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: sponsored by Harlan Crow

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deutsche Gopher Fan
  • Start date Start date
unofan said:
The main view is that they aren't automatically citizens under the 14th Amendment if born on tribal land, but there's a statute that does grant them citizenship regardless.

And at this point, most parents would be American citizens as well, so even without birthright they'd likely be able to get it through their parents.
Click to expand...
Can I ask a different technicality?

For citizens that were given citizenship by statute- does what the menace is doing affect them? And I'm thinking of Puerto Rico here, since they were granted citizenship by statute so that they could be drafted for The Great War, and have been citizens ever since.

It would be ironic that dumpy "loses" his citizenship (his parents were not citizens when he was born) but people he has called trash keeps it under his decree.
 
Would/could people impacted by the ruling be stripped of citizenship if they currently have it, or would this have not impact future members of tribes, future Puerto Ricans, etc.? Something like that should be in the ruling if it goes the wrong way.
 
St. Clown said:
Would/could people impacted by the ruling be stripped of citizenship if they currently have it, or would this have not impact future members of tribes, future Puerto Ricans, etc.? Something like that should be in the ruling if it goes the wrong way.
Click to expand...
no-rules-knife-fight.gif
 
The current EO would be prospective only. But in the unlikely event it's upheld, there would be nothing stopping Trump from then doing a retroactive one. And at that point, we'd have gone full Calvinball anyway, so there would be no point in trying to game that one out.
 
ticapnews said:
If Clarence wants to go back to 1776 ideals then he can get the fuck back in the fields and pick some cotton.
Click to expand...
And he'd better not be voting, either. He can also renounce his academic degrees, since they weren't permitted an education. Plus, we'll be counting him as only 3/5s of a person for determining representation in the House.
 
yeah, we been new.

How does Roberts punish these new so called leakers?

not even plain old racism - it was fossil fuels that made Roberts act erraticaly and break the court, while ruining future generations
 
US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to Dump: "Drop Dead."

A United States federal appeals court has rejected the Trump administration’s practice of subjecting most people arrested in its immigration crackdown to mandatory detention without the opportunity to seek release on bond.
Click to expand...
 
In a 6-3 ruling, SCOTUS effectively says that it’ll continue to stay out of state redistricting/gerrymandering issues, like it said it would, by striking down Louisiana’s majority black district, because it was an unconstitutional gerrymander. Wait, them ruling on such a matter means they stayed out of it, right? That’s what “staying out” of state maps/redistricting means, right?
 
psych said:
In a 6-3 ruling, SCOTUS effectively says that it’ll continue to stay out of state redistricting/gerrymandering issues, like it said it would, by striking down Louisiana’s majority black district, because it was an unconstitutional gerrymander. Wait, them ruling on such a matter means they stayed out of it, right? That’s what “staying out” of state maps/redistricting means, right?
Click to expand...
Sounds about white.
 
psych said:
In a 6-3 ruling, SCOTUS effectively says that it’ll continue to stay out of state redistricting/gerrymandering issues, like it said it would, by striking down Louisiana’s majority black district, because it was an unconstitutional gerrymander. Wait, them ruling on such a matter means they stayed out of it, right? That’s what “staying out” of state maps/redistricting means, right?
Click to expand...


slate.com

The Supreme Court’s Conservatives Just Issued the Worst Ruling in a Century

This evisceration of the Voting Rights Act requires us to take SCOTUS reform more seriously.
slate.com slate.com

Wednesday’s 6–3 party-line decision in Louisiana v. Callais will go down in history as one of the most pernicious and damaging Supreme Court decisions of the last century. All six Republican-appointed justices on the court signed onto Justice Samuel Alito’s opinion gutting what remained of the Voting Rights Act protections for minority voters, while pretending they were merely making technical tweaks to the act.

This decision will bleach the halls of Congress, state legislatures, and local bodies like city councils, by ending the protections of Section 2 of the act, which had provided a pathway to assure that voters of color would have some rudimentary fair representation. It’s the culmination of the life’s work of Chief Justice John Roberts and Samuel Alito, who have shown persistent resistance to the idea of the United States as a multiracial democracy, and a brazen willingness to reject Congress’ judgment that fair representation for minority voters sometimes requires race-conscious legislation. It gives the green light to further partisan gerrymandering. It protects Alito’s core constituency: aggrieved white Republican voters. It’s a disaster for American democracy.
Click to expand...

Let’s not sugarcoat things: Alito’s opinion eviscerates Section 2 as applied to redistricting. He throws out the Gingles test—while denying he is doing so—and has restored a requirement that plaintiffs prove discriminatory intent when challenging district lines. Only if a computer algorithm would protect minority voters by chance do they have a chance to win such a case. What’s worse, the state can defend their maps by claiming that they were merely engaging in partisan gerrymandering. This move is thanks to what the Supreme Court wrote in the 2019 Rucho case—that though partisan gerrymandering is unconstitutional, it is out of the court’s realm to fix.

So when, say, Louisiana goes back and eliminates many Black opportunity districts in its state, it can claim it is doing so to help Republicans, not white people. That’s an outrageous proposition given the considerable overlap between those two groups in Louisiana.
Click to expand...

Clean sweep the government and pack the Court to end this bullshit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top