What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Here it comes....................

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-...AP&utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=SocialFlow

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court agreed Monday to consider a major rollback of abortion rights, saying it will decide whether states can ban abortions before a fetus can survive outside the womb.

The court’s order sets up a showdown over abortion, probably in the fall, with a more conservative court seemingly ready to dramatically alter nearly 50 years of rulings on abortion rights.

The court first announced a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion in the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision and reaffirmed it 19 years later.
Click to expand...
 
So, Neil Gorsuch will decide whether women are people or incubators.

The decision will land in Spring 2022 and kick off the midterm campaigns.
 
Last edited:
ScoobyDoo said:
I'm guessing he'll lean incubator.
Click to expand...

Well, he does seem to let his Catholic upbringing leak into his decisions in things like Hobby Lobby, but he joined the Church of the Chamber of Commerce in adult life.

Corporate America doesn't like losing women to maternity leave, but it does like selling garbage to people with babies. And, obviously, wealthy pro-lifers will go on getting abortions even as they tirelessly campaign to make it impossible for poor pro-choicers. They are against government intrusion into our lives, you see.

I don't know. I guess this is going to be a very important moment in Court and American history, and then the reaction in the midterms and beyond is going to tell us what country we have. In 2004 and 2016 we learned it is impossible to underestimate the American voter.
 
What happens to robot twat Amy once she overturns this settled matter? It’s all she’s been raised to do and her only purpose. What rights will be her next target to eviscerate?

some of the conservative men around here must be getting excited, almost as excited every time they hear cop sirens and imagine Hillary is on her way to prison
 
Deutsche Gopher Fan said:
What happens to robot twat Amy once she overturns this settled matter? It’s all she’s been raised to do and her only purpose. What rights will be her next target to eviscerate?

some of the conservative men around here must be getting excited, almost as excited every time they hear cop sirens and imagine Hillary is on her way to prison
Click to expand...

Mine.
 
Kepler said:
In 2004 and 2016 we learned it is impossible to underestimate the American voter.
Click to expand...

2004 was my first experience being equally depressed about and baffled by a POTUS vote. By late 04 it was obvious what a catastrophic mistake Iraq was, yet we let him stay. 2020 could easily have been that, as could 2024. Most of those 74 million will not go away and few are likely to change. But hey, he could kill himself with junk food or, better yet, turn the R into two rs.
 
I lost my illusions about the American voter in 1980. I was only 17 but even I could see Reagan was a dunce and his economics was a fraud. When he won I made a note about what the average voter was.
 
FadeToBlack&Gold said:
From a source that isn't a far right rag:

https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/06/j...tected-status/

A 9-0 decision.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how that even got to them.

Sanchez argues that the Secretary’s interpretation of ?1254a(f)(4) is erroneous when considering the text and history of the statute. According to Sanchez, the Secretary alleges that ?1254a(f)(4) allows TPS recipients who initially entered the country legally as nonimmigrants to adjust their status after they lost their nonimmigrant status after having received TPS—despite ?1255(c)(2) prohibiting status adjustment for individuals who failed to maintain legal status while in the United States. Based on its failure to indicate a limited application of the section, Sanchez asserts, Congress did not intend for ?1254a(f)(4) to apply solely for the purposes of ?1255(c)(2), but rather the entirety of ?1255. Moreover, Sanchez contends there is no language in ?1254a(f)(4) indicating that the section only benefits TPS recipients who had nonimmigrant status when initially admitted to the country. Finally, Sanchez points to legislation passed by Congress at the same time as ?1254a(f)(4)—such as the Emergency Chinese Immigration Relief Act, Chinese Temporary Protected Status Act, and the Chinese Student Protected Act—to indicate that if Congress had intended the Secretary’s limited application of ?1254a(f)(4), then it could have effectuated this in a more direct way.

The Secretary counters that Sanchez has misunderstood its argument, as the Secretary does not limit beneficiaries of ?1254a(f)(4) to legally admitted nonimmigrants who received TPS after losing their nonimmigrant status. Rather, the Secretary explains, ?1255(k) has allowed admitted noncitizens who had unlawful status for less than 180 days before receiving TPS to adjust their status to LPR since 1997. Furthermore, the Secretary states that Sanchez’s argument that Congress did not explicitly identify ?1255(c)(2) is irrelevant, because the USCIS has never prevented TPS recipients from relying on any subsection of ?1255 when proving their lawful status. In addressing Sanchez’s argument that ?1254a(f)(4) does not apply solely to TPS recipients initially admitted, the Secretary states that the USCIS has not proposed the contrary. Instead, the Secretary clarifies that all TPS recipients can invoke ?1254a(f)(4) to show they have maintained lawful status, they simply cannot satisfy specific statutory requirements of inspection and admission by invoking a provision relating to lawful status. Finally, the Secretary counters that Sanchez cannot reasonably infer Congress’s intention from legislation specific to Chinese nationals, as Congress may have been following past Executive grants of immigration relief.
Click to expand...
 
Seems pretty cut-and-dried to me - Congress has to act to change the law. Good luck getting The Party of Life onboard with any immigration reform that doesn't involving sending them back to either die in poverty trying to reestablish their lives, or be slaughtered by the warring factions they ran from.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top