#20

Toche, I typed right into that one.

Are all you ------- liberals ...

Cool, when I argue for the Constitution on civil rights I'm a d****it liberal. When I argue for the Constitution on guns and abortion I a d****it conservative. I translate that to mean I'm about where I should be.

Yeah, pretty much. Earlier I was looking at stuff about the Buffoon's threat to Harvard's 501(c)(3) tax exemption. Seems Bob Jones University lost theirs for being political. Took thirteen years before the SC said nah. So, here the stay is important but I just can't see the Court letting a few people being protected while thousands are not. Then again, I didn't see Roe being overruled, so there's that.

From the Fourth Circuits unanimous, there was a dissent last time around, complete and total------- slapping of the Buffoon today:

The Executive possesses enormous powers to prosecute and to deport, but with powers come restraints. If today the Executive claims the right to deport without due process and in disregard of court orders, what assurance will there be tomorrow that it will not deport American citizens and then disclaim responsibility to bring them home? And what assurance shall there be that the Executive will not train its broad discretionary powers upon its political enemies? The threat, even if not the actuality, would always be present, and the Executive's obligation to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" present, and the Executive's obligation to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" would lose its meaning. (emphasis added) U.S. CONST. art. II, 3; see also id. art. II, 1, cl. 8.

I took several courses studying the USSR on my way to a Political Science degree. Knowledge that Reagan promptly rendered useless. I have never considered Russia or the USSR an enemy, a word that implies a war footing. They are certainly an adversary maybe even a hostile adversary but not an enemy.

This is not merits argument. The only thing to be argued is the application for a partial stay:

Consideration of the application (24A884) for partial stay presented to The Chief Justice and by him referred to the Court is deferred pending oral argument. Consideration of the application (24A885) for partial stay presented to Justice Kagan and by her referred to the Court is deferred pending oral argument. Consideration of the application (24A886) for partial stay presented to Justice Jackson and by her referred to the Court is deferred pending oral argument. The applications are consolidated, and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument. The applications are set for oral argument at 10 a.m. on Thursday, May 15, 2025.