The US Supreme Court Thread

usscouse · Oct 31, 2018

superdave said: ↑

The short answer is yes. The longer answer is that 200+ years ago the SC took upon itself the power to make such decisions and everyone else went along. Such a ruling would be chaos. It’s like asking, couldnt Trump as C in C order the Army to arrest all the Democrats in Congress.
Click to expand...

Stephen Miller will find a way. First we burn down this building.
Seig Heil.

ceezmad · Oct 31, 2018

The 14th (from wiki)

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.[1]

Some of the right wing memes that I have seen seem to think that "jurisdiction thereof," means that people born to illegal parents have no jurisdiction, which IMO is BS.

The memes seem to argue that since the Amendment specifically left out Indians (they ignore the non-taxed Indian part) that should mean people of no legal status are also left out.

But the reason why Indians were left out is because their territories were considered (depending on the interpretation) as semi-independent nations under protection by the US Government (not much of a protection as we all know).

When Justice John Marshall Harlan looked at these debates as he wrote his dissent in Elk v. Wilkins in 1884, the intent seemed obvious.

“It would seem manifest, from this brief review of the history of the act of 1866, that one purpose of that legislation was to confer national citizenship upon a part of the Indian race in this country—such of them, at least, as resided in one of the states or territories, and were subject to taxation and other public burdens,” Harlan said.

Harlan also said the 14th Amendment’s intention was equally clear in this area, as an extension of the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

“[It} was intended to grant, national citizenship to every person of the Indian race in this country who was unconnected with any tribe, and who resided, in good faith, outside of Indian reservations and within one of the states or territories of the Union,” he said.

There was still confusion after the 14th Amendment was ratified about American Indian citizenship status in 1870, when the Senate Judiciary committee was asked to clarify the issue. The committee said it was clear, to it, that "the 14th amendment to the Constitution has no effect whatever upon the status of the Indian tribes within the limits of the United States," but that “straggling Indians” were subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Click to expand...

The citizenship deniers seem to hand their hats on SC ruling like this one.

The case of Elk v. Wilkins settled the issue for at least a few years. Elk was an American Indian who gave up his tribal affiliation, moved to Omaha, spoke English, paid taxes, and then tried to vote.

Writing for the majority, Justice Horace Gray said Elk had no claim to citizenship because he had never been naturalized as an American citizen through a treaty or statute. Even though he was born within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, the 14th Amendment didn’t apply to Elk, who did pay taxes.
Click to expand...

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-14th-amendments-tortuous-relationship-with-american-indians1

Here is the argument from the heritage foundation (a right wing think tank).

The fact that a tourist or illegal alien is subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws does not place them within the political “jurisdiction” of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment.

This amendment’s language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “[a]ll persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens.
Click to expand...

In the famous Slaughter-House cases of 1872, the Supreme Court stated that this qualifying phrase was intended to exclude “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” This was confirmed in 1884 in another case
Click to expand...

Even in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the 1898 case most often cited by “birthright” supporters due to its overbroad language, the court only held that a child born of lawful, permanent residents was a U.S. citizen. That is a far cry from saying that a child born of individuals who are here illegally must be considered a U.S. citizen.

Of course, the judges in that case were strongly influenced by the fact that there were discriminatory laws in place at that time that restricted Chinese immigration, a situation that does not exist today.
Click to expand...

https://www.heritage.org/immigratio...ndamental-misunderstanding-the-14th-amendment

A counter.

The amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of embassadors [sic] or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.
Click to expand...

In this context, it seems more likely that what Howard was implying in that spot was an “and” — that is, he meant to exclude only foreigners who belong to the families of foreign diplomats......

Here’s a much more reliable summary of the debate from a 2006 essay by James C. Ho, a conservative Dallas lawyer whom President Trump appointed last year to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals:

Howard’s colleagues vigorously debated the wisdom of his amendment — indeed, some opposed it precisely because they opposed extending birthright citizenship to the children of aliens of different races. But no Senator disputed the meaning of the amendment with respect to alien children.

The longer version is that most of the 1866 debate focused on the status of American Indians who, because of treaties and other arrangements, weren’t fully under U.S. jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

Can you sue a Navajoe [sic] Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction. If they were, we would not make treaties with them.

Foreigners who happen to be on U.S. territory — even if for a brief visit, even if they have crossed the border without permission — are by contrast entirely under U.S. jurisdiction unless they have some kind of diplomatic immunity. And as indicated in Ho’s summary above, it is quite clear from the one major exchange in the citizenship-clause debate that focused directly on children born to foreigners in the U.S. that the amendment was understood to include them.
Click to expand...

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...re-fake-arguments-over-birthright-citizenship

VFish · Oct 31, 2018

Hey @Auriaprottu the free game tickets are always available. Of course you will have to sit next to me and I do expect you to buy every other round of beers;

ceezmad · Oct 31, 2018

diablodelsol said: ↑

I get that.

But when (if) it went all the way to the Supreme Court....could they just say scoreboard?
Click to expand...

Smurfquake said: ↑

I believe the answer is yes, but also not a legal scholar. There would be a shit-ton of wailing and gnashing of teeth. It would be violating the "norms" that have been in place for centuries - ignoring precedent and established case law, and usually they try to come up with some basic reasoning when they write the decision - they probably could just write "scoreboard, bitches" as the decision, further violating norms - but the process so far has been for the other two branches to respect the supreme court's decisions.

In any case, this administration has violated norms left and right since coming in to office, and people have wailed and gnashed their teeth, but they still seem to keep on violating norms.
Click to expand...

yossarian said: ↑

Unfortunately, yes. Although in theory, Congress could then remedy that.
Click to expand...

Also the SC could rule 7-2 (Judge K and Judge Thomas IMO) or so against the Executive order (even if the opinions on why may be different).

It would not be the first time an appointed judge rules against the President that appointed him/her.

The bipartisan legal consensus in favor of the current understanding of birthright citizenship would make a Trump challenge unlikely to succeed, according to Gerard Magliocca, a professor at Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law.

“If this ever did reach the Supreme Court, you would get probably eight or nine votes to say it’s unconstitutional,” he said. “The liberal wing of the court won’t like it because they’re not going to like something like this generally. But the conservative wing of the court that believes in following the original meaning of the Constitution cannot possibly look at that and say anything other than, ‘Everyone born here is a citizen.’”
Click to expand...

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/30/trump-birthright-citizenship-plan-900891

roby · Oct 31, 2018

Yoshou said: ↑

Or.. Hear me out here.. How about y'all take this discussion to the MLS boards?
Click to expand...

Anyone who has ever ventured there would strongly disagree!

VFish · Nov 4, 2018

FWIW, the Senate Judiciary Committee released its findings on the Kavanaugh investigations. Apparently there was no there, there.

HerthaBerwyn · Nov 4, 2018

By 'no there' do you mean the allegations or the committee?

I want to know about his actions in the Bush White House. The things they refused to document. This is the meat weve been denied.

ToMhIlL · Nov 5, 2018

Did you really expect them to say, "Wull, um, yeah, it kinda turns out that maybe he did lie like a used car salesman and there is a very strong likelihood that he really did a lot of the stuff them wimming are claiming, but we voted for him anyway, because we need to stick it to The Left and own the libs."

Yeah, it could happen...

Cascarino's Pizzeria · Nov 5, 2018

VFish said: ↑

FWIW, the Senate Judiciary Committee released its findings on the Kavanaugh investigations. Apparently there was no there, there.
Click to expand...

Achtung, Anchor Baby. The House Intel Committee also said there was no Russian collusion. Their evidence was Donnie's good word.

M · Nov 5, 2018

Cascarino's Pizzeria said: ↑

Achtung, Anchor Baby. The House Intel Committee also said there was no Russian collusion. Their evidence was Donnie's good word.
Click to expand...

Is Grassley now going to investigate Kavanaugh's likely lies to Congress?

chaski · Nov 5, 2018

M said: ↑

Is Grassley now going to investigate Kavanaugh's likely lies to Congress?
Click to expand...

Is the Pope Italian?

dapip · Nov 8, 2018

Don't give up on us RBG!!!!

Breaking: Justince Ginsburg broke three ribs in a fall last night, per the Supreme Court. She went to the hospital this morning and was admitted “for observation and treatment,” the public information office adds. pic.twitter.com/vu7udRwoMs
— Chris “Law Dork” Geidner (@chrisgeidner) November 8, 2018

Boloni86 · Nov 10, 2018

Ginsburg reportedly out of hospital and seems to be recovering.

ceezmad · Nov 13, 2018

2 old liberal judges, 2 years of republican control of the Senate, even atheist like me have to send thoughts and prayers for the health of RBG and Breyer, shit even Thomas, lets hope he hangs on for at least 2 more years.

HerthaBerwyn · Nov 13, 2018

I predict Roberts turns out a giant disappointment for the reactionaries. He will, in the end, be far more committed to preserving American's perception of the legitimacy of the court than of his benefactors agenda.

superdave · Nov 13, 2018

HerthaBerwyn said: ↑

I predict Roberts turns out a giant disappointment for the reactionaries. He will, in the end, be far more committed to preserving American's perception of the legitimacy of the court than of his benefactors agenda.
Click to expand...

Holder.

dapip · Dec 18, 2018

What happened at Georgetown Prep stayed at GP.... for the most part...

Kavanaugh, along with J.C. del Real and Mark Judge, formed what some alumni characterized as an unholy trinity at the top of the school’s social circle. But their troubling behavior isn’t all that the Prep community was hiding. https://t.co/mL2IG4RgEA
— VANITY FAIR (@VanityFair) December 17, 2018

After Christine Blasey Ford came forward, another woman from a nearby Catholic school recounted her own assault from the period. https://t.co/Dy5o3h3rIT pic.twitter.com/powRJQwD7A
— VANITY FAIR (@VanityFair) December 17, 2018

When Eric Ruyak alleged in 2003 that he had been sexually assaulted by Father Garrett Orr, the head of Georgetown Prep’s theater department, the teenager became the target of a smear campaign. https://t.co/Dy5o3h3rIT pic.twitter.com/SvAMtOIjV8
— VANITY FAIR (@VanityFair) December 17, 2018

For seven months, Georgetown Prep did not notify police that a student had accused a faculty member of sexual abuse. Alienated and unsupported, the student eventually withdrew from classes and finished high school from home. https://t.co/Dy5o3h3rIT
— VANITY FAIR (@VanityFair) December 17, 2018

After the Ford-Kavanaugh hearing, some alumni tried to circulate a letter supporting a thorough investigation. Approximately 80 men signed it, but many others reportedly feared social and professional retribution for breaking the school’s loyalty code. https://t.co/Dy5o3h3rIT
— VANITY FAIR (@VanityFair) December 17, 2018

azriel · Dec 18, 2018

"By Evgenia Peretz"

Is that the hipster way to spell Eugenia Pérez?

Vanity Fair should stick to fashion or whatever they write about and leave the actual investigative journalism to you know, real journalists.

Dr. Wankler · Dec 18, 2018

azriel said: ↑

"By Evgenia Peretz"

Is that the hipster way to spell Eugenia Pérez?
Click to expand...

"Evgenia" is the Slavonic spelling, and "Peretz" is a common-ish Eastern European Jewish surname. Which doesn't rule out your Hipster hypothesis.

fatbastard · Dec 18, 2018

azriel said: ↑

Vanity Fair should stick to fashion or whatever they write about and leave the actual investigative journalism to you know, real journalists.
Click to expand...

In the past two years Vanity Fair and Teen Vogue have done more investigative journalism than the NY Times, Washington Times, Fox News, and the National Review combined

Cascarino's Pizzeria · Dec 18, 2018

fatbastard said: ↑

In the past two years Vanity Fair and Teen Vogue have done more investigative journalism than the NY Times, Washington Times, Fox News, and the National Review combined
Click to expand...

Teen Vogue? Did Bieber reveal his top secret pimple popping technique?

dapip · Dec 18, 2018

Cascarino's Pizzeria said: ↑

Teen Vogue? Did Bieber reveal his top secret pimple popping technique?
Click to expand...

If only that could be used to get rid of the orange zit on our collective forehead..

diablodelsol · Dec 21, 2018

Ginsburg has lung cancer.

Dr. Wankler · Dec 21, 2018

[

diablodelsol said: ↑

Ginsburg has lung cancer.
Click to expand...

https://nypost.com/2018/12/21/ruth-bader-ginsburg-has-two-malignant-growths-removed-from-lung/amp/

Dr. Valerie Rusch, a thoracic surgeon, said both nodules were found to be malignant after preliminary tests, but there was no evidence of any remaining disease after the surgery.

No further treatment is planned, the court said.

jmartin1966 · Dec 21, 2018

get ready for court packing once dems have presidency and both chambers

Merrick Garland will be the justification