@no1marauder saiddead wrong…scotus can rule on anything at any time
A decision of the SCOTUS on a specific issue is "settled". IF Trump actually did put that provision in an Executive Order and tries to enforce it, the first Federal Judge it gets in front of will issue an injunction stopping it.
was abortion final? 😂
@Mott-The-Hoople saidWatch what happens, little man.
dead wrong…scotus can rule on anything at any time
was abortion final? 😂
@Mott-The-Hoople saidRoe v. Wade was the law of the land until the SCOTUS overturned it. Until they did so, the President had no power to restrict abortion by Executive Orders.
dead wrong…scotus can rule on anything at any time
was abortion final? 😂
Just like the President has no legitimate power to restrict birthright citizenship by EO since the SCOTUS definitively ruled it was required by the explicit language of the 14th Amendment.
@no1marauder saidEXACTLY why Trump made the order...you need a rudimentary understanding of how our system works. Do you thin scotus just up and heard RVW?
18 States, 2 cities and the ACLU have already filed suit to challenge Trump's unconstitutional Executive Order.
Birthright citizenship will be stopped!
@Mott-The-Hoople saidPresidents shouldn't issue blatantly unconstitutional EOs on the exceedingly slim chance that the courts might reverse a 126 year old precedent based on the explicit language of the 14th Amendment.
EXACTLY why Trump made the order...you need a rudimentary understanding of how our system works. Do you thin scotus just up and heard RVW?
Birthright citizenship will be stopped!
It's a waste of governmental and judicial resources just to score political points with those as empty headed as you.
@no1marauder saidThe Supreme Court is 75% Republican. This is not just another nonsense EO like some of the others. This one is the solution to a pressing problem. Despite what the constitution says however long it has said it, there are people abusing the constitution. I live outside of the US and I know a dozen people over the years saying that they are giong to have their baby in the US, so they travel in the 6th or 7th month and stay on. This is a common practice all over the world, but people like you are too stupid to see it.
18 States, 2 cities and the ACLU have already filed suit to challenge Trump's unconstitutional Executive Order.
@no1marauder said125 years ago immigration was the reverse problem, and the US wanted to encourage immigrants. Now it is in the US best interest to discourage it.
Presidents shouldn't issue blatantly unconstitutional EOs on the exceedingly slim chance that the courts might reverse a 126 year old precedent based on the explicit language of the 14th Amendment.
It's a waste of governmental and judicial resources just to score political points with those as empty headed as you.
@Rajk999 saidEven if that were true (which it isn't; virtually every academic study concludes that immigration to the US has substantial positive economic benefits), it's irrelevant. The Constitution remains the law of the land even if ignorant bigots like yourself think it has adverse consequences.
125 years ago immigration was the reverse problem, and the US wanted to encourage immigrants. Now it is in the US best interest to discourage it.
@Rajk999 saidHere's my prediction:
The Supreme Court is 75% Republican. This is not just another nonsense EO like some of the others. This one is the solution to a pressing problem. Despite what the constitution says however long it has said it, there are people abusing the constitution. I live outside of the US and I know a dozen people over the years saying that they are giong to have their baby in the US, ...[text shortened]... tay on. This is a common practice all over the world, but people like you are too stupid to see it.
There's a decent chance the SCOTUS doesn't even hear the case if and when the lower courts toss Trump's EO out. If they do, the most votes the overriding of this venerable precedent will muster is 3 and probably not even that; while Alioto seems willing to do anything Trump desires, both Thomas and Gorsuch pay some lip service to the wording of the Constitution and in this case that wording is unambiguous.
@no1marauder saidWrong. Immigration of the right type is good. Bringing in the dregs, criminals and muslim extremists, of the world is stupid, and actually Europeans are smarter than Americans. They have fixed the problem, amended their various constitutions and changed the laws to fix problems. Nobody can go in there to have their babies and claim citizenship .. what a damn stupid law.
Even if that were true (which it isn't; virtually every academic study concludes that immigration to the US has substantial positive economic benefits), it's irrelevant. The Constitution remains the law of the land even if ignorant bigots like yourself think it has adverse consequences.
Only fools worship the law and the constitution.
@no1marauder saidRight. How many of your predictions about politics became reality in the last year or so.
Here's my prediction:
There's a decent chance the SCOTUS doesn't even hear the case if and when the lower courts toss Trump's EO out. If they do, the most votes the overriding of this venerable precedent will muster is 3 and probably not even that; while Alioto seems willing to do anything Trump desires, both Thomas and Gorsuch pay some lip service to the wording of the Constitution and in this case that wording is unambiguous.
@no1marauder saidLOL...presidents shouldnt LMFAO
Presidents shouldn't issue blatantly unconstitutional EOs on the exceedingly slim chance that the courts might reverse a 126 year old precedent based on the explicit language of the 14th Amendment.
It's a waste of governmental and judicial resources just to score political points with those as empty headed as you.