4 ms·

That's nice rhetoric, but they're not the same issue at all.

by timr 1y ago

watwut 1y ago
That is actually what is going on and how right wing justices think.
ceejayoz 1y ago
Yes, there's always some reason it's different when Dems are President with this crew. You're right, though, it is different; birthright citizenship is spelled out, very clearly, in the Constitution. It's an even plainer wrong. It's Calvinball.
- timr 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - ceejayoz 1y ago
    Of course there isn't. There's no written rule that the boss's son is gonna get the cushy VP slot, but everyone knows it. Where was SCOTUS when https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed_O%27Connor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed_O%27Connor issued all his nationwide injunctions?
    - timr 1y ago
      Well, that's very cynical and maybe you'll be right, but for now the California AG agrees with me. Per a quote in the WSJ [1]: > California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a co-plaintiff, looked for a silver lining: Red states, which sought universal injunctions to stymie Biden administration policies, would encounter obstacles pursuing that strategy under a future Democratic president, he said. Call me a crazy, glass-half-full centrist, but I prefer to look at this as a clawing back of extremely broad powers from rather partisan judges. It's been maddening that circuit court judges in a few hyper-partisan districts basically push every decision to the Supreme Court. [1] https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/scotus-birthright-citizenship-decision-ef2c039f?mod=hp_lead_pos3 https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/scotus-birthright-citizenshi...
      - ceejayoz 1y ago
        > California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a co-plaintiff, looked for a silver lining… Sure, and Susan Collins thinks Trump "learned his lesson" with his first impeachment. Looking for the silver lining is what we sometimes call "cope". He lost. As a politician, he's obliged to put some spin on it. > It's been rather maddening that circuit court judges basically push every decision to the Supreme Court. It is. This sort of thing should've died before ever becoming an EO, and at every level of the judiciary as clearly unconstitutional. That it didn't is a big problem.
        timr 1y ago
        Well, if we're predicting the future, here's mine: since they're already basically telegraphing it (and also because it's pretty clear-cut), I predict that they'll overturn the whole thing in a future case, and then the left will be crowing about how mean-ol Mr. Trump was taught a lesson in capital-D Democracy by our powerful system of government.
  - TimorousBestie 1y ago
    There’s also nothing in the ruling that binds the Supreme Court to uphold it when and if there’s another Democratic administration. No, stare decisis is not binding. Nor does it still exist.
    - timr 1y ago
      > No, stare decisis is not binding. Nor does it still exist. If it was not binding, did it ever exist? Anyway, there's nothing that binds any Supreme Court to do anything at all. This argument terminates in noise. It's just partisan fretting.
      - TimorousBestie 1y ago
        > There's nothing that binds any Supreme Court to do anything at all. We agree. So your remark about “nothing in the ruling says. . .” was actually irrelevant to the broader point. From a lacuna in a decision we can conclude nothing.
        timr 1y ago
        We agree that if you assume a world where there's no precedent at all, then our system of government doesn't work. Beyond that, no. We also don't agree that that world is the one that we live in.
- xienze 1y ago
  The second amendment is “very clearly” spelled out in the Constitution yet many roadblocks to gun ownership are thrown up in various states and people STILL make tired arguments about how the amendment “should” be interpreted. For example, the old argument that the founding fathers could have never conceived of AR-15s and thus their legality under the second amendment is debatable. Likewise, in 1868 the writers of the fourteenth amendment probably couldn’t conceive of rapid international travel and the possibility that pregnant women could just show up weeks before their due date and their newborn child should “obviously” be an American citizen. The amendment was quite obviously targeted at Native Americans and slaves, not any and all pregnant women the world over who manage to reach the US before giving birth. But as you’re noticing, there’s multiple ways people can interpret laws. It’s rarely as cut and dry as “this is obviously against the law!!!”
  - ceejayoz 1y ago
    > Likewise, in 1868 the writers of the fourteenth amendment probably couldn’t conceive of rapid international travel and the possibility that pregnant women could just show up weeks before their due date and their newborn child should “obviously” be an American citizen. This is a better point than you realize, and in the opposite direction you intend. Immigration in the 1800s was a… cursory process. Not only would those kids be citizens, but their parents would have had little trouble staying around. We had very few rules beyond “don’t be Chinese” until 1891. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1891?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1891?wprov=...
    - xienze 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - ceejayoz 1y ago
        I argue it’s the logical conclusion for an era of “basically anyone can come here if they want”, yes. “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.”
arunabha 1y ago
No? Both are unilateral executive orders.

That's nice rhetoric, but they're not the same issue at all.

by timr 1y ago

That's nice rhetoric, but they're not the same issue at all.

watwut 1y ago

That is actually what is going on and how right wing justices think.

ceejayoz 1y ago

Yes, there's always some reason it's different when Dems are President with this crew. You're right, though, it is different; birthright citizenship is spelled out, very clearly, in the Constitution. It's an even plainer wrong. It's Calvinball.

timr 1y ago
[flagged]
- ceejayoz 1y ago
  Of course there isn't. There's no written rule that the boss's son is gonna get the cushy VP slot, but everyone knows it. Where was SCOTUS when https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed_O%27Connor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed_O%27Connor issued all his nationwide injunctions?
  - timr 1y ago
    Well, that's very cynical and maybe you'll be right, but for now the California AG agrees with me. Per a quote in the WSJ [1]: > California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a co-plaintiff, looked for a silver lining: Red states, which sought universal injunctions to stymie Biden administration policies, would encounter obstacles pursuing that strategy under a future Democratic president, he said. Call me a crazy, glass-half-full centrist, but I prefer to look at this as a clawing back of extremely broad powers from rather partisan judges. It's been maddening that circuit court judges in a few hyper-partisan districts basically push every decision to the Supreme Court. [1] https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/scotus-birthright-citizenship-decision-ef2c039f?mod=hp_lead_pos3 https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/scotus-birthright-citizenshi...
    - ceejayoz 1y ago
      > California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a co-plaintiff, looked for a silver lining… Sure, and Susan Collins thinks Trump "learned his lesson" with his first impeachment. Looking for the silver lining is what we sometimes call "cope". He lost. As a politician, he's obliged to put some spin on it. > It's been rather maddening that circuit court judges basically push every decision to the Supreme Court. It is. This sort of thing should've died before ever becoming an EO, and at every level of the judiciary as clearly unconstitutional. That it didn't is a big problem.
      - timr 1y ago
        Well, if we're predicting the future, here's mine: since they're already basically telegraphing it (and also because it's pretty clear-cut), I predict that they'll overturn the whole thing in a future case, and then the left will be crowing about how mean-ol Mr. Trump was taught a lesson in capital-D Democracy by our powerful system of government.
- TimorousBestie 1y ago
  There’s also nothing in the ruling that binds the Supreme Court to uphold it when and if there’s another Democratic administration. No, stare decisis is not binding. Nor does it still exist.
  - timr 1y ago
    > No, stare decisis is not binding. Nor does it still exist. If it was not binding, did it ever exist? Anyway, there's nothing that binds any Supreme Court to do anything at all. This argument terminates in noise. It's just partisan fretting.
    - TimorousBestie 1y ago
      > There's nothing that binds any Supreme Court to do anything at all. We agree. So your remark about “nothing in the ruling says. . .” was actually irrelevant to the broader point. From a lacuna in a decision we can conclude nothing.
      - timr 1y ago
        We agree that if you assume a world where there's no precedent at all, then our system of government doesn't work. Beyond that, no. We also don't agree that that world is the one that we live in.
xienze 1y ago
The second amendment is “very clearly” spelled out in the Constitution yet many roadblocks to gun ownership are thrown up in various states and people STILL make tired arguments about how the amendment “should” be interpreted. For example, the old argument that the founding fathers could have never conceived of AR-15s and thus their legality under the second amendment is debatable. Likewise, in 1868 the writers of the fourteenth amendment probably couldn’t conceive of rapid international travel and the possibility that pregnant women could just show up weeks before their due date and their newborn child should “obviously” be an American citizen. The amendment was quite obviously targeted at Native Americans and slaves, not any and all pregnant women the world over who manage to reach the US before giving birth. But as you’re noticing, there’s multiple ways people can interpret laws. It’s rarely as cut and dry as “this is obviously against the law!!!”
- ceejayoz 1y ago
  > Likewise, in 1868 the writers of the fourteenth amendment probably couldn’t conceive of rapid international travel and the possibility that pregnant women could just show up weeks before their due date and their newborn child should “obviously” be an American citizen. This is a better point than you realize, and in the opposite direction you intend. Immigration in the 1800s was a… cursory process. Not only would those kids be citizens, but their parents would have had little trouble staying around. We had very few rules beyond “don’t be Chinese” until 1891. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1891?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1891?wprov=...
  - xienze 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - ceejayoz 1y ago
      I argue it’s the logical conclusion for an era of “basically anyone can come here if they want”, yes. “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.”

arunabha 1y ago

No? Both are unilateral executive orders.