- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Trump asks Supreme Court to review ban on birthright citizenship
Posted on 3/13/25 at 3:24 pm
Posted on 3/13/25 at 3:24 pm
LINK
quote:
The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court on Thursday to intervene and allow a narrow version of his executive order banning birthright citizenship to move forward, challenging three nationwide injunctions brought in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state.
Judges in those states immediately moved to block President Donald Trump’s order banning birthright citizenship, which he signed on his first day in office.
All three courts blocked the ruling nationwide – something lawyers for the Trump administration argued in their Supreme Court filing is overly broad.
In the court filing Thursday, acting U.S. Solicitor General Sarah Harris said the courts had gone too far, and asked the Supreme Court justices to limit the scope of the rulings to cover only individuals directly impacted by the relevant courts.
quote:
"These cases – which involve challenges to the President's January 20, 2025 Executive Order concerning birthright citizenship – raise important constitutional questions with major ramifications for securing the border," Harris wrote.
"But at this stage, the government comes to this Court with a 'modest' request: while the parties litigate weighty merits questions, the Court should 'restrict the scope' of multiple preliminary injunctions that 'purpor[t] to cover every person in the country,' limiting those injunctions to parties actually within the courts' power."
9
Posted on 3/13/25 at 3:37 pm to Major Dutch Schaefer
Is this to pace the way for President Musk?
Posted on 3/13/25 at 3:41 pm to Major Dutch Schaefer
As much as I would like this to be overturned, this is the one I feel like is the biggest pipe dream
Posted on 3/13/25 at 3:45 pm to Henry Jones Jr
quote:
As much as I would like this to be overturned, this is the one I feel like is the biggest pipe dream
This is pound for pound the dumbest thing about the United States. Jump a wall and fart out a kid on US soil and it’s a citizen?
That sounds retarded because it’s retarded.
Posted on 3/13/25 at 3:46 pm to Friendly Satan
quote:Why are you so dumb?
this to pace the way for President Musk?
Posted on 3/13/25 at 3:46 pm to Friendly Satan
quote:
Is this to pace the way for President Musk?
Take a civics class and try again.
Posted on 3/13/25 at 3:46 pm to Major Dutch Schaefer
Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavabaw will rule with the Trump administration on this case.
Conservative justices AOC and John Roberts will rule against the Trump administration with the three liberal judges, Kagan, Sopaipilla, and Jackson.
Conservative justices AOC and John Roberts will rule against the Trump administration with the three liberal judges, Kagan, Sopaipilla, and Jackson.
Posted on 3/13/25 at 3:47 pm to Major Dutch Schaefer
quote:
ban on birthright citizenship
Is this gonna be the new “Muslim Ban”?
Posted on 3/13/25 at 3:48 pm to Friendly Satan
quote:
Is this to pace the way for President Musk?
No, it in fact aims to move the bar in the exact opposite direction
Posted on 3/13/25 at 3:49 pm to GumboPot
quote:
Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavabaw will rule with the Trump administration on this case.
I would not include Kavabaugh at all.
Posted on 3/13/25 at 4:05 pm to Major Dutch Schaefer
Don't worry ACB and John Roberts will come through.
Posted on 3/13/25 at 4:10 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:how hard will your peen get if the Justices back the injunction?
SlowFlowPro
Posted on 3/13/25 at 4:17 pm to SlayTime
quote:The question is not whether it is good policy. I personally think it is very bad policy.
This is pound for pound the dumbest thing about the United States. Jump a wall and fart out a kid on US soil and it’s a citizen? That sounds retarded because it’s retarded.
The question is “what does the Constitution say,” and it takes a VERY strained reading to come up with anything other than “birthright citizenship”
You can either be a Textualist or a Democrat. Sometimes the text just does not produce what you consider to be the “best policy.“
This post was edited on 3/13/25 at 4:24 pm
Posted on 3/13/25 at 4:18 pm to GumboPot
quote:No, they will not.
Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavabaw will rule with the Trump administration on this case.
8:1 with Thomas all by his lonesome.
Posted on 3/13/25 at 4:20 pm to AggieHank86
Would this ruin your illegal harboring operation you run in TX?
Posted on 3/13/25 at 4:21 pm to SuperSaint
quote:You act as if any knowledgeable attorney would be surprised, when this case comes down exactly as everyone (who knows anything about the Constitution) is predicting.
SlowFlowPro(, …) how hard will your peen get if the Justices back the injunction
Posted on 3/13/25 at 4:25 pm to AggieHank86
Hank, me and SS go way back. He was just giving me shite on the bro level not on the legal analysis level. We are almost eskimo bros about 3x over.
Posted on 3/13/25 at 4:28 pm to SlowFlowPro
: 
:
:Posted on 3/13/25 at 4:29 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
The question is “what does the Constitution say,” and it takes a VERY strained reading to come up with anything other than “birthright citizenship”
If only there were a way to ratify retarded shite in the Constitution.
Posted on 3/13/25 at 4:30 pm to SlayTime
quote:The language in question was ratified more than 150 years ago, by the usual processes.
If only there were a way to ratify retarded shite in the Constitution.
This post was edited on 3/13/25 at 4:35 pm
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News