- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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
re: SCOTUS day - 3 boxes per SCOTUSBLOG
Posted on 6/23/26 at 9:16 am to WeeWee
Posted on 6/23/26 at 9:16 am to WeeWee
quote:
I have a feeling that SCOTUS is going to say Trump's birthright citizenship EO is unconstitutional.
Yeah, they have to give the Dems a win or they'll cry about bias, white supremacy, and be calling to stack the court etc etc etc.
1
Posted on 6/23/26 at 9:19 am to rt3
Posted on 6/23/26 at 9:21 am to Ingeniero
Posted on 6/23/26 at 9:22 am to rt3
Is that it for the day? Sucks to be the homeowner that lost his house over $2200.
Posted on 6/23/26 at 9:24 am to BigPerm30
quote:
SCOTUS rules with the commies today.
My reading is they ruled a company can't be sued simply for making a product the Chinese government then used for surveillance. Seems like a good ruling. Ruling otherwise would have set a precedent that could have been used to sue gun manufacturers imo.
This post was edited on 6/23/26 at 9:37 am
Posted on 6/23/26 at 9:24 am to HubbaBubba
Looks like the R numbers are in... so that's all for today... just those 4
ETA: 5... didn't see Lau was today... but that's all... those 5
ETA: 5... didn't see Lau was today... but that's all... those 5
This post was edited on 6/23/26 at 9:36 am
Posted on 6/23/26 at 9:26 am to WeeWee
quote:
I have a feeling that SCOTUS is going to say Trump's birthright citizenship EO is unconstitutional.
Would be the wrong ruling, but I agree with you that this is likely how they find.
Posted on 6/23/26 at 9:27 am to cajunangelle
The Lau decision seems correct to me. Essentially, the border officers turned this guy away for re-entry to the US because he was a green card holder with an ongoing criminal case. SCOTUS says they can do that even if he hasn't been found guilty yet. Am I reading that correctly? Because that sounds logical.
ETA: I guess turned away isn't the proper terminology, but allowed him to physically enter without admitting him to remain permanently
ETA: I guess turned away isn't the proper terminology, but allowed him to physically enter without admitting him to remain permanently
This post was edited on 6/23/26 at 9:29 am
Posted on 6/23/26 at 9:27 am to BTROleMisser
quote:
Yeah, they have to give the Dems a win or they'll cry about bias, white supremacy, and be calling to stack the court etc etc etc.
As opposed to their current tactics of peace, love and coexistence?
Posted on 6/23/26 at 9:27 am to rt3
They're always going to drag out the most impactful decisions last, aren't they?
Posted on 6/23/26 at 9:28 am to udtiger
More from Turley:
...We have the final opinion. It is Blanche v. Lau by Justice Thomas. Another 6-3 decision dealing with the burden of proof for the government in removing a lawful permanent resident. Court holds that federal law does not require a border officer to have clear and convincing evidence that a green card holder has committed a crime involving moral turpitude. supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf…
...We have the final opinion. It is Blanche v. Lau by Justice Thomas. Another 6-3 decision dealing with the burden of proof for the government in removing a lawful permanent resident. Court holds that federal law does not require a border officer to have clear and convincing evidence that a green card holder has committed a crime involving moral turpitude. supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf…
Posted on 6/23/26 at 9:30 am to HubbaBubba
quote:
Sucks to be the homeowner that lost his house over $2200.
Good case study for the argument that you never actually own anything the government charges you property taxes for owning.
Posted on 6/23/26 at 9:30 am to Sams Crow
quote:
Court holds that federal law does not require a border officer to have clear and convincing evidence that a green card holder has committed a crime involving moral turpitude.
Good call
Posted on 6/23/26 at 9:32 am to hogcard1964
Posted on 6/23/26 at 9:35 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I have a feeling that SCOTUS is going to say Trump's birthright citizenship EO is unconstitutional.
Heavy betting favorite side
At least it will make you happy.
Posted on 6/23/26 at 9:37 am to KCT
All 5 decisions today were 6-3 along ideological lines, correct?
Posted on 6/23/26 at 9:37 am to Sams Crow
quote:
More from Turley:
...We have the final opinion. It is Blanche v. Lau by Justice Thomas. Another 6-3 decision dealing with the burden of proof for the government in removing a lawful permanent resident. Court holds that federal law does not require a border officer to have clear and convincing evidence that a green card holder has committed a crime involving moral turpitude. supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf
this may have bearing on the Haitian TPS case
Posted on 6/23/26 at 9:40 am to imjustafatkid
quote:More people would play the lottery if winning got you (and your legal spouse) a lifetime exemption from paying taxes. Just throwing that out there for a politician to pick it up and run with it.
Good case study for the argument that you never actually own anything the government charges you property taxes for owning.
This post was edited on 6/23/26 at 9:41 am
Posted on 6/23/26 at 9:40 am to rt3
quote:
All 5 decisions today were 6-3 along ideological lines, correct?
I don't know. I hope so. If so, that would portend good news.
Posted on 6/23/26 at 9:43 am to KCT
quote:
I don't know. I hope so. If so, that would portend good news.
The fricking GOP appointees stuck together on siomething?
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News