LawTalkingGuy

If you're talking about the Haitian case, the judge lifted her stay as SCOTUS provided. She just kept the litigation going.

quote:

---

So when do the DemCommie judges get the memo that they’re beholden to SCOTUS rulings?

---

Give me an example.

There are usually ways for a judge to distinguish their case from certain precedent, or to argue over statutory interpretation. But here we have a clear statement from SCOTUS on how to interpret the Constitution, and there is no wiggle room.

Do y'all realize that 5 out of 9 SCOTUS justices just confirmed birthright citizenship in the 14th Amendment applies to anyone born in the US except for the children of foreign ministers and children botn in Indian reservations?

There are no other exceptions. The Court fully considered and rejected all arguments relating to illegal aliens, birthright tourism, and the like.

We don't have to agree with the SCOTUS opinion, but none of those 5 justices are going to change their mind anytime soon.

Wait for at least one of those 5 to leave the bench, or try to amend the Constitution. There is no other way.

Okay, I guess you could try packing the Court.

Im a little surprised the current status of tariffs has not been discussed more in the news. I guess after the original IEEPA tariffs were struck down, it all got less interesting?

IEEPA tariffs: Customs and Border Patrol have worked out the technical issues, and refunds are being issued, with interest.

Section 122 tariffs: The global 10% tariffs were ruled improper by the CIT in June, on the grounds that the conditions for enacting section 122 did not exist. Those tariffs expired last Friday, July 24. But, sometime in the next year the Federal Circuit will decide whether refunds have to be issued on those tariffs.

Section 301 tariffs: New tariffs under section 301 went into effect Saturday Morning. 59 countries and the EU face tariffs of 10 to 12.5% based on a USTR finding that all of them are violating anti- forced labor standards.

Section 301 was always Trump's silver bullet. It gives POTUS very broad tariff power, but only after the USTR provides a report on unfair trade practices by a foreign nation. I'm not convinced that potential forced labor is the type of unfair trade practice the statute covers.

Lawsuits have already been filed in the CIT, of course. These tariffs, though, will be very difficult to strike down without the Court second-guessing issues within the discretion of the Executive branch, which the courts cannot do.

So, the lawsuits essentially attack the USTR report as insufficient under the statute. I dont think the report complies with the section 301 requirements, but Im not sure if a court can strike down the tariffs on that basis. So, its up to the CIT once again.

quote:

---

Trump did what he could. But, it will be running out pretty soon.

---

There is a huge difference between "American Exceptionalism", which was a prominent factor in Reagan's administration, and "America First", which Trump promotes.

"American Exceptionalism" recognizes that America is qualitatively different in being founded on the ideas of liberty, democracy, and the recognition of natural human rights, AND that America should be a leader in promoting and exporting those ideas abroad.

"America First" rejects the second part of the above.

quote:

---

It never had to be massive. 2020 was strategic. Enough fraud to give certain states to Biden.

---

I would call tens, or even hundreds, of thousands of votes in 6 different states "massive"

quote:

---

Places like California and New York are over represented because of illegals counted in the census.

---

So are Texas and Florida.

Pew research says removing undocumented immigrants from the count in 2020 would have cost CA, FL, and TX one congressional seat each. Those seats would move to AL, MN, and OH.

NY lost a seat in 2020 anyway and would have lost just 1 seat even if illegals weren't counted.

I haven't seen ant early estimates on the 2030 census.

quote:

---

These rulings won't stand on appeal.

---

The 11th Circuit is quite conservative, but they are also very serious when it comes to issues of attorney misconduct, and the Court's authority to control it.

I think the only real issue here is whether the judge has the legal authority to re-open the case to issue sanctions. I think the 11th circuit upholds it, and SCOTUS won't take it up.

Wait, I thought the US didnt need the Strait open? What happened to getting the rest of the world to step up?

I guess this is another "you break it, you bought it" situation.

quote:

---

They they would lose their citizenship permanently.

---

Nice fantasy, but Congress doesnt have the power to strip someone of their birthright citizenship. Its like, a birthright or something.