ie, Bush v Gore. Yay…
5 Likes
Marc Randazza, over at Popehat, has a modest proposal regarding birthright citizenship.
4 Likes
Or maybe he’d even be revoking it himself?
8 Likes
For anyone here unfamiliar with him, this is classic Paxman. This should be at the correct start time, just keep watching until about six minutes in.
7 Likes
Drove thru there this summer, and last. I just figured they were the only remaining people still willing (ETA: and able) to pay any money there, be seen there, or otherwise be associated with that name. (Of course, his buildings aren’t the only ones there.)
3 Likes
I was mulling over the impact of granting unlimited immigration and citizenship.
A balanced budget with some military spending diverted to public works and I think we’d be OK.
5 Likes
Meanwhile, just watching a big, bubbling pot of irony thinking about how 2nd amendment fetishists insist they need their guns to put a check on tyranny.
6 Likes
If America doesn’t open more borders, we will have a crisis of an aging population unable to be supported by a younger labor force. You can see the crisis in Japan.
10 Likes
Yep. They are literally building homecare robots instead of allowing more immigration from other Asian countries.
9 Likes
Yeah, if the courts upheld such a blatantly unconstitutional order, the Constitution would basically be kindling for a Reichstag fire.
9 Likes
You can see what happens when you actually go hard on the “throw out the undocumented” by the experience in Georgia. Millions of dollars worth of produce rotted in the fields and it actually made a notable dent in the state’s GDP. It is absolutely not right to bring these folks in for the sole purpose of working them to death for starvation wages, but equally demented to think that you can get Americans to do the same work for the same wages ! Some form of guest worker program is a possible solution, but the right will not allow that through. Of course, sanity is not their strong suite!
13 Likes
Yeah I get that. But I’m not even talking about “traditionally”. We may not like the results of some of the cases the SC has taken lately. But recently. As in since Scalia died. The court has been declining and punting on cases of this type left and right. This court, save Kavanaugh. And the decisions on when to punt often haven’t been particularly close.
Common interpretation is that the court is deliberately avoiding cases that may impact their legitimacy, or become too political. In large part because GOP manipulation around the court has become such a hot potato. Even before that, under Obama. The court largely waited until it was unavoidable to take cases on highly politicized cases. They punted on gay marriage multiple times. And are still cautious when addressing things like gerrymandering.
Notvtraditionally. Not the way it “should work”. The way it is currently working under Trump.
People can believe really hard that whatever Trump’s arguement will be is both valid and the actions he’s taking are good. But the law is considerably stricter. It’s the same thing as how anything Trump may be accused of doesn’t legally fall under treason statutes. No matter how hard some people may feel that his actions are treasonous.
Another thing I’m trying to get at is that the lower and many state courts are where things have been holding up the best. And a decent portion of whether this goes to the SC and what it looks like if it does. Sits with those lower courts. So it may not even be up to the Supreme Court (without huge blows to it’s legitimacy, and our legal frame work). And that’s the way things are operating right now as we speak.
So in so far as any arguement for this move. Is a gold fringe on the flag means you have no authority grade arguement. As in it won’t even draw from the base way our legal system functions. I find it very unlikely that there will be enough of an open question on anything for the Supreme Court to get involved in the first place.
When it’s time sensitive. But if the order is blocked. And there is no conflicting ruling, or higher court reversing the block. The court can allow the block to stand when they decline the case, letting an existing ruling stand in full. At which point it’s only time sensitive if there is a legal conflict that only the SC can decide that could plausibly result in it being upheld.
The court’s been habitually avoiding those situations for a while now. And again without the sort of close splits in opinion that Kavanaugh could shift.
I just don’t see much pathway for this to come up. Even if it does it’s likely the court would severely limit the scope of the case and what questions they weigh (another thing they’ve gone heavy on) in such a way that it doesn’t directly comment on or consider the order itself. Like a decision on how jurisdiction is defined to provide clarity for the lower courts.
I frankly don’t think Trump will even be doing it. He’s been pushing so many insane policies that in fact don’t exist for weeks.
Part of the reason the current court is so cautious. That was a serious over reach with serious potential to undermine their legitimacy. The approach since Bush II The Revenge left office seems to be to avoid those.
9 Likes
Actually the amendment need not define person since it is already codified in US law
1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant
(a ) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(b ) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
(c ) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.
6 Likes
And fuck this guy too!
Maybe they could retroactively declare that the spot where the baby is born was an embassy for five minutes?
10 Likes
“… The Supreme Court of the United States has never ruled on whether or not the language of the 14th amendment, subject to the jurisdiction thereof, applies specifically to people who are in the country illegally,” he said
He’s either as dumb as Trump or as jaded as the rest of the GOP. They know full well what it would mean to declare them outside our jurisdiction.
edit to add: which is to say that this is nothing but a pre-election stunt designed to bring out the racist vote.
9 Likes
It is exactly as easy to ignore the constitution as other people let it be. If Congress and the courts won’t stop him, the constitution might as well not exist.
2 Likes
When Americans visit Japan, they are subject to Japanese law. When an American diplomat visits Japan, she will not be subject to Japanese law, unless the US State Department consents, which they well may decide to do, in order to preserve amicable relations.
Are you a diplomat? Is your legal status otherwise defined by treaty? No?
Then guess what! You’re subject to local law.
8 Likes
I actually don’t think that he realized that AT ALL. Steve Miller (whose grimy fingerprints are ALL OVER this) probably does, though.
7 Likes
I’d prefer if he started by stripping himself of the citizenship, and therefore presidency. That would solve a lot of issues handily.
8 Likes
Imagine Trumpty Dumpty being interviewed by someone like this. He might - literally - explode.
(It is a shame Paxman did not, halfway through, switch to asking “do you DENY threatening to overrule him?”.)
