#23 | Posted by ScottS

You continue to irrefutably demonstrate you ignorance of things law related. Citizens United dealt with a persons right to spend their money as they see fit. The fallout is from the tax code. Congress can legislate the tax code. They can't legislate around rights.

That's not democracy, it's a judicial coup.
#4 | Posted by itchyp

Are you saying EtAl ... ?
#16

Jesus, another dum***s, no I said no such thing.

Because it is ...
#9

Delusional. That' all I got.

#5 You've been hawking the RICO meme for a while indicating you are not aware that judges have absolute immunity for their judicial acts.

And where do you get the idea this guy was "allowed" to remain here? The federal criminal charges against him relate coming back into country after being deported.

Your PoliSci degree is at odds with a majority of Americans.

In this regards the majority of Americans are at odds with reality.

Does a PoliSci degree now include ...

I don't know what the degree now includes forty years later. What I know is what common sense and thousands of years of history teach, borders are meaningless. People that want to move from point A to point B don't care about arbitrary lines drawn in the sand.

It's to our detriment that people like you can't grasp that reality.

... you -------- were all saying that closing the border ...

Closing the border? You gotta be sh****n me. That's impossible. The best that can be done is controlling it. To his credit the Buffoon seems to be having some success at controlling it with bullying and intimidation.

(My PoliSci degree says that ain't a good look.)

... Biden let in 10M+ illegals in their term.

You are so transparently FOS it should embarrass you. I suspect you wear it as a badge.

Estimated illegal population in the US has hovered, below and above, around 10 million for 25 plus years. You are likely citing "encounters."

#21 | Posted by Scotty

Interesting, I've been around for a little while and I don't remember your user name. Perhaps some of the OG's can chip in.

#78 | Posted by oneironaut

There is no injunction. There is an administrative stay so the court process can play out without the Buffoon clandestinely deporting people that may not fit the criteria. How much of the court papers in these cases have you read? I've read a lot. The SC had good reason to be distrustful of the Buffoon.

And how much of Josh Blackman have you read? He's about as right wing as one can get and has been sucking the Buffoon's d*** since his first administration. Btw, I've read a lot of Blackman.

#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.