How to respond?
Well, for one IOKIYAR. I’m sure that anyone who makes it to the SCOTUS understands that in the long term this is going to bite them. However, the people calling the shots (think McConnell) also understand that for that to matter you have to GET to the long term. Right now, that’s not the best bet in the world but it’s the only one they’ve got.
Who knows? Maybe RBG will die before they lose either the White House or the Senate.
I wish people wouldn’t talk like that. It encourages despondency and deflates morale.
Sounds to me like FOX was forced to compromise when trawling for legal opinion. Either they didn’t try hard enough in their search or there just aren’t many judges out there with kangaroo court standards.
He does seem to be under the (mistaken) impression that POTUS works the same as President and CEO. Easy mistake really, as they both have “President” in the name. At least, if you’re an idiot.
“The President cannot legally do that” would usually be the end of that.
But after watching how Trump keeps getting away with one thing after another, I wouldn’t be completely surprised if he declared the end of birthright citizenship, and everyone just goes “ok, i guess” or pretends like nothing happened. Letting him get away with things seems to be the new standard (the ultimate spoiled frat boy?).
I think the argument they are going for is that Wong Kim Ark’s parents were legal immigrants (he was born before the Chinese Exclusion Act was passed), and that it’s not yet settled whether illegal immigrants are “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”.
Of course, in another case (Plyler v. Doe, in 1982), the Supreme Court held that
no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‘jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident immigrants whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident immigrants whose entry was unlawful.
In fact, the dissent also conceded this point, stating that
the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to immigrants who, after their illegal entry into this country, are indeed physically ‘within the jurisdiction’ of a state.
He’s not a complete robot. He wont say anything. No, he’ll say almost anything (which, on Fox, passes for “independent thinking”). But he’s not an independent thinker, like Shepard Smith. He is a loon. Just the fact that he’s referred to as “judge” (at his own insistence) is loony.
I do think he’s an independent thinker. Bad thinking != Non-independent thinking.Just because someone has really awful, terrible goodfurnuthin ideas, it does not mean that they are a robot because they happen to have those ideas in common with others.
You’re going to give him credit because his bad ideas aren’t identical to the bad ideas of the Fox News hive mind?
First of all he’s not “independent.” He’s “marginally independent” (because he occasionally strays from Fox’s orthodoxy). But he does hew often enough to Fox News bullet points that he’s a reliable authority figure to more often than not back up their agenda. As for “thinker,” leave out the “thinker”, because he’s not a thinker. He’s a hack.
I didn’t say he wasn’t a loon, but I do think he’s an independent thinker. Bad thinking != Non-independent thinking.Just because someone has really awful, terrible goodfurnuthin ideas, it does not mean that they are a robot because they happen to have those ideas in common with others. That’s a liberal canard that needs to die. Hell, it’s a dark enlightenment idea [Bad philosophy warning] that needs to die.
(Those are some lengthy rabbit holes and I don’t blame you for not reading/watching them. TL;DR: The problem is not that people are mindless. The issue is inherently more complex.)
Precisely. He needed another issue to scare/inflame us about “the other,” and The Wall is just getting tired (plus, inconveniently nowhere close to being built-- or paid for by Mexico).
He might let his Renfield (Stephen Miller) pursue the issue such that an EO is actually issued, and later it will be struck down. But by then, there will be another outrageous issue to garner high viewer ratings and keep us all distracted.
However, Scalia was an exception, not the standard of conservative judges.
Right, if the US has no jurisdiction over illegal immigrants, then they wouldn’t be able to arrest them in the first place.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
