Early loss for 47

[Bowlmania]

It's not just the adverse ruling itself (and yes, it's just a TRO but this EO is dead in the water). The judge's comments are devastating - - and hilarious.

"I am having trouble understanding how a member of the bar could state unequivocally that this [executive] order is constitutional," the judge told a U.S. Justice Department lawyer defending Trump's order. "It just boggles my mind."

"I've been on the bench for over four decades. I can't remember another case where the question presented is as clear as this one. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order," {Judge] Coughenour said of Trump's policy.

The reaction was vintage Trump. "They put it before a certain judge in Seattle (in Trump's eyes, a foreign jurisdiction), I guess, right? And there's no surprises with that judge."

Judge Coughenour is a Reagan appointee.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-judge-hear-states-bid-block-trump-birthright-citizenship-order-2025-01-23/

 

[hookyIU1990]

That one seemed like it should have been and was DOA. I wonder if he signed it and thought, "If I can get this through, I can get anything through".

 

[Bowlmania]

That one seemed like it should have been and was DOA. I wonder if he signed it and thought, "If I can get this through, I can get anything through".

Somebody in his counsel's office had to have green-lighted it. That guy should be looking for a new job tomorrow.

 

[Univee2]

Somebody in his counsel's office had to have green-lighted it. That guy should be looking for a new job tomorrow.

They want to get it to the Supreme Court. Appeal and take it onward.

 

[UncleMark]

They want to get it to the Supreme Court. Appeal and take it onward.

It's a ridiculous Hail Mary, but nothing from this Court would surprise me.

 

[Bowlmania]

It's a ridiculous Hail Mary, but nothing from this Court would surprise me.

It's blatantly unconstitutional. There's no appealable issue. That said, you're right. Anything's possible in this new age of the Imperial Presidency. And if the Supreme Court takes this case, it would be another glaring sign that we're truly fvcked.

 

[bailey777]

It's not just the adverse ruling itself (and yes, it's just a TRO but this EO is dead in the water). The judge's comments are devastating - - and hilarious.

"I am having trouble understanding how a member of the bar could state unequivocally that this [executive] order is constitutional," the judge told a U.S. Justice Department lawyer defending Trump's order. "It just boggles my mind."

"I've been on the bench for over four decades. I can't remember another case where the question presented is as clear as this one. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order," {Judge] Coughenour said of Trump's policy.

The reaction was vintage Trump. "They put it before a certain judge in Seattle (in Trump's eyes, a foreign jurisdiction), I guess, right? And there's no surprises with that judge."

Judge Coughenour is a Reagan appointee.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-judge-hear-states-bid-block-trump-birthright-citizenship-order-2025-01-23/

They want to get if to the Supreme Court. That's the plan.

 

[BCCHoosier]

They want to get if to the Supreme Court. That's the plan.

You guys willing to light the Constitution on fire now for your master? You guys have slavish devotion. I'll give you that.

 

[Bowlmania]

They want to get if to the Supreme Court. That's the plan.

Spot on, bailey. That is likely now the plan/hope.

There's no pulling the wool over your eyes.

Back in the old days, like maybe 9 or 10 years ago, the likelihood of this going all the way up would have been somewhere between a ridiculously long shot and impossible. Now, maybe a layup. We'll see.

 

[All4You]

I think he wanted all the focus on that EO to provide the necessary distraction to get this one through...

 

[Marvin the Martian]

They want to get it to the Supreme Court. Appeal and take it onward.

So the Supreme Court with a majority of "plain text" Constitutionalists will decide differently? If they do, it proves what I've suggested all along. No one is a strict plain text person, they are only when it suits them.

 

[GooglyMooglyWooglyBoogly]

So the Supreme Court with a majority of "plain text" Constitutionalists will decide differently? If they do, it proves what I've suggested all along. No one is a strict plain text person, they are only when it suits them.

Have they all claimed to be textualists? Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett have all claimed to be originalists at various times. If so, there is a strong (and likely correct) argument that birthright citizenship as it relates to illegal immigrants was not the original intent.

 

[dbmhoosier]

They want to get it to the Supreme Court. Appeal and take it onward.

The judge is a moron and clearly cannot read. “And subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clearly means what it says or else it wouldn’t have been included.

The idea that someone can illegally hop the border, pop out a baby a couple weeks later, and automatically get citizenship is pure absurdity. No country in the world allows that.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Have they all claimed to be textualists? Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett have all claimed to be originalists at various times. If so, there is a strong (and likely correct) argument that birthright citizenship as it relates to illegal immigrants was not the original intent.

When the 14th Amendment was adopted, if your family came into the US from Germany and had a child, would that child be an American citizen? Until 1882 or so, anyone could come to America and petition to become a citizen after 2 years of living here. But kids being born in the US did not have to petition. In 1882 and 1892 we started restricting people who were polygamists or criminals.

It makes me wonder if our restrictions on immigration are constitutional, via originalism. For 100 years literally anyone could show up. The Constitution allows Congress to set laws for naturalization. But it doesn't mention residency. Under originalism, what allows congress to block people from coming to the US at all?

 

[Marvin the Martian]

And subject to the jurisdiction thereof

They are subject to the laws of the US. Are you saying we cannot imprison an immigrant for murder? We cannot imprison a foreign diplomat for any crime, thus they are not subject to US law.

 

[The Original Happy Goat]

They are subject to the laws of the US. Are you saying we cannot imprison an immigrant for murder? We cannot imprison a foreign diplomat for any crime, thus they are not subject to US law.

Someone arguing in favor of this EO is not a serious person. It's clearly unconstitutional.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Someone arguing in favor of this EO is not a serious person. It's clearly unconstitutional.

Yet I predict at least one of Alito and Thomas find a way...

 

[dbmhoosier]

They are subject to the laws of the US. Are you saying we cannot imprison an immigrant for murder? We cannot imprison a foreign diplomat for any crime, thus they are not subject to US law.

Why didn’t they just say “all people born in the USA are automatically citizens”?

And our entire legal system is designed to encourage good behavior. It’s why married people get tax breaks that single people don’t. This policy completely encourages people to break the law. It’s asinine to think that was the intent.

 

[UncleMark]

Someone arguing in favor of this EO is not a serious person. It's clearly unconstitutional.

I can't wait to hear from The Perfesser.

 

[The Original Happy Goat]

Why didn’t they just say “all people born in the USA are automatically citizens”?

And our entire legal system is designed to encourage good behavior. It’s why married people get tax breaks that single people don’t. This policy completely encourages people to break the law. It’s asinine to think that was the intent.

They wanted to exclude diplomats, foreign officials, hostile armies, etc.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Why didn’t they just say “all people born in the USA are automatically citizens”?

And our entire legal system is designed to encourage good behavior. It’s why married people get tax breaks that single people don’t. This policy completely encourages people to break the law. It’s asinine to think that was the intent.

I explained it, foreign diplomats are not allowed this right.

The precedent-setting case was in the 1890s, US vs Wong. The fact Wong was not a diplomat was specifically referenced.

​

 

[Marvin the Martian]

They wanted to exclude diplomats, foreign officials, hostile armies, etc.

It would be an interesting concept, to invade the US, have children, and have them automatically be US citizens.

 

[Bill4411]

When the 14th Amendment was adopted, if your family came into the US from Germany and had a child, would that child be an American citizen? Until 1882 or so, anyone could come to America and petition to become a citizen after 2 years of living here. But kids being born in the US did not have to petition. In 1882 and 1892 we started restricting people who were polygamists or criminals.

It makes me wonder if our restrictions on immigration are constitutional, via originalism. For 100 years literally anyone could show up. The Constitution allows Congress to set laws for naturalization. But it doesn't mention residency. Under originalism, what allows congress to block people from coming to the US at all?

How far back do you think we might be able to carry the illegal status of someone. Could we deport there great grandchildren once the fraud has been established? I would think the whole lineage should be deported, if say the great grandfather came to this country illegally.

 

[GooglyMooglyWooglyBoogly]

They wanted to exclude diplomats, foreign officials, hostile armies, etc.

And aliens and foreigners.

 

[dbmhoosier]

It would be an interesting concept, to invade the US, have children, and have them automatically be US citizens.

That’s exactly what the people hopping the border illegally are doing.

 

[dbmhoosier]

🎯

 

[Marvin the Martian]

That’s exactly what the people hopping the border illegally are doing.

But they are subject to our laws. You are planning on deporting them, right? So they are subject. If Canada attacked and seized North Dakota, aside from saying thank you, we wouldn't be able to hold any Canadian soldier criminally liable.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

And aliens and foreigners.

View embedded media

So the argument that person makes is that a foreigner residing in America is not subject to American law? We cannot arrest them for crimes in the US? Is that REALLY what you want?

 

[GooglyMooglyWooglyBoogly]

So the argument that person makes is that a foreigner residing in America is not subject to American law? We cannot arrest them for crimes in the US? Is that REALLY what you want?

“That person” is the author of the 14th amendment.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

“That person” is the author of the 14th amendment.

Good luck with that. I quote James Madison all the time on issues but no conservative ever gives him credence on freedom of religion. Madison blocked a bill in VA to make Christianity the official state religion. But then no one on the far right accepts that as anything.

 

[Mas-sa-suta]

You guys willing to light the Constitution on fire now for your master? You guys have slavish devotion. I'll give you that.

Dumb and dumber.

 

[mushroomgod_1]

Back in the old days, like maybe 9 or 10 years ago, the likelihood of this going all the way up would have been somewhere between a ridiculously long shot and impossible. Now, maybe a layup. We'll see.
[/QUOTE]

Take a walk. Your TDS is out of control.

 

[GooglyMooglyWooglyBoogly]

Good luck with that. I quote James Madison all the time on issues but no conservative ever gives him credence on freedom of religion. Madison blocked a bill in VA to make Christianity the official state religion. But then no one on the far right accepts that as anything.

If the author had said “sole jurisdiction” as he meant we wouldn’t be debating this a century and a half later.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

If the author had said “sole jurisdiction” as he meant we wouldn’t be debating this a century and a half later.

But that isn't what passed.

If anyone wants to change the 14th, there is a process.

We ought to use that process to limit the Supreme Court to 9 and limit require Congress to vote on a nominee withing 90 days of submission.

 

[GooglyMooglyWooglyBoogly]

But they are subject to our laws. You are planning on deporting them, right? So they are subject. If Canada attacked and seized North Dakota, aside from saying thank you, we wouldn't be able to hold any Canadian soldier criminally liable.

If Canada attacked North Dakota with their military, we would simply dispatch the Grand Forks Sherriffs office to take care of them.

Bismarck PD could sit in reserve but we likely wouldn’t need them.

 

[Palmbeachhoosier]

The judge is a moron and clearly cannot read. “And subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clearly means what it says or else it wouldn’t have been included.

The idea that someone can illegally hop the border, pop out a baby a couple weeks later, and automatically get citizenship is pure absurdity. No country in the world allows that.

My great niece was born in China she does not have dual citizenship.

 

[dbmhoosier]

My great niece was born in China she does not have dual citizenship.

We’re the only country in the world that allows this absurdity. That should be all the clue you need to know this was never the intent of the provision.

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

We’re the only country in the world that allows this absurdity. That should be all the clue you need to know this was never the intent of the provision.

Now do the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Mas-sa-suta]

96 hours..

 

[dbmhoosier]

Now do the 2nd Amendment.

What about it? Does the right to bear arms mean I have a right to own a bazooka or an M134? Probably not. But people clearly have the right to own handguns, shotguns, rifles, etc. Any arm that serves a practical purpose.