Sorry, yes, youth voting. They would love to disallow anyone under 50 from voting, or at least non-property owners. Originalism, dontchaknow.
14 Likes
I hope he chokes on his dog whistle.
9 Likes
It would be immediately challenged and 99% likely be enjoined from enforcement by either a federal district court and/or the circuit court of appeals before being appealed to the Supreme Court, which can take it or not at its discretion. But it’s a real possibility that circuits would split on this, with the 5th and 11th circuits declining to intervene on some nonsense grounds. Chaos is possible with certain federal agencies obeying the order and others ignoring it, and probably the goal.
The only guardrail preventing tearing up the 14th Amendment as we understand it is the Supreme Court, and that should bring no one any comfort.
13 Likes
Everything you need to know about conservatives, right here in plain sight!
9 Likes
Sort of, but with a distinctly Reconstruction and John Birch spin that draws from slightly different currents than the “originalism” that focuses on the founders. It’s been around for a long time, incoherent at best.
5 Likes
Is this going to be retroactive? I hope so, since every baby, and their descendents, born of immigrants since the arrival of the Mayflower will have to “go back where that came from”.
Yes, I know the Vikings were there before that.
3 Likes
Because it’s all about the Constitution!
Unless it can find you 13,000 votes in Georgia.
5 Likes
He’s spewed this BS publicly every year since 2015 and his idiot followers probably don’t even remember.
1 Like
I’d argue that those have more in common than not. Originalism is just legal cover for “rolling back almost all the gains made by people who are not rich white men”. It’s the “fancy” respectable form of Bircherism. It’s never been a real, coherent legal theory… but since rich white men espouse it, it’s got traction.
16 Likes
“The cruelty is the point”. You cant argue with his supporters about why this would be illegal or cruel. They’ve been taught to hate immigrants (especially those from south of our border) and they like the idea of forcing the children of those immigrants out based on their skin color and national origin if their families. I guess it’s good to point these things out in the hopes that it will encourage people who disagree to be vigilant.
7 Likes
What I mean is that lens looking at the “originalism” here is slightly different than a lot of the better known examples Scalia et al would put forth from the late 18th & early 19th centuries.
Instead of looking at the colonial tradition and trying to get inside the heads of people like Madison, Hamilton, Johnson, Morris, and King (which is impossible and dishonest enough), it tries to exploit the messy history of the Reconstruction Amendments through a revisionist history developed in the mid 20th century.
4 Likes
However you look at it, “Originalism” is just a highfalutin word for conservative BS. It was clear to anyone with critical thinking skills and a basic grasp of American history that Scalia was just another intellectually dishonest right-winger. He only looks like a subtle genius compared to those legal scholars who are more obvious and clumsy in their hateful mendacity.
I don’t much like Roberts’ boot-licking pro-corporate legal philosophy, but at least he’s consistent, stays in his lane, and doesn’t spend too much time insulting our intelligence by trying to hide it in lofty arguments.
“Revisionist” only in the sense of Holocaust deniers, rather than in that of reputable historiography.
8 Likes
I mean, Scalia was not fan of the reconstruction amendments or any of the progressive reforms that followed from the Warren court. He very much would have dismantled much of the liberal consensus single-handedly if he could have. That’s the point of trying to “read the minds” of the founders and abide by that. This is about dismantling the new deal and the rights revolution that the Warren court helped build. Whenever an amendment was passed, the goal is to bring us back to the Antebellum era of white male authority as supreme.
It’s very much a white supremacist, patriarchal movement, however much its practitioners seek to spin it.
14 Likes
Sure, you’ll get no argument from me on its ultimate merits. Whether or not we agree on Scalia’s mendacity, though, I do think it’s worth understanding the legal theories in play beyond just a final verdict of bullshit if for no other reason than their power in the court is not going away any time soon given the Federalist Society’s stranglehold.
2 Likes
It just doesn’t make it any less bullshit. I’m all for calling things what they are.
4 Likes
I’m always on-board with knowing your enemy. I just want to make it clear that, despite the claims of the Federalist Society and the like, there is no there there when it comes to legal theory. @Mindysan33 puts it concisely above: it’s a cover story, and not a particularly convincing one.
6 Likes
That train is never late
7 Likes
On day one
One of the most challenging moments for the new prisoner is arriving at the facility. Many questions about what happens on your first day in prison arise, including:
- Will I be safe?
- Where will I live?
- Will I get along with my cellmates?
- Who will I talk to?
- Where do I go if I need help?
- Can I handle this?
4 Likes
5 Likes
The thing that gets me: everyone keeps saying that it violates the 14th Amendment.
… I’m pretty sure it violates the original text of the Constitution; the only way to avoid it is to go with Dred Scott and argue that the State rules for citizenship supercede the federal. It sure violates the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the Attorney General’s Declaration of 1870, etc.
The main legal theory that fights against definitions of birthright citizenship is pretty solidly in the “slaves aren’t citizens” camp; not sure there are any others to slide in between. So, even if the 14th Amendment didn’t strictly bind you, it takes incredibly selective legal scholarship to argue that children of foreign nationals born in the US do not count as citizens. Trying to stretch it to that is deeply ahistorical.
9 Likes
