Now that Donald Trump has Won

I’m roughly 95% confident it’s pre-midterm blustering, precisely because the idea is entirely laughable. I’m giving even odds that he’ll let it drop, because the talking point will have accomplished what it needs to.

2 Likes

This.

Let’s all get angry about getting rid birthright citizenship instead of talking about the MAGAbomber or the synagogue shooting in Pittsburgh. Let’s all get angry about that instead of focusing on the issues that could help elect Democrats in literally a week.

Waves hands around frantically

Now with that said, it’s still a problem. Trump is trying to redirect his monstrous base away from attacking Jews and back to where they belong - attacking immigrants.

So I’m not saying there’s nothing horrible here. There will be no executive order, but there won’t need to be because the threat will be enough to incite hate against immigrants. You won’t need the government to do anything because the violent mob can deal with it.

Fuck everything.

4 Likes

Agreed, but this is just Trump throwing up chaff to try and distract the media and energize his base.

1 Like

Personally I can’t afford to assume anything, especially considering the rate at which what seemed preposterous and off the table became definitively on the table, and then part of the dinner set.

8 Likes

Given that birthright citizenship is pretty much literally spelled out in the 14th amendment and has been settled law since 1898, I doubt the Supreme Court would uphold his executive order. While I can see Kavanaugh and maybe Gorsuch going along with that crap due to being picked by Trump, I can’t see even the other GOP members of the court, who were nominated by GOP presidents who weren’t anywhere near as wacko, going along. I mean, remember, Roberts was the deciding vote that kept Obamacare.

That said, I’m not holding my breath either way on this one. I only have my citizenship as a result of birthright citizenship.

5 Likes

Fair point.

/15 characters

3 Likes

If the GOP controls the Senate and the Supreme Court is compromised, then the constitution has zero actual power.

2 Likes

I feel like something is at play where the end goal is dissolution of the state on both sides, they’re just fighting for a bigger cut of the proceeds. Like the USSR dissolving and Oligarchs getting to claim state assets, but with the USA instead.

Bit of hope, seems like we need it this morning.

1 Like

The question is to what extent the Supreme Court is compromised. I have a sliver of faith that the non-Trump GOP appointees will hold the line on the worst of his excesses, which gives a 7-2 majority against him. Of course, I may be overly optimistic here.

1 Like

I think there is a concerted effort by the Russian Government to destabilize the US so it can do whatever the hell it wants to do without the US interfering.

1 Like

I would say you’re being slightly overly optimistic.

Goresuch and Kavanaugh will go along with pretty much everything Trump wants. Thomas will as well, because he’s so far right, he’s practically done a complete 360. Alito is also pretty far right, although not as right as the previous three. Which brings us to Chief John Roberts…

Remember, it was Roberts, not Kennedy, who was the 5th vote to uphold the ACA. Despite still being a Conservative, Roberts is also an institutionalist and cares very deeply about the reputation of the Supreme Court as a non-partisan institution and also, personally, about his legacy as Chief Justice. With Kennedy gone, Roberts is now the most “leftward leaning” of the Conservative Justices and I don’t think he will go along and just delegitimatize the Supreme Court by upending the 14th Amendment and getting rid of birthright citizenship.

4 Likes

That’s a view I’ve heard many a former 101 First Street clerk hold but slightly differently in tone. Less of a, I don’t think he will x, more “Well it’ll be interesting to see if or how he changes as both the chief and the court’s swing vote, it’s the most power any individual justice has had for a very very long time”

2 Likes

FYI Goresuch has bucked the white house and tends to have a libertarian view, so going literally against literal working of the constitution won’t work out so well. The supreme court will duck the issues if the lower courts all agree that it’s illegal.

3 Likes

A good example of this is the fact that they declined to hear the Republicans appeal about the PA redistricting.

3 Likes

They’ll probably argue that someone who is in the country illegally isn’t technically “in” the country.

1 Like

That’s what they’ll argue. The question is whether a majority of the court will buy it.

He has in the past, but in some of his decisions and dissents, he’s found ways to go directly against the Constitution if it supports his ideology. Supreme Court Justices, if nothing else, are incredible lawyers, and as such, they can justify anything they want, even if it directly contradicts their stated “ideology” and judicial philosophy.

Here’s just the latest example:

“During his decade on the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Gorsuch built his reputationas a skeptic of the “administrative state,” those executive branch agencies tasked with implementing federal law. He is an outspoken critic of the rule that courts should defer to these agencies’ reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutes…Apparently not. Instead of sticking to his principles, Gorsuch is running interference for the Trump administration, urging the courts to let the administrative state misapply federal law and then suppress all evidence under the guise of privilege. That’s a disappointing departure from the justice’s legal philosophy—one that seems tailored to let Wilbur Ross sabotage the census in an effort to entrench Republican power for a decade.”

1 Like

Gorsuch swings against Trump in deportation case - POLITICO Yea but on Immigration he tends towards his libertarian ideals.

3 Likes