Birthright Citizenship....

archives said:
Given we have twelve Federal Judicial Districts doesn’t that mean each district could have a different understanding on what is legal and not legal? They can revoke birthright citizenship in some Districts but not in others? And similar situations enforcing other policies halted by a District Federal Court?
Click to expand...
That is what the Supreme Court is for, in the past some things were ruled unconstitutional, and states in the 5th District would have to follow that ruling while others would not... Until the Supreme Court made a final ruling on it it would continue that way. If the SCOTUS upheld it then it applied to everyone, if they overturned it, it applied to none.
 
Damocles said:

Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010).​


Case Context: This 5-4 decision struck down restrictions on corporate and union spending in elections, citing First Amendment protections. It significantly expanded the role of money in political campaigns.
  • Instance of Rebuke: Justice John Paul Stevens, in his dissent, again named specific justices—Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, and Samuel Alito—criticizing their majority opinion for overturning precedent and adopting an overly broad view of free speech. Stevens wrote:
  • Significance: Stevens’ dissent was unusually blunt, as naming colleagues in this manner is rare. His critique focused on the majority’s methodology and perceived overreach, reflecting deep frustration with the Court’s conservative shift. The public nature of the dissent, read from the bench, amplified its impact.
  • Citation: Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010).
Click to expand...
That has been common in recent times, since the 8-3 split, rebukes have been regular, and largely for the same reasons cited above
 
Damocles said:
That is what the Supreme Court is for. In the past some things were ruled unconstitutional, and states in the 5th District would have to follow that ruling while others would not... Until the Supreme Court made a final ruling on it it would continue that way. If the SCOTUS upheld it then it applied to everyone, if they overturned it, it applied to none.
Click to expand...
Don’t believe so, this is going to lead to a patchwork application of Federal law, and not just birthright citizenship.

They punted, and I would say it was cause they didn’t want to have to deal with the issue of birthright citizenship, Kavanaugh even criticized the move knowing it will be back infront of them shortly
 
Damocles said:
I think they are trying to get them to understand that you cannot do a nationwide injunction from a district court, you can do the injunction for your district, but you are not the overseer of the nation in a district court. Slapping their hands, basically. This is the second one in the same vein... First with district court trying to rule on something happening in a different district w/folks being sent to El Salvador from Texas, now with this...
Click to expand...
I disagree with that policy, the nation should have one constitution. If a district court decides one thing, the courts should act quickly to address the issue and resolve it. The Supreme Court should take more cases and work more efficiently to solve such controversies.

This issue could have been solved this term nationwide. It should be, there is confusion across the land. People do not know where they stand and its different in different parts of the Unites States. There are 80 year olds who have lived in the US all there lives who do not know if they are still citizens.
 
archives said:
Don’t believe so, this is going to lead to a patchwork application of Federal law, and not just birthright citizenship.

They punted, and I would say it was cause they didn’t want to have to deal with the issue of birthright citizenship, Kavanaugh even criticized the move knowing it will be back infront of them shortly
Click to expand...
Which is, again, exactly how it worked in the past, it is only recently that district courts tried to make their rulings for the entire nation. The SCOTUS is flat telling them, "no"...

This is what is called the "Circuit Split" and often causes the SCOTUS to settle the law. Here's some examples of just such rulings from the past.

Examples of Circuit Splits Leading to SCOTUS Rulings​


  1. Same-Sex Marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015)
    • Issue: Constitutionality of state bans on same-sex marriage.
    • Circuit Split:
      • The 6th Circuit (covering Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, Tennessee) upheld state bans on same-sex marriage, ruling they did not violate the Constitution (DeBoer v. Snyder, 2014).
      • In contrast, the 4th, 7th, 9th, and 10th Circuits struck down similar bans, finding them unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses (e.g., Bostic v. Schaefer in the 4th Circuit, 2014; Kitchen v. Herbert in the 10th Circuit, 2014).
    • SCOTUS Resolution: In Obergefell v. Hodges (576 U.S. 644), the Supreme Court resolved the split, ruling 5-4 that state bans on same-sex marriage were unconstitutional, establishing a nationwide right to same-sex marriage.
    • Why It Happened: The circuit split created a patchwork where same-sex marriage was legal in some states but not others, necessitating a definitive Supreme Court ruling.
  2. Affordable Care Act’s Individual Mandate (NFIB v. Sebelius, 2012)
    • Issue: Whether the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate (requiring individuals to purchase health insurance) was constitutional under the Commerce Clause or as a tax.
    • Circuit Split:
      • The 6th Circuit upheld the mandate as constitutional under the Commerce Clause (Thomas More Law Center v. Obama, 2011).
      • The 11th Circuit struck it down, ruling it exceeded Congress’s Commerce Clause authority (Florida v. HHS, 2011).
      • The 4th Circuit avoided ruling on the merits, dismissing a challenge on procedural grounds (Virginia ex rel. Cuccinelli v. Sebelius, 2011).
    • SCOTUS Resolution: In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (567 U.S. 519), the Supreme Court upheld the mandate 5-4, but as a valid exercise of Congress’s taxing power, not the Commerce Clause, resolving the split.
    • Why It Happened: Differing circuit interpretations of Congress’s authority created uncertainty about the ACA’s core provision, prompting SCOTUS to clarify.
  3. Second Amendment and Gun Rights (District of Columbia v. Heller, 2008)
    • Issue: Whether a complete ban on handgun possession in the home violated the Second Amendment.
    • Circuit Split:
      • The D.C. Circuit (not a numbered circuit, covering Washington, D.C.) struck down D.C.’s handgun ban, ruling it violated an individual’s Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms (Parker v. District of Columbia, 2007).
      • The 9th Circuit, in earlier cases like Silveira v. Lockyer (2002), upheld restrictive gun laws, endorsing a “collective rights” view of the Second Amendment tied to militia service, not individual self-defense.
    • SCOTUS Resolution: In District of Columbia v. Heller (554 U.S. 570), the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms for self-defense, striking down D.C.’s ban and resolving the interpretive split.
    • Why It Happened: The D.C. Circuit’s individual-rights ruling clashed with other circuits’ collective rights interpretations, requiring SCOTUS to define the Second Amendment’s scope.
  4. Religious Freedom and Contraceptive Mandate (Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 2014)
    • Issue: Whether the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) for closely held corporations.
    • Circuit Split:
      • The 10th Circuit ruled that for-profit corporations like Hobby Lobby could claim religious exemptions under RFRA, striking down the mandate as applied to them (Hobby Lobby Stores v. Sebelius, 2013).
      • The 3rd Circuit upheld the mandate, denying that corporations could exercise religious rights under RFRA (Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius, 2013).
    • SCOTUS Resolution: In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (573 U.S. 682), the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that closely held corporations could be exempt from the mandate under RFRA if it substantially burdened their religious beliefs.
    • Why It Happened: The split between circuits on whether corporations could claim religious protections created inconsistent application of federal law.
 
If we didn't have perverted trumpanzees including themselves in the process,

now would be the time to tear up the no longer functioning constitution

and do a page one rewrite.

I strongly suspect that culturally disparate regions will need their own,
thus leaving the present republic to history.

How long are you willing to tolerate this bullshit?
Does it seem to be getting better or wore?
 
archives said:
Given we have twelve Federal Judicial Districts doesn’t that mean each district could have a different understanding on what is legal and not legal? They can revoke birthright citizenship in some Districts but not in others? And similar situations enforcing other policies halted by a District Federal Court?
Click to expand...
NO
 
Last edited:
Damocles said:
Which is, again, exactly how it worked in the past, it is only recently that district courts tried to make their rulings for the entire nation. The SCOTUS is flat telling them, "no"...

This is what is called the "Circuit Split" and often causes the SCOTUS to settle the law. Here's some examples of just such rulings from the past.

Examples of Circuit Splits Leading to SCOTUS Rulings​


  1. Same-Sex Marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015)
    • Issue: Constitutionality of state bans on same-sex marriage.
    • Circuit Split:
      • The 6th Circuit (covering Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, Tennessee) upheld state bans on same-sex marriage, ruling they did not violate the Constitution (DeBoer v. Snyder, 2014).
      • In contrast, the 4th, 7th, 9th, and 10th Circuits struck down similar bans, finding them unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses (e.g., Bostic v. Schaefer in the 4th Circuit, 2014; Kitchen v. Herbert in the 10th Circuit, 2014).
    • SCOTUS Resolution: In Obergefell v. Hodges (576 U.S. 644), the Supreme Court resolved the split, ruling 5-4 that state bans on same-sex marriage were unconstitutional, establishing a nationwide right to same-sex marriage.
    • Why It Happened: The circuit split created a patchwork where same-sex marriage was legal in some states but not others, necessitating a definitive Supreme Court ruling.
  2. Affordable Care Act’s Individual Mandate (NFIB v. Sebelius, 2012)
    • Issue: Whether the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate (requiring individuals to purchase health insurance) was constitutional under the Commerce Clause or as a tax.
    • Circuit Split:
      • The 6th Circuit upheld the mandate as constitutional under the Commerce Clause (Thomas More Law Center v. Obama, 2011).
      • The 11th Circuit struck it down, ruling it exceeded Congress’s Commerce Clause authority (Florida v. HHS, 2011).
      • The 4th Circuit avoided ruling on the merits, dismissing a challenge on procedural grounds (Virginia ex rel. Cuccinelli v. Sebelius, 2011).
    • SCOTUS Resolution: In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (567 U.S. 519), the Supreme Court upheld the mandate 5-4, but as a valid exercise of Congress’s taxing power, not the Commerce Clause, resolving the split.
    • Why It Happened: Differing circuit interpretations of Congress’s authority created uncertainty about the ACA’s core provision, prompting SCOTUS to clarify.
  3. Second Amendment and Gun Rights (District of Columbia v. Heller, 2008)
    • Issue: Whether a complete ban on handgun possession in the home violated the Second Amendment.
    • Circuit Split:
      • The D.C. Circuit (not a numbered circuit, covering Washington, D.C.) struck down D.C.’s handgun ban, ruling it violated an individual’s Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms (Parker v. District of Columbia, 2007).
      • The 9th Circuit, in earlier cases like Silveira v. Lockyer (2002), upheld restrictive gun laws, endorsing a “collective rights” view of the Second Amendment tied to militia service, not individual self-defense.
    • SCOTUS Resolution: In District of Columbia v. Heller (554 U.S. 570), the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms for self-defense, striking down D.C.’s ban and resolving the interpretive split.
    • Why It Happened: The D.C. Circuit’s individual-rights ruling clashed with other circuits’ collective rights interpretations, requiring SCOTUS to define the Second Amendment’s scope.
  4. Religious Freedom and Contraceptive Mandate (Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 2014)
    • Issue: Whether the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) for closely held corporations.
    • Circuit Split:
      • The 10th Circuit ruled that for-profit corporations like Hobby Lobby could claim religious exemptions under RFRA, striking down the mandate as applied to them (Hobby Lobby Stores v. Sebelius, 2013).
      • The 3rd Circuit upheld the mandate, denying that corporations could exercise religious rights under RFRA (Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius, 2013).
    • SCOTUS Resolution: In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (573 U.S. 682), the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that closely held corporations could be exempt from the mandate under RFRA if it substantially burdened their religious beliefs.
    • Why It Happened: The split between circuits on whether corporations could claim religious protections created inconsistent application of federal law.
Click to expand...
So Trump is going to be happy with part of the country following his umpteen EO’s and the other sections not? He’ll take it as a personal insult
 
Jarod said:
They made no ruling on birthright citizenship. Dumb shit.
Click to expand...

How would you know?

You don't even grasp the basic structure of the courts. What the SCOTUS ruled is that district courts cannot impose nationwide injections. With your absolute lack of grasp of even the most basic issues of law, you don't grasp that this means seditious district courts have no power to impugn of interfer with the constitutional duties and powers of the President.

In the case of Anchor Babies - because you are right that it is not about "birthright citizenship" as expressed in the 14th - but as for Anchor Babies - the party cannot judge shop until they find one corrupt enough to file an injunction to disrupt the functioning of the United States Government.

Trump's EO stands.

And Jarod, take a basic law class, seriously. The level of cringe from your abject ignorance is an embarrassment.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
sarcastic-sarcasm-memes.jpg
Click to expand...

Not sure why you think attacking me is a wise idea..
 
TOP said:
It looks like the administration will prevail... A good day for us...
Click to expand...
Here's one for you to ponder, sweetpea; how on God's green earth did Melania Trump path to citizenship warrant a “Einstein visa” as an immigrant who's only "extraordinary ability" was some nude modeling pics and subsequently marrying the Orange Oaf?

The reading audience will give you ample time to research the situation before answering.
 
archives said:
So Trump is going to be happy with part of the country following his umpteen EO’s and the other sections not? He’ll take it as a personal insult
Click to expand...
What he's going to be happy about is it will bring it up to the SCOTUS to make a ruling, and keeping the district courts rulings where they belong.

It's like you read only a portion of what someone says, pretend the past never happened, and then start asking a question that has already been answered. Actually, it's not "like" that, it's exactly that.
 
Damocles said:
What he's going to be happy about is it will bring it up to the SCOTUS to make a ruling, and keeping the district courts rulings where they belong.

It's like you read only a portion of what someone says, pretend the past never happened, and then start asking a question that has already been answered. Actually, it's not "like" that, it's exactly that.
Click to expand...
So YOU are happy with the SCOTUS ruling that your feckless Cheeto Jeezus can commit a crime so long as it entails his executive duties. You're okay with his EO that violates due process and then IGNORES a direct ruling by the same SCOTUS to correct his error? And now you're going to be a little coward like the SCOTUS and try to downplay (yet another) attempt to deconstruct parts of the Constitution.

You disgust me at times, Damo. You do so because for years you keep trying to portray yourself as some type of objective centrist. That's the one good thing that has come out of the second coming of Cheeto Jeezus ... he has given permission for the mask to come off of America's congenital racism, bigotry, misogyny, theocracy and class/caste mindset. Hopefully, all will know where they stand ... and act accordingly.

P.S.; care to pick up the gauntlet for this question? https://www.justplainpolitics.com/threads/birthright-citizenship.234770/post-6541604
 
Last edited:
Taichiliberal said:
So YOU are happy with the SCOTUS ruling that your feckless Cheeto Jeezus can commit a crime so long as it entails his executive duties. You're okay with his EO that violates due process and then IGNORES a direct ruling by the same SCOTUS to correct his error? And now you're going to be a little coward like the SCOTUS and try to downplay (yet another) attempt to deconstruct parts of the Constitution.

You disgust me at times, Damo. You do so because for years you keep trying to portray yourself as some type of objective centrist. That's the one good thing that has come out of the second coming of Cheeto Jeezus ... he has given permission for the mask to come off of America's congenital racism, bigotry, misogyny, theocracy and class/caste mindset. Hopefully, all will know where they stand ... and act accordingly.

P.S.; care to pick up the gauntlet for this question? https://www.justplainpolitics.com/threads/birthright-citizenship.234770/post-6541604
Click to expand...
I have never "tried to portray myself" as a "centrist", nor do I believe in your sky daddy, let alone a "cheeto" version of it. I could not care even one miniscule bit less how you might "feel" about anything at all, let alone about me.
 
Uncensored2008 said:
How would you know?

You don't even grasp the basic structure of the courts. What the SCOTUS ruled is that district courts cannot impose nationwide injections. With your absolute lack of grasp of even the most basic issues of law, you don't grasp that this means seditious district courts have no power to impugn of interfer with the constitutional duties and powers of the President.

In the case of Anchor Babies - because you are right that it is not about "birthright citizenship" as expressed in the 14th - but as for Anchor Babies - the party cannot judge shop until they find one corrupt enough to file an injunction to disrupt the functioning of the United States Government.

Trump's EO stands.

And Jarod, take a basic law class, seriously. The level of cringe from your abject ignorance is an embarrassment.
Click to expand...
Indeed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top