SCOTUS: Birthright EO struck down

[gatomontes99]

So Trump's EO is not valid. However, it is constitutional. That sounds like a contradiction. SCOTUS said that the EO violates a federal statute. So, now the Republicans can pass a law to stop anchor babies. It needs to be done now. 

https://www.scotusblog.com/

In other SCOTUS rulings, we now have unlimited campaign funding and trans in sports is a states' rights issue. 

[Hodad]

1 hour ago, gatomontes99 said:

So Trump's EO is not valid. However, it is constitutional. That sounds like a contradiction. SCOTUS said that the EO violates a federal statute. So, now the Republicans can pass a law to stop anchor babies. It needs to be done now. 

https://www.scotusblog.com/

In other SCOTUS rulings, we now have unlimited campaign funding and trans in sports is a states' rights issue. 

Did you not read the majority opinion or the blog to which you linked? 

"In a decision by Chief Justice John Roberts, in Trump v. Barbara, the justices agreed with the challengers, as well as all of the lower courts around the country that have considered the issue, that Trump’s order cannot be reconciled with the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which confers citizenship on anyone “born … in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

Writing for the majority, Roberts emphasized that the “children born of parents unlawfully or temporarily present in the United States” “satisfy both elements of the Citizenship Clause.” “Under the Constitution,” he concluded, “they are citizens at birth.”

So, no, the Republicans cannot pass a law that contravenes the constitution. Birthright citizenship is part of the constitution and remains so. You'd have to pass an amendment to change that fact. And there isn't even remotely enough support for the idea to do that. 

No attorney on either side of this issue actually believes that it's not. Nobody. There was just a cynical hope from some people that this incarnation of the SCOTUS was corrupt enough to let it through. As they've done with a number of otherwise clear and obvious questions. 

Note that the three dissenting justices are conventionally identified as originalists. If there was ever a case that revealed this claim as the thinnest of fig leaves, this is it. lol what a joke. Just grubby partisan hacks parading around in the costume of principle. 

[robosmith]

3 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

So Trump's EO is not valid. However, it is constitutional. That sounds like a contradiction. SCOTUS said that the EO violates a federal statute. So, now the Republicans can pass a law to stop anchor babies. It needs to be done now. 

https://www.scotusblog.com/

In other SCOTUS rulings, we now have unlimited campaign funding and trans in sports is a states' rights issue. 

Of course Trump's EO is invalid, and so is YOUR "ANALYSIS."

Texans like you are unpopular all over the NATION. LMAO

[Nationalist]

53 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Of course Trump's EO is invalid, and so is YOUR "ANALYSIS."

Texans like you are unpopular all over the NATION. LMAO

No they're not. If anyone is unpopular nation-wide, its you California Tweenkies.

[John Johnston]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

Of course Trump's EO is invalid, and so is YOUR "ANALYSIS."

Texans like you are unpopular all over the NATION. LMAO

Wait until Talarica wins in November. 🥳