#31

Of course Alito and Thomas were all for deporting without due process under a law that every sane human knows doesn't apply.

You don't have a d**n clue why they dissented. Why don't you wait for their reasons instead of speculating?

#29 | Posted by oneironaut

Where is this ruling? I have looked on the SCOTUS site but can't find it.

That is the key part - I am 100% positive that you have had this explained to you before so there is no point in me saying anything additional on the matter.

Yeah it was explained by the Supreme Court in the late 19th century i.e. if you are present in the US you are subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Otherwise, nucking fidiots like you seem to contend that illegals in the country are not subject to prosecution for their crimes because they are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." I mean, seriously, just how g** d*** stupid can you be?

#10

Enlighten me, how do you interpret the words "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens ...?"

#7

Executive fiat overrules a Constitutional amendment. Why am I not surprised? Nucking Fidiot.

#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.

For starters, what MAGA calls "free-speech" seems to be more hatred towards others and violence-provoking speech.

As far as I can tell it is not a violation of the Constitution.

Another one that proudly demonstrates his utter ignorance of all things legal. As the Judge succinctly stated

No, the Court simply holds that under the First Amendment, if the Government opens its doors to some journalists" be it to the Oval Office, the East Room, or elsewhere"it cannot then shut those doors to other journalists because of their viewpoints. The Constitution requires no less ... .

I think this judge's actions are now bordering on treason for aiding/abetting a foreign invasion of the US. Probably should throw him in Gitmo while it is determined whether his actions rise to this crime.

I think you should continue to irrefutably demonstrate your ignorance about all things law related.

just show'em that real ID?
problem?
#2 | Posted by itchyp

Yes, there is a problem with using Real ID.

The embodiment of the clash between the rule of law and I can do whatever I want. The Buffoon is a disgrace.

Texas tried that tens of thousandsen masse crap last year. They very quickly back tracked when it was found their list included numerous citizens. A more through review identified numbers in the hundreds. Less than about twenty may have voted over the years. If done carefully, it's not a problem.

Thanks, Second Amendment!

Still a dumba** about all things Constitutional.

F'in' POS Troll.

#311 | Posted by ScottS

Compare and contrast eludes you.

Not surprised. Pos trolls exhibit such.

Good boy!