Favorite team:South Carolina 
Location:Nola
Biography:
Interests:
Occupation:
Number of Posts:4508
Registered on:12/2/2012
Online Status:Not Online

Recent Posts

Message
Friend of ours' father was found dead while hiking in England. It's hot
Yeah it's that the judges are nakedly partisan :rolleyes:

Look, if you bring a suit, judges are going to rule on the merits/facts. If something contravenes the law, even if it's something that 'should be', we're still a nation of laws.

Congress should be doing something, anything and they're not. That's the problem. That and ideologues running the show at the white house who don't have any strategy of how to implement changes rather than just preaching about how things ought to be and making declarative EOs that contravene the existing law.
quote:

Trump is being blocked at every turn.


Then he should hire better lawyers. Trumps EOs are written poorly with little legal research. They are expressions of what 'should be' in the admin's eyes without any actual legal strategy on how to get there.

Happened to the muslim ban, tariffs, birthright. He keeps getting shot in the foot by his own shitty lawyers.

re: SCOTUS to hear AR-15 case

Posted by atlgamecockman on 6/30/26 at 3:55 pm to
Actually I think they'd probably point out how it's always conservatives wanting to ban books for some reason.
Funny how the first part of the Second Amendment never appears in these convos.
Ideologues like Miller weasel their way into government

Ideologues don't care about law or process, just the message or how things 'should be'

Don't do legal research, write shitty EOs or laws that are obviously destined to fail.

SCOTUS strikes down said terrible legal reasoning

Poli board complains and drinks the ideological kool aid, only slightly more intense in flavor <-- we are here
quote:

I don't know how the original polling was conducted.



Did you look at the sources used by the AI? Do they have bias? Are you going to do any further research and critical thinking to come to a nuanced, studied conclusion?

This is the real threat of AI manifest. "I'm going to ask a machine something and not think for myself."

I said this in the other thread but here's what's going on and hopefully a clear explanation for this board.

Trump attracts ideologues and sycophants like Miller. Miller is so blinded by hatred of brown people that he ignores any sort of real legal analysis to actually effectuate change in a meaningful way. Instead, he asks shitty lawyers (there are precious few good lawyers left for this admin, since no good lawyers want to hitch their trailer to this loser admin) to come up with something that might (won't) stand up to legal analysis based on the same type of ideological themes seen on this board.

Examples: 'we're being invaded by Venezuelans!' 'It's an emergency! We need the tariffs!' 'migrants are scum'

Tariffs, Muslim ban, BRC, etc.

The problem with this is that while much of this board and MAGA loves the EOs, they inevitably fail because shitty lawyers pick shitty reasoning based on shitty ideological blanket statements instead of governing with any sort of decorum or strategy.

They are just as ideologically captured as the left is. Populism is a hell of a drug.

re: SCOTUS Opinion Day - June 30

Posted by atlgamecockman on 6/30/26 at 11:41 am to
quote:

According to this court, now, that person is a citizen of the United States.


This court and 250 years of precedent lol Alito tilting at windmills

re: NPR frickup

Posted by atlgamecockman on 6/30/26 at 10:30 am to
Possible that he actually is going to retire later today and someone just false started.

Kennedy didn't announce from the bench but later on that day announced his retirement.
quote:

It would have been a single, but they went for the home run and struck out.


Par for the course with the level of attorneys working for this admin. Always going for big swings to give some red meat to the MAGA base and stroke the ravenous ego of the President.

Little legal analysis is done on how to actually effectuate change, and you lose at SCOTUS. Tariffs were much the same. That's what happens when you only get sycophants working for you, you lose out on expertise.
quote:

So did Kavanaugh open the door for Congress to act? I know they don't want to but the water is at a boil with overwhelming support for ending this shite.



They could always have acted. he's just reminding them.

re: Subject to the Jurisdiction

Posted by atlgamecockman on 6/30/26 at 10:05 am to
quote:

The Citizenship Clause’s key phrase—“subject to the jurisdiction”—refers to the power of the United States to govern those within
its territory. N. Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language 732 (def. “jurisdiction”); J. Worcester, Dictionary of the English
Language 1435 (def. “subject”). The scope of that power was settled
largely by Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 7 Cranch 116, where
Chief Justice Marshall explained that “jurisdiction” referred to “the
full and complete power of a nation within its own territories,” “susceptible of no limitation not imposed” by the nation itself. Id., at 136.
The narrow exceptions to jurisdiction arose where exercising jurisdiction would “degrade the dignity” of “foreign sovereigns”—most frequently in the case of “foreign ministers.” Id., at 136–139. But private
individuals who traveled to the United States for “business or caprice”
were “amenable to the jurisdiction of the country.” Id., at 144. Children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily
present here are thus subject to the Nation’s jurisdiction.
misreported - NPR has already deleted the story. USSC PIO has denied this rumor.
USSC has denied this rumor
quote:

Yes, I'm aware courts are wrong about this.



You get called hard headed a lot don't you
quote:

and subject to the jurisdiction thereof



quote:

The Citizenship Clause’s key phrase—“subject to the jurisdiction”—refers to the power of the United States to govern those within
its territory. N. Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language 732 (def. “jurisdiction”); J. Worcester, Dictionary of the English
Language 1435 (def. “subject”). The scope of that power was settled
largely by Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 7 Cranch 116, where
Chief Justice Marshall explained that “jurisdiction” referred to “the
full and complete power of a nation within its own territories,” “susceptible of no limitation not imposed” by the nation itself. Id., at 136.
The narrow exceptions to jurisdiction arose where exercising jurisdiction would “degrade the dignity” of “foreign sovereigns”—most frequently in the case of “foreign ministers.” Id., at 136–139. But private
individuals who traveled to the United States for “business or caprice”
were “amenable to the jurisdiction of the country.” Id., at 144. Children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily
present here are thus subject to the Nation’s jurisdiction.
Why didn't Trump put you on the court instead of Kav or ACB?
Arguments for limiting birthright citizenship to those domiciled
in the United States fail. These arguments err in their definition of
“allegiance,” contending that natural allegiance was no longer sufficient for citizenship and that some greater quantum of allegiance
(based on domicile) was required. There is scant evidence for this dramatically revisionist view; sources from 1776 to 1868 defined “allegiance by birth” just as the British did—as “the tie or duty” owed by
one who is “born within the dominions and under the protection of a
particular sovereign.”
quote:

You should be curious how Roberts did that. The plain language of the Constitution does not grant birthright citizenship.



Lol go read the opinion, it's pretty clear it does.