The executive branch can violate the Constitution, and it has. The Court is supposed to stop them when they do. I expected Thomas and Alito to vote that way since those two are so corrupt, I always count them out. But the other two surprised me. 4 out of 9 justices are blatantly ignoring the Constitution. It's time to legislate those four out. Let's expand the Court, but restore the confirmation threshold to 60 votes.
after the SC rejected his EO to end birthright citizenship, Trump calls on Congress to pass law to end birthright citizenship this amounts to an admission that his Executive Order, issued on the first week of Trump 2.0. was ill-conceived / half-assed; just like his failure to repeal Obama Care, the tariffs, the bombing of Venezuela and Iran, etc.
If it weren't for Birthright Citizenship. America would not be able to claim Bruce Lee as an American treasure.
the WSJ weighs in. gift link: https://www.wsj.com/opinion/birthri...0?st=ipz1bB&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
You may want to take Civics 101 again, amigo. The SC interprets the law, they dont set precedent or rule or pass executive decisions.
No ****, lol. Not sure how you misunderstood what I wrote. You might want to revisit Civics 101 yourself. The Court absolutely does set precedent. That’s one of its core functions. When it interprets the law, its rulings become binding precedent for lower courts.
Alito's opinions are indistinguishable from Fox News talking points these days. He's really phoning it in. Sad!
It is cool to see children trying to form grown up opinions. Spoiler The SCOTUS does not like portions of the 14A so they choice to ignore them, as they see fit. (This and prior SCOTUS also did not think that the 2A went far enough so they augmented it, as they saw fit.) The clear text of the 14A clearly states that insurrectionists can not hold federal office, so the SCOTUS invented from whole cloth why that clear text does not mean what the clear text unambiguously states. The 14A also clear states that birthright citizenship is the law of the land. Yet three justices did not like it and that was enough for them to find a reason no matter how flimsy to strike it down. Kavanaugh would have been the 4th justice, but found another end run to reluctantly support birthright citizenship. Kavanaugh is not a profile of courage here. The legal remedies for nullifying birthright citizenship (or any other part of the 14A or Constitution) exists. A new amendment can be added, albeit that is a heavy lift. The fact that amending the Constitution is a heavy lift should give extra legal weight to amendments. When SCOTUS justices ignore the extra legal weight in favor of their desire political outcome should be an impeahable offense.
Spacy be Spacy, publicizing his willful ignorance, The most recent time the U.S. Supreme Court set a binding precedent was in June 2024 with the decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which overruled the Chevron deference doctrine. This was a landmark precedent because it fundamentally changed the balance of power between courts and federal agencies.
Pack the SC court, if you aren't for it you don't get my vote. Criminal investigations into Alito and Uncle Thomas would be a welcome addition.
He doesn’t even care to appear judicious anymore; or maybe Father Time is finally catching up with him.
That is constitutional and appropriate. Of course the enemy invader exception still applies. Glad this tweeter is learning.
A few things seem suspect about the preview of the Xweet. But by all means please keep pretending your above other people's sources.
