Will SCOTUS add yet another tier to our already five-tiered justice system?
Currently we have:
Oligarch Tier (justice for those worth approximately more than $500 million) – buy your legislators, buy your laws, buy your justice.
Frat Bro Tier (justice for those worth approximately more than $50 million, up to Oligarch Tier) – Hire the best team of lawyers for as long as you need them, buy your justice as you need it.
Bankruptcy Tier (justice for those who actually earn a salary) – Hire the best lawyer you can afford, roll the dice on court outcomes, end up in debt for the rest of your life.
Poverty Tier (justice for those who just squeak by) – Get the overworked Public Defender, take his or her bored advice that you accept the plea bargain.
Terrorist Tier (justice for those that the government dislikes) – If you’re lucky, get captured by the military, shipped to Guantanamo, and spend the rest of your life there. If you’re less lucky, get captured by the military, shipped to a secret prison facility or rendered to a foreign power, and die from months of pointless torture. On average, though, you just get hunted down and murdered without a trial, either by regular troops, special forces, or a drone.
Look, I know you haven’t been an American that long so I’m gonna let this slide but the narrative goes “OBAMA was the amnesty President who actively encouraged jihadi rapist Mexicans to come here for the free welfare benefits, not like our God-King Ronald Reagan who would never ever give a free pass to people who crossed our borders illegally.”
I’m frankly surprised this is even a discussion. Is the phrase “inalienable rights” not clear? For a country that cares so much about Constitutional rights, the US is remarkably eager to take them away.
The question is, “are members of group X persons?” We have entered an era where personhood depends on documentation. Next step is having personhood depend on revocable documentation.
When has that not been the case? I mean, we pretend slavery was abolished but it’s still legally practiced in the United States upon prisoners aka people with particular and revocable documentation.
I get what you are saying, but the case is literally about the extent and limits of constitutional rights to immmigrants. It seems to me that your argument for this to be an inaccurate headline is by assuming the decision of the court before it is written. However, if the court zags in their interpretation then the headline becomes more dire than necessary but certainly not melodramatic.
I imagine your prediction on what the court is doing is entirely accurate, and that it will likely result in an extremely narrow interpretation since that makes sense. However, I don’t know I would bet on the rational thing too often anymore.
