That's encouraging thank you. Wouldn't it have been simpler for the SCOTUS to have just not taken the case? Was the court attempting to demonstrate that their near total immunity they gave Trump was a regrettable mistake?
Where the Roberts Star Chamber is concerned, it's pretty safe to assume the worst. Does it matter that justices seemed skeptical of the regime's arguments? Not really.
Look at it this way. With every lower court ruling to invalidate the EO, SCOTUS could simply have declined to hear the appeal and let the lower court rulings stand.
But they didn't. Why not?
I suppose they could still support the lower courts, but their track record suggests otherwise. My fear is that the radicals on the court have some tricks up their sleeves. I'm betting that they'll support Trump in part or entirely, or they'll do what they're particularly good at: issue a ruling so confusing and creating such chaos that the argument can continue.
Is everyone else as sick of this twerp as I am when he whimpers and cries and falls apart when he thinks someone else has violate the Separation of Powers, but then over and over and OVER tries to force upon us Legislative Branch orders through his EXECUTIVE BRANCH? EXECUTIVE ORDERS are just that: creating a policy for the Executive Branch. He's been trying to write and pass by himself NEW legislation. Excuse me? And so many of them have been complete violations of our constitution, too, since he's trying to amend it also all by himself without going through the long and difficult process of amending that we have in this country.
Sure, anyone, even this jackass, can suggest something be amended in our laws, including the amendments. But there's a process that everyone gets to follow.
He proves about every 5 minutes just how much he hates the United States, regardless of the crap lies he floats that he loves this country.
This case parallels tRump's response to the Judicial ruling that was intended to stop the Whitehouse reconstruction project until Congress can weigh in. He took a single word out of one sentence and substituted an different meaning: "security" was intended to be relevant to the physical integrity of the building; he replaced that word's meaning with "national security" and concluded he can continue doing what he wants. The same approach was applied to the 14th Amendment. "Under the jurisdiction of" clearly meant to indicate that a person was subject to arrest and trial for a crime, not some obscure fealty concept from the 1600's in England. It's the same approach - substitute meanings for words and phrases to get the result he wants. Nobody mistakes dog poop for Tootsie Rolls even though they look alike! One is intended for input and the other is output. It's not a fair substitution with equivalent meanings.
Any Justice who votes in favor of this slam dunk case should be disqualified from sitting on the bench any longer. It’s been unanimous by every court on its way up. It should be too much of an embarrassment for even Thomas and Alito to vote for it. And yet they seem to have no shame (or big secrets for which they are being blackmailed).
I'm skeptical that THIS court will rule completely against the Trump regime. In prior cases, the conservatives have dug new trenches with their decisions to please Trump. And their shadow docket rulings have frequently allowed them to save face with Trump by parceling sections of the Constitution toward his approval and upholding other parts that have left most of us gasping for air!
There is also the fact that they completely threw out Roe, even after so many legal scholars seemed assured that they really would not undo a 50-year precedent.
And the rulings that essentially threw out executive guardrails and tossed regulatory expertise and rule-making, both as bent knees to Donald Trump.
I'm no lawyer, but a supermajority-conservative Supreme Court doesn't fill me with any confidence that they will uphold constitutional precedent, even in this case, which seems on its face unwreckable.
The legislative history seems clear. The birthright citizenship clause was taken from a similar provision in the 1866 Civil Rights Bill with one important change. The Civil Rights Bill had stated that all person born in the US “and not subject to a foreign power,” were citizens of the United States. The provision added to the Fourteenth Amendment eliminated that limitation and instead said all persons born in the US “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” were citizens of the United Staes and the State wherein they reside. Obviously, the Civil Rights Bill version excluded the children of immigrants. The Fourteenth Amendment version did not.
Also, the Birthright Citizenship clause did not limit its application to a particular class of immigrants as did, for example the 1862 Homestead Act. The Homestead Act limited its offer of land to only allow immigrants who filed a declaration to become a citizen, to obtain such land. The Fourteenth Amendment provision did not limit the type of immigrants to which it applied. Congress knew how to limit a benefit to a certain class of immigrants, including to what is in effect the type of class Trump argues birthright citizenship should be limited to. It chose not to adopt that limit.
Solicitor General Sauer's position is ridiculous. The 14th Amendment refers to people (babies) born in the USA. It doesn't say anything about the parents of those babies - nothing about where they reside, how they got here, or what their immigration status is - not a single word.
" The reality is that this is the rare easy case to come before the court, with every single lower federal court judge having found Trump’s action unconstitutional..."
If this is such a 'rare easy case' why is it that we will have to wait until June or July for a decision from the high court? With several different avenues of precedence, why is the decision so difficult? Assuming this executive order gets a foothold, thousands will be in limbo until then.
That's encouraging thank you. Wouldn't it have been simpler for the SCOTUS to have just not taken the case? Was the court attempting to demonstrate that their near total immunity they gave Trump was a regrettable mistake?
Where the Roberts Star Chamber is concerned, it's pretty safe to assume the worst. Does it matter that justices seemed skeptical of the regime's arguments? Not really.
Look at it this way. With every lower court ruling to invalidate the EO, SCOTUS could simply have declined to hear the appeal and let the lower court rulings stand.
But they didn't. Why not?
I suppose they could still support the lower courts, but their track record suggests otherwise. My fear is that the radicals on the court have some tricks up their sleeves. I'm betting that they'll support Trump in part or entirely, or they'll do what they're particularly good at: issue a ruling so confusing and creating such chaos that the argument can continue.
Is everyone else as sick of this twerp as I am when he whimpers and cries and falls apart when he thinks someone else has violate the Separation of Powers, but then over and over and OVER tries to force upon us Legislative Branch orders through his EXECUTIVE BRANCH? EXECUTIVE ORDERS are just that: creating a policy for the Executive Branch. He's been trying to write and pass by himself NEW legislation. Excuse me? And so many of them have been complete violations of our constitution, too, since he's trying to amend it also all by himself without going through the long and difficult process of amending that we have in this country.
Sure, anyone, even this jackass, can suggest something be amended in our laws, including the amendments. But there's a process that everyone gets to follow.
He proves about every 5 minutes just how much he hates the United States, regardless of the crap lies he floats that he loves this country.
He does not believe laws or the Constitution even apply to him. Thats different than simply violating them. A special kind of sickness.
This case parallels tRump's response to the Judicial ruling that was intended to stop the Whitehouse reconstruction project until Congress can weigh in. He took a single word out of one sentence and substituted an different meaning: "security" was intended to be relevant to the physical integrity of the building; he replaced that word's meaning with "national security" and concluded he can continue doing what he wants. The same approach was applied to the 14th Amendment. "Under the jurisdiction of" clearly meant to indicate that a person was subject to arrest and trial for a crime, not some obscure fealty concept from the 1600's in England. It's the same approach - substitute meanings for words and phrases to get the result he wants. Nobody mistakes dog poop for Tootsie Rolls even though they look alike! One is intended for input and the other is output. It's not a fair substitution with equivalent meanings.
Any Justice who votes in favor of this slam dunk case should be disqualified from sitting on the bench any longer. It’s been unanimous by every court on its way up. It should be too much of an embarrassment for even Thomas and Alito to vote for it. And yet they seem to have no shame (or big secrets for which they are being blackmailed).
I'm skeptical that THIS court will rule completely against the Trump regime. In prior cases, the conservatives have dug new trenches with their decisions to please Trump. And their shadow docket rulings have frequently allowed them to save face with Trump by parceling sections of the Constitution toward his approval and upholding other parts that have left most of us gasping for air!
There is also the fact that they completely threw out Roe, even after so many legal scholars seemed assured that they really would not undo a 50-year precedent.
And the rulings that essentially threw out executive guardrails and tossed regulatory expertise and rule-making, both as bent knees to Donald Trump.
I'm no lawyer, but a supermajority-conservative Supreme Court doesn't fill me with any confidence that they will uphold constitutional precedent, even in this case, which seems on its face unwreckable.
If Alito didn't seem to have one foot out the door, maybe it'd be 8-1.
The legislative history seems clear. The birthright citizenship clause was taken from a similar provision in the 1866 Civil Rights Bill with one important change. The Civil Rights Bill had stated that all person born in the US “and not subject to a foreign power,” were citizens of the United States. The provision added to the Fourteenth Amendment eliminated that limitation and instead said all persons born in the US “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” were citizens of the United Staes and the State wherein they reside. Obviously, the Civil Rights Bill version excluded the children of immigrants. The Fourteenth Amendment version did not.
Also, the Birthright Citizenship clause did not limit its application to a particular class of immigrants as did, for example the 1862 Homestead Act. The Homestead Act limited its offer of land to only allow immigrants who filed a declaration to become a citizen, to obtain such land. The Fourteenth Amendment provision did not limit the type of immigrants to which it applied. Congress knew how to limit a benefit to a certain class of immigrants, including to what is in effect the type of class Trump argues birthright citizenship should be limited to. It chose not to adopt that limit.
Solicitor General Sauer's position is ridiculous. The 14th Amendment refers to people (babies) born in the USA. It doesn't say anything about the parents of those babies - nothing about where they reside, how they got here, or what their immigration status is - not a single word.
" The reality is that this is the rare easy case to come before the court, with every single lower federal court judge having found Trump’s action unconstitutional..."
If this is such a 'rare easy case' why is it that we will have to wait until June or July for a decision from the high court? With several different avenues of precedence, why is the decision so difficult? Assuming this executive order gets a foothold, thousands will be in limbo until then.
My prediction is exactly the same as Erwin’s.