Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 hour ago, chainsaw said:

Do you think we'll at least get to see Arch lead the Horns to back to back undefeated seasons and national titles from the concentration camps?

Nobody is set up to win National Titles in the Stephen Miller Era like BYU. They're going to feast.

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 2
Posted
40 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Pretty good explainer on NPR a little while ago. Basically

these nationwide injunctions in general are a big problem for both sides (!!) 

this was the dumbest case to pick to rule on them because it most likely is a slam dunk to certify as a class action (and should happen soon)

all signs point to Trump losing when birthright citizenship ruling on merits comes (arguments begin in October)

very possible someone born with birthright citizenship gets deported if they are in a state not currently suing the administration and proceedings happen before SCOTUS issue ruling on the actual EO (but apparently something in this ruling put in by ACB makes that much less likely)

experts were Painter (ethics lawyer for W’s WH and some retired lady federal judge whose name I didn’t catch 

I think the only nit I would pick with this summary is that if the current case gets amended to assert a class action the district court in fairly short order could certify a class or perhaps issue a new injunction based on a proposed class (not sure if court has power to enjoin for entire prospective class prior to certification) to prevent anyone from being deported under EO before current injunction expires (which I thought I heard wouldn't be for another 30 days).

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
56 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Pretty good explainer on NPR a little while ago. Basically

these nationwide injunctions in general are a big problem for both sides (!!) 

this was the dumbest case to pick to rule on them because it most likely is a slam dunk to certify as a class action (and should happen soon)

all signs point to Trump losing when birthright citizenship ruling on merits comes (arguments begin in October)

very possible someone born with birthright citizenship gets deported if they are in a state not currently suing the administration and proceedings happen before SCOTUS issue ruling on the actual EO (but apparently something in this ruling put in by ACB makes that much less likely)

experts were Painter (ethics lawyer for W’s WH and some retired lady federal judge whose name I didn’t catch 

You’re so cute.

  • Like 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Bateshorn said:

FWIW, I listened to portions of the birthright citizenship case and when they were not discussing injunctions, at least 6, and possibly 7 judges were extremely skeptical of the government’s position. 

Yeah but Barrett loves to sound sane in oral arguments then rule with Alito.

  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 3
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
1 minute ago, tokamak said:

So we're definitely heading toward stripping US citizens of their citizenship, right?

Yup. This where it goes past just the “more tan” Americans. Fucking disgusting but not surprising this court is opening every Pandora’s box imaginable 

  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Sbbruin said:

That cunt Biondi is arguing that “times have changed” and that the framers didn’t intend for birthright citizenship to apply in the way it is being “abused” today.  OK, then let’s apply the same argument to the 2nd amendment.  

I'm honestly waiting for them to tell us the constitution isn't real and everything is made up and the points don't matter

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Sbbruin said:

That cunt Biondi is arguing that “times have changed” and that the framers didn’t intend for birthright citizenship to apply in the way it is being “abused” today.  OK, then let’s apply the same argument to the 2nd amendment.  

Point of order, birthright citizenship arose under the 14th Amendment in about 1870, not the 1789 timeframe of the original Constitution and Bill of Rights.

 

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 2
Posted
1 hour ago, SimonBolivar said:

Nobody is set up to win National Titles in the Stephen Miller Era like BYU. They're going to feast.

Without Samoan converts BYU is gonna drop down to 6-Man

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Point of order, birthright citizenship arose under the 14th Amendment in about 1870, not the 1789 timeframe of the original Constitution and Bill of Rights.

 

More specifically there was debate in the senate about it including immigrants and yes they clearly said as it was being written that it did include immigrants like point blank.

If SCOTUS modifies it in any way it is quite literally a coup.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Point of order, birthright citizenship arose under the 14th Amendment in about 1870, not the 1789 timeframe of the original Constitution and Bill of Rights.

 

Do you think she knows that? 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 2
Posted
1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Point of order, birthright citizenship arose under the 14th Amendment in about 1870, not the 1789 timeframe of the original Constitution and Bill of Rights.

 

Was that before or after the Declaration of Independence?  You know, that beautiful document that ended the Civil War?

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Drool 1
Posted (edited)
35 minutes ago, Sbbruin said:

Was that before or after the Declaration of Independence?  You know, that beautiful document that ended the Civil War?

As funny and evident as this should be, it's a joke that only plays to woke libtards.  Facts, science, history and knowledge are libtard ideals.  Sanity doesn't matter either if the goal is to empower crazy people with personal vendettas to powerful positions.  

The goal isn't maintenance or better performance, and the Fox propaganda machine only serves to dehumanize and authorize crimes against humanity.  The wheels are cranking.  When people start fighting back is when the boot comes down and the last lever is pulled for an authoritarian.  

Think about how the law is enabling a lunatic that doesn't understand America's basic founding and freedom documents, for which blood and lives were shed.  And people voted for this.  

The final stage of freedom appears to be the ability to not give a shit and willfully turn the reigns over to an oppressor, that forefathers fought to escape and conquer.  When people refuse to care or can't be bothered, then ignorance becomes untenable and much more expensive.  And this makes me laugh--we're relying on the 2nd amendment to be wielded by apathetic dipshits that allowed it, voted for it, to happen.  Suddenly, we're going to go from Applebees to troops for freedom as long as there's air-conditioning and a nearby pharmacy for our prescription diabetes meds.  We're fucked proper.  

Edited by Mdhorn
  • Like 1
Posted
3 hours ago, SimonBolivar said:

Nobody is set up to win National Titles in the Stephen Miller Era like BYU. They're going to feast.

The SEC will thrive under Stephen Miller. 

tumblr_ml2vo0hG7S1r4gei2o8_400.gif

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
  • Drool 1
Posted
4 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Point of order, birthright citizenship arose under the 14th Amendment in about 1870, not the 1789 timeframe of the original Constitution and Bill of Rights.

 

Point of order, Bondi and SCOTUS can go fuck themselves.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 2
Posted
19 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Point of order, birthright citizenship arose under the 14th Amendment in about 1870, not the 1789 timeframe of the original Constitution and Bill of Rights.

You don't get to make that argument and lump the Bill of Rights in with the original Constitution.  It's either the original document with no amendments or it's everything.  The year an amendment is enacted should not matter --it's an amendment.

Not that the MAGAts get the subtlety, but for fuck's sake let's at least TRY to be intellectually consistent.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
20 hours ago, tokamak said:

So we're definitely heading toward stripping US citizens of their citizenship, right?

No. If what we decide is the actual definition of a citizen and everyone else was wrong then they never actually were to begin with and you can’t strip something from someone if they never actually had it

Think About It GIF by Identity
/6-3 Majority opinion.

Posted

Loving the implication of the CASA ruling.  Trump can demand that every first-born be sacrificed to appease Stephen Miller’s wrath and unless you live in a lib state it’s happening for at least as long as it takes to certify a class. 
 

America is broken. And the hell of it is that I fundamentally agree that it’s a stretch of judicial power to issue nation-wide injunctions and we are beyond the norm. But there’s also a norm against just issuing facially unconstitutional executive orders. And at this point it’s just 6 people cherry-picking the norms that should continue to apply (and it’s the ones that appease Stephen Miller).

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 3
Posted
On 6/27/2025 at 6:28 PM, austingirl said:

Meanwhile, on Fox News:

image.thumb.png.6000a7c41266937a420ae01290b6fb8a.png

Is KJ allowed to respond to ACB's untethered and completely unhinged reply response to her dissent?    I mean how  exactly is allowing a district judge to issue a TEMPORARY injunction, subject to appeal, in certain circumstances, make a district judge "above the law"? Their decision can, and often is overruled so they obviously not "imperial" or "above the law" just cause they may pause the situation to the status quo.  Does ACB realise that the some branch of government has to get final say about the constitutionality of  laws/orders and,  as per our constitution, that is the judiciary branch??

  • Haha 1
Posted
22 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Loving the implication of the CASA ruling.  Trump can demand that every first-born be sacrificed to appease Stephen Miller’s wrath and unless you live in a lib state it’s happening for at least as long as it takes to certify a class
 

Don't worry, they'll make that impossible too.

Quote

America is broken. And the hell of it is that I fundamentally agree that it’s a stretch of judicial power to issue nation-wide injunctions and we are beyond the norm. But there’s also a norm against just issuing facially unconstitutional executive orders. And at this point it’s just 6 people cherry-picking the norms that should continue to apply (and it’s the ones that appease Stephen Miller).

The dead giveaway was the express exception from their ruling for challenges to agency action. They might as well have simply written "notwithstanding anything to the contrary, Republican district judges may grant nationwide injunctions if a Democrat ever manages to retake the White House and Republican groups challenge anything they try to do." 

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

Don't worry, they'll make that impossible too.

The dead giveaway was the express exception from their ruling for challenges to agency action. They might as well have simply written "notwithstanding anything to the contrary, Republican district judges may grant nationwide injunctions if a Democrat ever manages to retake the White House and Republican groups challenge anything they try to do." 

Such BS.  How is an order issued by an Executive branch agency (which they have ruled is directly in the President's control and not subject to congressional oversight) any different than an order issued directly by the President??  Such a stupid nonsensical distinction.  I wish just once in my lifetime we could get a progressive leader that would play hardball and shove this shit right up these justices disingenuous asses. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
On 6/28/2025 at 11:24 AM, jimmyjazz said:

You don't get to make that argument and lump the Bill of Rights in with the original Constitution.  It's either the original document with no amendments or it's everything.  The year an amendment is enacted should not matter --it's an amendment.

Not that the MAGAts get the subtlety, but for fuck's sake let's at least TRY to be intellectually consistent.

I mean, I don't disagree with the sentiment, but maybe you should go back and read the comment he was responding to a little more closely. 



×
×
  • Create New...