights act of 1866 and its language that gave citizenship to all who were born in our soil with exception to tribal Indians. The result of the case clarified who were subjects to the jurisdiction of in which aliens were a part of.

This is all explained in more detail in the link I sent you. Instead of ignorantly calling me a liar you should do yourself a favor and read/ask questions more. You’re not as smart as you think you are.

The case didn’t cover illegal aliens.

I appreciate that admission from you.

Once again I was right. Your citation to that case is, thus, erroneous. It constitutes no precedent.

I am far smarter than your think you are. That ain’t hard, obviously.

In any event, it’s entertaining to correct you so often. Thanks for being a good little cat’s toy.

Now back to the actual point.

Can you also be honest enough to admit that the debates concerning the then proposed 14th Amendment demonstrate that it wasn’t intended to cover the children born here of illegal aliens?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

“Why Is Barack Obama constantly issuing executive orders that are major power grabs of authority?”



“The country wasn’t based on executive orders. Right now, Obama goes around signing executive orders. He can’t even get along with the Democrats, and he goes around signing all these executive orders. It’s a basic disaster. You can’t do it.”

- Fat Orange Rapist Charity Thief Felon

 

[Slade3200]

The case didn’t cover illegal aliens.

The Chinese couple in the lawsuit weren’t illegal aliens but the case covered illegal aliens when it answered who the “subjects in the jurisdiction of” were. You need to read the link I sent you or any other source that details the case law because you clearly don’t understand

 

[Slade3200]

Can you also be honest enough to admit that the debates concerning the then proposed 14th Amendment demonstrate that it wasn’t intended to cover the children born here of illegal aliens?

The 14th absolutely covers everybody that’s born here and subject to the jurisdiction of the USA.

Are you trying to claim that illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the USA?

 

[BackAgain]

The Chinese couple in the lawsuit weren’t illegal aliens but the case covered illegal aliens when it answered who the “subjects in the jurisdiction of” were. You need to read the link I sent you or any other source that details the case law because you clearly don’t understand

I read it many times. Fuck the link. I read the case. And details make a difference.

In any event, it doesn’t matter. The whole point of the debate is to address what was actually intended. The Congressmen I previously quoted spoke to the issue directly.

You won’t even discuss that.

 

[BackAgain]

The 14th absolutely covers everybody that’s born here and subject to the jurisdiction of the USA.

Are you trying to claim that illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the USA?

No. When it comes to being required to obey the laws of whatever land you happen to be in, there’s always a jurisdictional nexus.

You’re getting warmer at long last.

Now, it’s you’d be so kind, maybe you can address what the drafters said about who that Amendment did and didn’t cover.
There’s a clue lurking therein.

 

[BackAgain]

The 14th absolutely covers everybody that’s born here and subject to the jurisdiction of the USA.

That is what the Amendment says. So far, so good.

But what was MEANT by “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” as used in the Amendment? See? That’s the actual question.

Are you trying to claim that illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the USA?

See my above response and previous post.