SCOTUS: Birthright EO struck down

[Hodad]

2 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

I am not defending something I did not say and you cannot quote. 

 

Wow. Ok. Do you need lessons on reading for comprehension? 

Nope. SCOTUS rules on the Constitutionality of a law (or in this case an EO). Their interpretation of why it is or is not Constitutional colors how laws are created going forward, but it does not create a new law. It creates precedence for lower courts to interpret laws going forward. The ruling is not law. 

This is why Kavanaugh's concurring opinion is important. He laid out a path to comply with the ruling. I am sure it will be challenged. But it is a path that the court would approve. We can modify 8 USC § 1401 and comply with this ruling. 

[Another facepalm image, because holy shit...]

 

Library of Congress
Each branch of government produces a different type of law. Case law is the body of law developed from judicial opinions or decisions over time (whereas statutory law comes from legislative bodies and administrative law comes from executive bodies). 

SCOTUS decisions absolutely have the force of law--law that is binding on the executive and legislative branches. Has been since Marbury. You could argue that they don't create "new" law, since they are interpreting existing laws, but those interpretations in a majority opinion do define what is legal and what is illegal. 

No, Kavanaugh's opinion is not important. Nor does he lay out a path to comply. He lays out a hypothetical of how his thinking could be changed. A proposition which 5 other justices just smacked down in no uncertain terms. That's not a path forward. Nor should it be. 

[gatomontes99]

3 minutes ago, Hodad said:

SCOTUS decisions absolutely have the force of law--law that is binding on the executive and legislative branches.

Laws are below SCOTUS decisions. They do not carry the weight of laws and they do not regulate individuals. You keep equating rulings to laws and that just is not the case. 

If a law is passed and signed, it does go into effect, even if SCOTUS rules against a similar law or EO. Remember Biden's multiple EOs giving away money to buy votes? He disguised it as a loan forgiveness. SCOTUS said no, he just changed a few words and did it again.

Trump could do the exact same thing. But Kavanaugh set forth a better path. Laws are being crafted today. They will show up soon. 

[SpankyMcFarland]

If Republicans don’t like something in the constitution they should campaign to amend it. That’s the normal way to do things.

Further eroding the restrictions on campaign finance is a very bad idea for ordinary people of any political stripe. It paves the way to oligarchy. The megarich will become even more influential than they already are. Political arguments should be won on their merits, not on the size of the wallets supporting them. 

 

 

Edited 2 hours ago by SpankyMcFarland

[gatomontes99]

34 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

If Republicans don’t like something in the constitution they should campaign to amend it. That’s the normal way to do things.

Further eroding the restrictions on campaign finance is a very bad idea for ordinary people of any political stripe. It paves the way to oligarchy. The megarich will become even more influential than they already are. Political arguments should be won on their merits, not on the size of the wallets supporting them. 

 

 

You mean like open borders, the second amendment and free speech? All things the left has tried to change without amending the constitution before getting violent when we did not accept. You guys even tried to kill SCOTUS because they didn't rule your way on abortion. 

Before you try to get all high and mighty, maybe actually try being reasonable and respectable first. 

[Deluge]

22 hours ago, Hodad said:

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. 

Uh-uh. No self respecting American is going to buy that shit when you have border laws and the Naturalization Act of 1790 already in place. We KNOW what the founders wanted, and it's not this.  

Everything connected to leftism needs to be criminalized, immediately. No more anchor babies, no more endless hordes of refugees and asylum seekers, no more bullshit citizens like Omar and Mamdani. In this country, leftism should be just as offensive as murder. 

Edited 1 hour ago by Deluge