US Judge blocks Trump's birthright citizenship order, calls it 'blatantly unconstitutional'

Valcazar

Just a bundle of fucking sunshine
Mar 27, 2014
32,929
61,457
113
This will go all the way to SCOTUS and guess which party holds the majority there
Yes.
We know.
They haven't been hiding their strategy.

And that's why some are hoping that absolute failure at the lower courts will put enough pressure on the justices who care that they don't just give Trump what he wants.
But with a 6-3 split, there is room to lose one justice and still win and the court has already shown it will simply ignore the lower courts if it wants.

As I've been arguing, the words will mean what the Supreme Court decides they mean, not what the people who wrote them meant.
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,695
5,208
113
This will go all the way to SCOTUS and guess which party holds the majority there
The Supreme Court is not officially a political body, and I somehow doubt it will vote on party lines when it comes to a clear constitutional case.

Rowe vs Wade was not so clear cut from a constitutional viewpoint.
 

Valcazar

Just a bundle of fucking sunshine
Mar 27, 2014
32,929
61,457
113
The Supreme Court is not officially a political body, and I somehow doubt it will vote on party lines when it comes to a clear constitutional case.

Rowe vs Wade was not so clear cut from a constitutional viewpoint.
The Supreme Court is not officially a political body, but is openly and obviously political in practice.
Clear constitutional cases with no political salience get to avoid party lines.
The more politically salient the issue, the more partisan the vote.

That said, the Court wants (mostly) to appear like it is deciding on legal grounds and has standards.
Again, the question is how politically salient the issue is.

Giving Trump immunity, for instance, was done with basically no regard for how bad it looked.
(Although it seemed Roberts thought he had written a decision that made it look good to the rubes.)

How the Court handles this will be decided by explicitly political decision making.
Note that, "how much further will respect for the court drop" is a political factor in the decision making.
 

Dutch Oven

Well-known member
Feb 12, 2019
7,047
2,538
113
US Judge blocks Trump's birthright citizenship order, calls it 'blatantly unconstitutional'

A federal judge in Seattle on Thursday blocked President Donald Trump's administration from implementing an executive order curtailing the right to automatic birthright citizenship in the United States, calling it "blatantly unconstitutional."

U.S. District Judge John Coughenour at the urging of four Democratic-led states issued a temporary restraining order preventing the administration from enforcing the order, which the Republican president signed on Monday during his first day in office.

"This is blatantly unconstitutional order," the judge told a lawyer with the U.S. Justice Department defending Trump's order.

The order has prompted five lawsuits from civil rights organizations and Democratic attorneys general representing 22 states, who describe it as a blatant breach of the U.S. Constitution.
All this shows is that Democrats are at least smart enough to know where to find the judges who will rubber stamp their legal causes. Seattle. What a shock! And upward the case goes.
 

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
77,776
93,860
113
The dems found a loophole that they can let migrants from the south in and let them take advantage of birthright citizenship. The loophole needs to be closed. It would be cool if Trump could pull this off.

Not sure if I agree with h1b getting also but by this as highly intelligent and qualified people would get discouraged. We need the best of the best to come to America and starting good stable families here.
The "loophole" was created by the GOP in the 1860's. But blame the Dems, as usual.
 

Dutch Oven

Well-known member
Feb 12, 2019
7,047
2,538
113

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
77,776
93,860
113
I happen to know for a fact that Stephen Miller wrote the EO in an incel rage after being turned down yet again for sex by a Latina lady.

Miller was beside himself and resolved to take vengeance against all Hispanics. He drafted the EO in a fury and brought the EO to Trump when Trump was distracted and watching Laura Ingraham on Fox News (Trump's current crush) and he told the president that it was a takeout order for fast food and he should sign it.

The old man said "No mustard on the burgers this time. I don't like mustard." and scribbled his name while still watching the lovely Ms I. And the rest - as they say - is history.
 

Dutch Oven

Well-known member
Feb 12, 2019
7,047
2,538
113
No, this is good.
Dutch Oven weighing in with a legal opinion like this means we know the judge's reasoning is sound.
Who knew that I determined the merits of these cases in your eyes? I knew you must have SOME crazy system, because it sure isn't based on anything rational! Thanks for sharing what your system is!
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Valcazar

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
77,776
93,860
113
Loophole none the less. Dems were also the south back then.
IIRC, the Dems were banned in the South during Reconstruction.

Not that your response makes any sense otherwise.
 

PeterParker1000

Well-known member
Oct 14, 2024
292
345
63
IIRC, the Dems were banned in the South during Reconstruction.

Not that your response makes any sense otherwise.
During the civil war, the south and the slave owners were predominately democrat.

You said don’t blame the dems when I never blamed the dems for that. If I want to, I will blame them for slavery.
 

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
77,776
93,860
113
Seattle is a city, not a state. Ooops!
Let me explain to you what I wrote there, as you appear to be challenged.

The Feds appoint Federal court judges. The state appoints state court judges. So you could argue that a left-leaning state like WA would appoint a left-leaning judge.

But it was a federal court and Reagan appointment. Of a conservative justice.

Hopefully that assists you.
 

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
77,776
93,860
113
During the civil war, the south and the slave owners were predominately democrat.

You said don’t blame the dems when I never blamed the dems for that. If I want to, I will blame them for slavery.
IIRC, the Democratic Party was banned in the South during Reconstruction.

Google it.
 

Valcazar

Just a bundle of fucking sunshine
Mar 27, 2014
32,929
61,457
113
IIRC, the Dems were banned in the South during Reconstruction.

Not that your response makes any sense otherwise.
His response makes perfect sense.
The switch in what the parties represent - especially concerning race - over the centuries is well known.

He still needs to explain "the loophole" of course.
 

PeterParker1000

Well-known member
Oct 14, 2024
292
345
63
IIRC, the Democratic Party was banned in the South during Reconstruction.

Google it.
You can’t ban a political party in the United States. This is based on the constitution. What the hell are you talking about. Do you mean to say they dwindled and had less power.
 
Last edited:

Valcazar

Just a bundle of fucking sunshine
Mar 27, 2014
32,929
61,457
113
Who knew that I determined the merits of these cases in your eyes? I knew you must have SOME crazy system, because it sure isn't based on anything rational! Thanks for sharing what your system is!
I've told you this before.
Given your track record of being wildly wrong more often than chance when it comes to partisan aspects of the judicial system, I use you as a rule of thumb.
If you strongly take a position on a piece of judicial reasoning that has strong partisan aspects, then as a first approximation, I play the percentages and assume the opposite is true.

Is that a magic trick that always works? Of course not.
It's not foolproof.
But it is a very good quick rule of thumb for when I don't feel like reading the actual filings and works as a starting point that is on solid ground.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts