JimEverett

I guarantee Rick Scott has received more than Thune from those groups.

Wonder if the Democrat Party will once again force out a candidate nominted by democratic vote in favor of a candidate decided by party insiders. Gotta save democracy.

I agree with you, for the most part, on the election issue. From the outside it looks like pure retaliation against New Orleans and its voters.

But this indictment seems absurd, although I dont know all the details.

There are cases working their way up the ladder that challenge the ability of states to allow biological males to compete against biological females under Title IX. So, most likely we will see that case before SCOTUS in a few years.

I agree, except I think the Democrats should walk away with wins this cycle. The mood of the country is nagative. A lot of economic uncertainty.
The problem with Democrats is that they offer no plan. Or, the plans they do offer are crazy - like taxing unrealized gains. If they offered up some sensible ideas on economic issues I think you would get into blue wave type territory. But I dont see that happening.

quote:

---

Were slaves, brought here against their will, permanently domiciled here? Ultimately, that's why the "domicile" question fails. If anyone could argue they weren't domiciled and allegent to the US it would be the very people the amendment was designed to protect.

---

Yes, I think slaves were permanently domiciled here. Just like Wong Kim ARk's parents were permanently domiciled here. And I think most illegals are permanently domiciled here (there are clearly exeptions). But more to the point - people here on visas are clearly, no possible denial, NOT permanently domiciled here. That is the class you go after via EO and the only class you go after.

quote:

---

Indeed. If people here illegally are not domiciled, how can they be deported? From where? They aren't here.

---

I am not sure what the dissent is saying because I have not read it. But imo the best way to have gotten any part of the EO upheld is to argue that illegals are domiciled in the U.S., and are permanently so (if that matters). People here on temporary visas are not domiciled and thus any child born to them are not citizens.
This could fit within the framework of Wong Kim Ark. But the majority apparently gives an even more expansive view of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" than is explicitly stated in Wong Kim Ark's holding.

Yes - that wa the only way you were going to get a majority to get any wiggle room, because a majority was not going to overturn Kim Ark (or whatever the case name is), even moreso on just a EO. But you could fit this idea into the Kim Ark case. No doubt that was why the EO was drafted the way it was as well.

ACB cannot make law. This is on Congress.

Damn. I thought this one would be a win