5 ms·

Don't agree that any of these cases are "most obvious" given that it's gone all the way through various appeals courts to the supreme court - and that's the mis

by atonse 3mo ago

Don't agree that any of these cases are "most obvious" given that it's gone all the way through various appeals courts to the supreme court - and that's the mission of the Supreme Court, to interpret all the various situations for these cases and how they apply constitutionally.

Arodex 3mo ago
It is totally obvious: every single court told the Trump administration to go f* themselves, and Trump appealed and appealed again until it reached the Supreme Court.
ceejayoz 3mo ago
> Don't agree that any of these cases are "most obvious" given that it's gone all the way through various appeals courts to the supreme court Every single court on the way to SCOTUS correctly said "the fuck?!" > Federal judges in each of the district courts issued preliminary injunctions to block the order from taking effect anywhere in the country. Judge John C. Coughenour, presiding over Washington v. Trump, called the order "blatantly unconstitutional". Government appeals challenging the injunctions were rejected by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._Barbara https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._Barbara https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._CASA#Background https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._CASA#Background
FireBeyond 3mo ago
The Trump administration found not one judge or panel of judges who agreed with their opinion ... until SCOTUS, where it found three. Including Clarence, whose "hilarious" dissent says that undocumented persons are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, which might be of note to ICE.
- datsci_est_2015 3mo ago
  “Unperson” vibes. If their existence is illegal, then they have no rights. Clarence would never consider that the definition of who is or is not legal would expand, though. Too busy driving his RV to the airport to fly to an island retreat.
solid_fuel 3mo ago
Here is the full text of the relevant section of the 14th: > All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Please point to the section where it says "this only applies if the parents are citizens". The reading which the court affirmed is incredibly obvious. Republicans and xenophobes like to pretend it isn't, but the text is very simple.
- pfannkuchen 3mo ago
  [flagged]
  - solid_fuel 3mo ago
    [flagged]
    - pfannkuchen 3mo ago
      [flagged]
      - Supermancho 3mo ago
        > I did say what I mean explicitly. > it comes out sideways in other dimensions > current moral programming Not one of these words holds meaning in context. If it were only the phrases, there might be some grounded message. Each word and phrase seems to be code for a concept attached to your specific mental model. People tend not to have discussions with other people who cannot grasp what they are, or are not, saying. I would guess and engage further, but assuming what you are saying is unfair and leads to the tired case of Humpty Dumpty versus Alice. Words mean what one side says they do, as a way to avoid exchange.
harimau777 3mo ago
That's not a good characterization. All of he lower courts basically laughed it out of the court room. The fact that the Supreme Court even took the case on is pretty questionable.

by atonse 3mo ago

Arodex 3mo ago

It is totally obvious: every single court told the Trump administration to go f* themselves, and Trump appealed and appealed again until it reached the Supreme Court.

ceejayoz 3mo ago

> Don't agree that any of these cases are "most obvious" given that it's gone all the way through various appeals courts to the supreme court Every single court on the way to SCOTUS correctly said "the fuck?!" > Federal judges in each of the district courts issued preliminary injunctions to block the order from taking effect anywhere in the country. Judge John C. Coughenour, presiding over Washington v. Trump, called the order "blatantly unconstitutional". Government appeals challenging the injunctions were rejected by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._Barbara https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._Barbara https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._CASA#Background https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._CASA#Background

FireBeyond 3mo ago

The Trump administration found not one judge or panel of judges who agreed with their opinion ... until SCOTUS, where it found three. Including Clarence, whose "hilarious" dissent says that undocumented persons are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, which might be of note to ICE.

datsci_est_2015 3mo ago
“Unperson” vibes. If their existence is illegal, then they have no rights. Clarence would never consider that the definition of who is or is not legal would expand, though. Too busy driving his RV to the airport to fly to an island retreat.

solid_fuel 3mo ago

Here is the full text of the relevant section of the 14th: > All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Please point to the section where it says "this only applies if the parents are citizens". The reading which the court affirmed is incredibly obvious. Republicans and xenophobes like to pretend it isn't, but the text is very simple.

pfannkuchen 3mo ago
[flagged]
- solid_fuel 3mo ago
  [flagged]
  - pfannkuchen 3mo ago
    [flagged]
    - Supermancho 3mo ago
      > I did say what I mean explicitly. > it comes out sideways in other dimensions > current moral programming Not one of these words holds meaning in context. If it were only the phrases, there might be some grounded message. Each word and phrase seems to be code for a concept attached to your specific mental model. People tend not to have discussions with other people who cannot grasp what they are, or are not, saying. I would guess and engage further, but assuming what you are saying is unfair and leads to the tired case of Humpty Dumpty versus Alice. Words mean what one side says they do, as a way to avoid exchange.

harimau777 3mo ago

That's not a good characterization. All of he lower courts basically laughed it out of the court room. The fact that the Supreme Court even took the case on is pretty questionable.