“Ain’t nothing civil about civil rights.”
2 Likes
yeah… I just don’t understand why.
1 Like
remember the quaint “good old days” when the only voting escalation distraction the republicans could come up with was the “mosque at ground zero” (it wasn’t either a mosque or at ground zero but what did that matter, the newsmedia went with it hard)
wow the temperature on the pot has been slowly raised to totalitarianism and everyone’s just going with “oh we should just try to get along better” like the false equivalency should be accepted with nods
3 Likes
The supreme Court doesn’t take up cases because they feel like it or just because some one asked.
Generally there needs to be a plausible legal situation that can’t be resolved by lower courts. A base question about Constitutionsal interpretation, a conflict in lower court rulings etc.
This is a subject where they’re is no interpretation. The meaning of that clause is in plain text. And any new read Trump may come up with is baldly and publicly acknowledged to be an attempt to supercede the Constitution. And conflicts with all president since this amendment was passed. So there’s unlikely to be a major conflict in the lower court rulings that would require the supreme Court to review this. And baring that there isn’t really enough of a question to require supreme Court intervention. This is as close to definitive as exists under the rule of law.
The supreme Court is also loath to involve itself in cases that may undermine the courts, or with these sort of political connotations.
Even Scalia abided by these things. And Gorsuch so far has as well.
Obviously they can step out of that. But without a clear legal conflict in need of resolution. They’re undermining themselves and breaking from the traditional structures of rule of law. And while Kavanaugh is an open question and Gorsuch might. We mostly have a supreme Court that’s really cautious about that sort of thing. Especially given how politicized Supreme Court issues have become recently.
No I don’t. Because it appears to be a myth.
Generally speaking it means that the US government can’t enact an illegal search and siezure globally, can’t abridge free speech rights of people in other countries.
These things bind the actions of the US government in everything they do. According to practical limitations. For example the US doesn’t not have the right to enforce those rights in territory it does not control save in its own interactions with people and entities there. They do not have the right to compel other governments to enforce these rights in their own territories etc. It’s limited to US states, territories, soveriegnties (think embassies), areas occupied by our military. That sort of thing. Outside of that strictly limited to the actions of the US government.
Limitations are practical. Non citizens are not extended the right to vote. No residents do not have the right to visa free entry and exit. Exceptions are specific. Enemy combatants in a theater of war are bound by military law and practic and operate under different and more restricted set of rights.
Basically the idea is that the US government (and states) are bound by the Constitution in all actions. Regardless of where they are acting. And the status of who they are acting on.
In practice we step out of that an awful lot. But it’s still the most broadly accepted interpretation of the law. That’s why Bush II Electric Boogaloo needed complicated legal memos to justify torture. Constitutionsal and legal blocks to such behavior still apply to the federal government. Regardless of location or legal status of the victems.
Yeah he’s also been saying that Congress, who are not in session, are about to vote on a middle class tax cut, that doesn’t appear to exist. Noone knows what the fuck he’s talking about. That sort of undermines the reality of anything he’s proposing.
Like all those troops he’s sending to the border. There are really, really strict rules about deploying federal troops domestically and what they’re allowed to do. He’s sending 5000 troops to the border. And all they’re really allowed to do is provide logistical help. Transport, supply, payroll. Those troops will be sitting on their thumbs wondering what the fuck the point is.
7 Likes
Indeed. Can you imagine if that argument was upheld and we found ourselves having to deal with people for whom our laws no longer apply because we lack jurisdiction over them?
1 Like
Well I mean if we lack jurisdiction over undocumented visitors and immigrants. Then all those border jumping criminals Trump is so concerned about are outside our jurisdiction. So we can’t prosecute them. We have to convince Mexico to do so. For crimes committed on US soil. Which is effectively ceding sovereignty to a foriegn nation.
Which. Oof. Alex Jones isn’t going to like that.
5 Likes
(Trying to advance the right-wing argument as devil’s advocate:) Our laws do not apply to them by the fact that they were invaders within our gates, violating Articles 81 and 82 of the Articles of War, and subject to trial by military tribunal in which the ordinary rules of criminal procedure do not apply. Recall that Public Law 107-40 is a declaration of war against the whole world; any person who is not a US citizen is ipso facto a citizen of an enemy power, and if not in uniform is an unlawful combatant.
2 Likes
Something like a base question about the limits of executive authority to curtail birthright citizenship that has wound its way through the federal courts and is being appealed by the DOJ?
The SC does not only take cases in which there are Circuit conflicts. That’s traditionally a good reason for the it to take an appeal, but it’s by no means a limitation.
I understand everything your’e saying about the ways things traditionally work and the ways courts traditionally husband their authority. I’m not disputing that. What I’m saying is that if Trump gets another Justice and there is a voting bloc of Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and some other Federalist wet dream, we may be whistling past the graveyard by assuming those norms hold.
Basically, I’m loathe at this point to rely on “that’s the way it will work because that’s the way it’s always worked” too much. It is not serving us well currently.
1 Like
Yikes.
That’s the real reason, or part of it. He could just sign an executive order, or he could warn everyone in advance. It’s the threat, not what he might or might not do (to say nothing of what happens to it in court).
5 Likes
4 Likes
Since said birthright citizenship is established by the plain text of the Constitution itself. With very little room for interpretation the question is not just one of the limits of executive authority. But one of whether executive authority can supercede clear clauses of the Constitution or the Constitution in total.
That’s unlikely to happen. Or generate a legal conflict that can not be resolved except by the Supreme Court.
No. But as I said there typically must be some legal question or conflict that can’t be resolved below the Supreme Court level.
Since the the legal order is so clear. The executive does not supercede the Constitution. There is unlikely to be a legal conflict the lower courts can’t resolve.
Unless the lower courts hand out conflicting rulings. Or insufficient number of rulings in one direction or the other to provide clear guidance to the execution of the Constitution.
Out of the justices we have now. Kavanaugh is the only one we don’t have a clear history of following exactly this practice. Because he’s only been there for months. Gorsuch is a short timer so while he’s done it so far who knows. Another Trump Justice is 3 out of 9 who potentially discard the rule of law .
Another appointee from Trump will likely shift the court further right. And will almost certainly shift the court to partisanship.
But that does not equate to shifting the court in favor of unfettered executive power and the subservience of the court itself. Only Kavanaugh has a specific history of endorsing those ideas.
You’ve got 2 factional things going on. There’s a partisan, conservative/liberal divide. But now you have a Trump/rule of law divide. And Trump would have to appointee quite a few more Kavanaughs to shift the second one materially. As a vote in a closely split partisan court Kavanaugh is particularly dangerous. But where the split is on the authority and practice of the courts themselves. He’s well out numbered.
Thus far the federal and state courts are the *only thing that’s working the way they work because that’s the way they work.
6 Likes
Reminds me of a video fragment I saw a while back (no hope of finding it now) that illustrated the difference between today’s (UK) press and the press of the past. Today you get the likes of John (“let me interrupt you there”) Humphries and Jeremy (“why is this bastard lying to me”) Paxman. The film clip showed Prime Minister Macmillan or Eden or some such from the 50s or 60s being interviewed by a journalist: “Is there anything you would like to say to the nation, Mr Prime Minister?”
Seems we are back there, given the doormats that pass for many US interviewers/journalists.
1 Like
For that to be true, since “illegal” immigrants don’t live in separate areas with their own sovereignty, they would have to be unprosecutable under US law, like diplomats. Which would be an interesting approach…
6 Likes
It was, has always been, and shall remain a bloody fight to get those who have power to recognize the rights of those who do not, to share in that power. This does not change the fact that progress has been made. And how has that happened? By the concerted efforts of those you so blithely refer to as “shitheads.” Are there shitheads in America? Of course there are. The human condition is that in any sizable group, there will be shit heads. And right now, you are correct, we have one of those shit heads as our president and lots more shitheads in power making the rules. And it may be a bloody struggle again to get them out of power. I am saying you are painting with a far too broad brush. And I remain convinced that it is, at least currently, salvageable to continue that progress. Never was easy, never (probably) will be easy to “form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility.” Extending basic human rights to all is a goal to be continually pursued, but which we are currently coming up short. The struggle continues, and those of us “shitheads” who see the struggle as worth pursuing shall do so. As the saying goes, “lead, follow or get out of the way.”
11 Likes
There does need to be a constitutional question, but the SCOTUS can expedite an appellate case before judgement. It doesn’t need to get as far as a conflict of laws for the SCOTUS to grant cert. For something where time matters SCOTUS often won’t wait.
3 Likes
I’m sorry, I think we’re talking past each other at this point. You’re pointing out, correctly, that traditionally this would be an easy answer and there is no reasonable circumstance that would lead the SC to taking this appeal. I agree with this wholeheartedly. But we don’t live in traditional times, and in any reasonable world the President of the United States wouldn’t even consider issuing an executive order that attempted to curtail birthright citizenship. But here we are.
Let me be as clear as I can, and then you can have the last word because I think we’re probably at a point of diminishing returns: You and I think the issue is as clear as can be. To curtail birthright citizenship by executive order or an act of Congress would be a violation of the plain text and intent of the 14th Amendment, and any court that would countenance such an order would be not only wrong but violating its duty. And we’re right about that. As I said above, a few years ago, I’d have scoffed at the notion that such a thing would even be argued about.
However, I think we make a mistake when we discount the possibility of those iron-clad norms giving way when so many powerful forces are working specifically to make them give way. I’m not arguing that the hypothetical voting bloc I’m talking about would be guaranteed to do anything I predicted, but that includes not being guaranteed to rule against such an executive order if it’s couched in the right terms. And that’s what scares the daylights out of me.
7 Likes
On 31 May 1951 the Article of War were superseded by the Uniform Code of Military Justice
Specifically and exclusively covers those who committed the attacks on 9/11
against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
Nice attempt at devils advocate but the argument doesn’t quite track.
Actually plausible. A similar shift in the definition of personhood was when we allowed corporations to be people. Terrifying as well.
