801–810 of 878 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you’re not armed yet, you’re already behind the curve. No one is going to protect you except you and potentially your sphere/community.
unless you can arm yourself with a nuke, “arming” yourself for a fight against US government is laughable :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>why didn't they rule in favor of executive authority when President Biden he tried to forgive student loan debt and a Federal Judge in Texas deemed it "unlawful"? Because it is unlawful. Student loan forgiveness is not an entitlement. College isn’t an entitlement. These are the facts. Moreover, college is a privilege, and it’s a choice, and at its core it is an investment into your future. Having the government forg…
Are you against public school in general? Should the childless be forced to pay? Are you against public roads? Should the car-less be forced to pay? Are you against firefighters? Should those not currently involved in a fire be forced to pay? I guarantee somebody else has paid for something they haven't used that you have. We're a society. Part of that is sharing costs. Big reason so much is so fucked up right now is…
Here's a good start. Don't have people who don't make the choice to take out loans be forced to pay off those loans. I don't think it's unreasonable that you bear the costs of your _personal_ investments for your _personal_ future. Whether or not society as a whole benefits from it is besides the point. They are _personal_ investments at their core, and they can be paid off with your higher future income. Borrow against your future, not mine. Society's part is contributing to your higher income through business at each individuals' personal discretion. Don't make the mistake thinking anybody owes you anything more. You're not entitle to a higher income even if you went to college. When you made a bad investment, you pay for it. I'm not paying for your lesbian dance theory degree, and neither is the plumber making a living without some degree.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the same Supreme Court that granted the president immunity from any and all criminal charges as long they were made under the umbrella of the presidency. None of this is normal, and these are radical interpretations of the law explicitly designed to grant the president king like powers and reform the government into an authoritarian regime.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_Unit... Sovereign Immunity is an idea that has a long precedence. The Supreme Court was arguing that bad behaviour by the President is resolved through impeachment, and once they are out of office they are subject to criminal charges.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And if the parents are on valid non-resident visas? Suddenly the child has no status? Moreover, there is literally no mechanism to prove that your parents are citizens. Millions of citizens will be at the whim of whatever racist thug decides to hurt them that day. Welcome to Fascist America.
Most of the world doesn't have unconditional birth right citizenship. It somehow functions and is not fascist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Again, the point of being a judge is to not just make assumptions about what you think their argument is going to be. If your opinion is made up before you hear the case, then your opinion is bullshit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vexatious_litigation There's plenty of times you can see the litigant is just filing bullshit, venue shopping, and hey - maybe even packing the courts with friendly folks who will rubber stamp whatever you really want.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's been enacted into law at least 3 times, for difference classes of people. 1. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which covers everyone born here who is not the child of foreign diplomats or members of foreign armed forces stationed in the US. 2. The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 which extended it to Native Americans who were living under tribal sovereignty. 3. The Immigration and Nationality Technical Corre…
Well, okay, but none of this applies to the children of illegal immigrants.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not a lawyer. What's the chance that this could be addressed via class action?
High likelihood and even Mustice Thomas mentioned it being high. Even then, it only affects those in the class. E.g., it wouldn’t stop across the board federal enforcement as unconstitutional. It would take take a better part of a decade for that class action to move forward.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes I am aware. Your use of the word hysterical was precisely chosen based on your prejudices. Hearing that the executive is less constrained and more able to violate the law should make you emotional, especially when one of the nine highest members of the judiciary are assessing it.
The executive was being constrained by district court judges, hundres of them -- many, as we've seen, can be themselves a little crazy. You don't want your country being run by the craziest common denominator amongst the judiciary. This is about as far away from democracy as you can imagine, and allowed to run rampent, would lead to massive a democractic backfire. Imagine the political upheval of a democrat president…
Yes, we'd much prefer a dictator attempting to unilaterally invalidate constitutional amendments...
> The court has just prevented a decade of mass protests and political insability
Yes, they have - by further emboldening the executive ala Unitary Executive theory. This isn't a good thing - we are all witnessing one of many steps in the US' descent into fascism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Per the policy directive of https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/prot... citizenship has been taken away from anyone born from parents of targeted classes as of Jan 20, 2025 with a 30-day order for all executive departments and agencies to enact the policy.