The Supreme Court discussion thread
7 States have passed bills this year which place new restrictions on abortion. Alabama's new law, in particular, is a ne
I wanted to bump this thread to highlight why it was bad for the Supreme Court to rule that district courts cannot issue nationwide injunctions. The core of the concern is the following. First, district court rulings are not binding on other courts. Second, the administration doesn't have to appeal a negative ruling from a district court. Third, district courts no longer ca
The problem with nationwide injunctions is that whenever the Dems want one they go to the California courts and when the republicans want one they head to the Texas courts . The solution is to force the Dems to go to the Texas courts and the Republicans to go to the California courts
I actually agree with Trump on birthright citizenship it is being heavily abused by folks . I just can not see how the folks that wrote it imagined people flying to the USA pregnant to have a baby so he can be a US citizen but agree with you that he losses
I was surprised as well that they ruled states can not ban conversion therapy
The problem with nationwide injunctions is that whenever the Dems want one they go to the California courts and when the republicans want one they head to the Texas courts . The solution is to force the Dems to go to the Texas courts and the Republicans to go to the California courts
How do you propose to do that?
I actually agree with Trump on birthright citizenship it is being heavily abused by folks. I just can not see how the folks that wrote it imagined people flying to the USA pregnant to have a baby so he can be a US citizen but agree with you that he losses
What does the bolded even mean? The 14th Amendment says what it says. Are you saying that you agree with Trump that these words do not confer citizenship on people born in the United States: "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."
I was surprised as well that they ruled states can not ban conversion therapy
I wasn't. Not even a little bit.
How do you propose to do that?Reality is there is no way it just seems like a good idea. What does the bolded even mean? The 14th Amendment says what it says. Are you saying that you agree with Trump that these words do not confer citizenship on people born in the United States: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, a
Its like the second amendment if you truly believe its so citizens could arm themselves against a corrupt government than why limit what weapons they can have like a tank or a bomb
Its like the second amendment if you truly believe its so citizens could arm themselves against a corrupt government than why limit what weapons they can have like a tank or a bomb
Trump's executive order wasn't imposing some sort of limiting principle on the idea of birthright citizenship. For example, it wasn't limited to so-called birth tourism. To the contrary, it basically purported to eliminate the idea of birthright citizenship entirely. It was the moral equivalent of issuing an executive order stating that the Second Amendment simply doesn't exist at all and that there is no right to bear arms of any type.
Trump's executive order wasn't imposing some sort of limiting principle on the idea of birthright citizenship. For example, it wasn't limited to so-called birth tourism. To the contrary, it basically purported to eliminate the idea of birthright citizenship entirely. It was the moral equivalent of issuing an executive order stating that the Second Amendment simply doesn't ex
I have just said I agree with him as the policy is being abused and I just cant imagine the forefathers imagining the situations today . The other problem that exists people come to the US illegally and have a child who becomes a US citizen and than the left says how cruel of you to deport the parents and separate them from their child .
I also agreed with you the way it is written Trump will lose . Heck Canada has the same rule
I have just said I agree with him as the policy is being abused and I just cant imagine the forefathers imagining the situations today . The other problem that exists people come to the US illegally and have a child who becomes a US citizen and than the left says how cruel of you to deport the parents and separate them from their child .I also agreed with you the way it is writ
they very explicitly spoke about the situations that we are having today when they were framing the 14th amendment.
According to Statistics Canada, the number of babies born in Canada to foreign-born mothers has risen significantly, reaching 154,687 (42.3% of all births) in 2024, up from 78,785 in 1997. This upward trend, which accelerated due to high immigration, saw a brief pandemic-related dip in 2020 before rebounding strongly.
Approximately 850,000 babies were born to foreign-born mothers in the U.S. in 2023, representing roughly 23% of all U.S. births. While this includes both legal and unauthorized residents, about 320,000 of these births were to unauthorized or temporary legal immigrant mothers.
Seems like the Canadian problem is much greater than ours and you should be using your precious mental skills to resolve your own country’s problem. It’s too bad our SC is a bunch on pathetic wussies and could not find the balls to shut down the executive order in the first hearing.
I have just said I agree with him as the policy is being abused and I just cant imagine the forefathers imagining the situations today . The other problem that exists people come to the US illegally and have a child who becomes a US citizen and than the left says how cruel of you to deport the parents and separate them from their child .I also agreed with you the way it is writ
Now you're trolling, USA is the only country in the world that has birthrigtt citizenship.
Now you're trolling, USA is the only country in the world that has birthrigtt citizenship.
36 countries have unrestricted birthright citizenship.
36 countries have unrestricted birthright citizenship.
Your president says you're wrong.
According to Statistics Canada, the number of babies born in Canada to foreign-born mothers has risen significantly, reaching 154,687 (42.3% of all births) in 2024, up from 78,785 in 1997. This upward trend, which accelerated due to high immigration, saw a brief pandemic-related dip in 2020 before rebounding strongly. Approximately 850,000 babies were born to foreign-born mothe
Wow is all I can say to all those stats . Canada has had a serious immigration problem under Justin Trudeau
You should share your ideas with him on how to solve your problem. I’m sure he will be entertained.
You should share your ideas with him on how to solve your problem. I’m sure he will be entertained.
Justin's gone and we have a capable leader named Carney now .
Great idea though if he was still in power I'd DM him
He also says that no other country has voting by mail.
Spoiler
because Putin told him that.
Spoiler
Russia has voting by mail.
I have just said I agree with him as the policy is being abused and I just cant imagine the forefathers imagining the situations today . The other problem that exists people come to the US illegally and have a child who becomes a US citizen and than the left says how cruel of you to deport the parents and separate them from their child .I also agreed with you the way it is writ
I can't imagine the forefathers imagining machine guns (or any automatic weapons).
“That map is an unconstitutional gerrymander,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote
If I understand this correctly, we cannot create districts that allow black people representation, but we can create districts that purposely deny black people representation. Sounds about right.
And, here we go.....
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live...
Louisiana postpones May primaries after supreme court rules state must redraw congressional maps
Louisiana moved to postpone its May primaries on Thursday in a move that came as other southern states are also scrambling to redraw congressional districts in response to the supreme court’s Wednesday ruling that severely weakened the landmark Voting Rights Act.
Before the supreme court’s decision, eliminating a key protection against racial discrimination in drawing voting maps, some states had already begun initiating processes to redraw districts and gut Black voting power. More states have now followed, with governors calling for special sessions to redraw congressional districts, potentially before the midterm elections in November.
Louisiana governor Jeff Landry and attorney general Liz Murrill, both Republicans, said in a joint statement that the state can no longer use its current districts to carry out the primaries after the supreme court ruling. Early voting had been scheduled to begin Saturday in advance of the 16 May primary.
“The State is currently enjoined from carrying out congressional elections under the current map,” Landry and Murrill said in the statement on social media Thursday. “We are working together with the Legislature and the Secretary of State’s office to develop a path forward.”
If I understand this correctly, we cannot create districts that allow black people representation, but we can create districts that purposely deny black people representation. Sounds about right.
We cannot create districts if the "primary purpose" of creating those districts is racial discrimination.
Protecting incumbency, according to this decision, is totally fine:
because the plaintiffs’ illustrative maps failed to protect all the incumbents that the State sought to shield, the plaintiffs did not meet their burden on this precondition
If the GOP in general presents policies unappealing to black voters as a group, this is also fine, because then the lines are drawn for "political" and not "racial" reasons:
the court observed that black voters have been aligned with the Democratic party for decades and that issues discussed by that party appealed to black voters. Id., at 845. Those observations should have undercut, not strengthened, any showing of intentional racial discrimination because race and politics are so intertwined
there should, at this point, be absolutely no cries from any GOP syco's about the unfairness or impropriety of Democratic legislatures redrawing their states' maps to minimize GOP representation
their conservative-majority SCOTUS just explicitly stated that this is perfectly fine
If I understand this correctly, we cannot create districts that allow black people representation,
but we can create districts that purposely deny black people representation. Sounds about right.
