Happy anniversary, Joe, ya fuckin' eggplant.

https://x.com/EndWokeness/status/1938575036606283928

^^^

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/...ail&utm_medium=email

BREAKING: SCOTUS Rules on Rogue Judges, Impacting Birthright Citizenship

In a 6-3 decision Thursday, the Supreme Court has ruled President Donald Trump's efforts to end "birthright" citizenship are constitutional, overruling rogue judges issuing national injunctions.

"Universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts. The Court grants the Government's applications for a partial stay of the injunctions entered below, but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue," the decision states.

Trump signed an executive order in January to "protect the meaning and value of American citizenship," purposely forcing a legal fight in order to get the interpretation of the 14th Amendment to the Supreme Court.

"The privilege of United States citizenship is a priceless and profound gift. The Fourteenth Amendment states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” That provision rightly repudiated the Supreme Court of the United States’s shameful decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), which misinterpreted the Constitution as permanently excluding people of African descent from eligibility for United States citizenship solely based on their race.

But the Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Consistent with this understanding, the Congress has further specified through legislation that “a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is a national and citizen of the United States at birth, 8 U.S.C. 1401, generally mirroring the Fourteenth Amendment’s text.

Among the categories of individuals born in the United States and not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, the privilege of United States citizenship does not automatically extend to persons born in the United States: (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States at the time of said person’s birth was lawful but temporary (such as, but not limited to, visiting the United States under the auspices of the Visa Waiver Program or visiting on a student, work, or tourist visa) and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth."

The SCOTUS ruling will have gone too far for some, and not far enough for others.

This is a “punt” by the SCOTUS to force the Congress to formally state what it is by making a law, for which there are precedents existing.

Boom shakalaka Boom

https://x.com/charliekirk11/st.../1938606518850724089

https://www.newsmax.com/politi...dkt_nbr=0101024l4zww

FT: Eric Trump Says He's Open to Political Office

During his Time Person of the Year interview in December, then President-elect Donald Trump was asked about a potential family political dynasty.

Trump responded by mentioning several family members, including his middle son Eric.

"Eric is very capable, and a very different type [than Don Jr.]," Trump told Time.

More than six months later, Eric Trump told Financial Times "the political path" for a family dynasty "would be an easy one."

"The real question is: 'Do you want to drag other members of your family into it?'" the 41-year-old Trump told the outlet.

"Would I want my kids to live the same experience over the last decade that I've lived? You know, if the answer was yes, I think the political path would be an easy one — meaning, I think I could do it."

"And by the way, I think other members of our family could do it too."

President Trump also mentioned his daughter, Ivanka; son, Don Jr.; and Eric's wife, Lara; as being capable of thriving in a political career.

Lara has been cochair of the Republican National Committee; Ivanka worked in her father's first administration; and Don Jr. has been heavily involved in his father's presidential campaign and MAGA agenda. Eric, though, has been focused on the family business he has been entrusted with since President Trump's first term began in 2017.

Eric Trump is co-executive vice president of the Trump Organization.

In a recent interview on Newsmax, Eric Trump said his father and family remain in the political arena "because we loved our nation."

"We do it for a love of country," he told host Rita Crosby. "We do it because we love this nation. It's clear we believe in this nation. And you can't fake that. You can't fake the love."

Although he's not focused on a future life in politics at the moment, Eric Trump doesn't lack confidence about his ability to do so.

He described himself as "wholly unimpressed by half the politicians I see … I could do it very effectively," he told the Financial Times.

Asked whether 2024 will be the last election for a Trump, Eric Trump said, "I don't know … Time will tell. But there's more people than just me."

"The question is: 'Do you want to do it?'" he added. "And do you want to subject the people that you love to the brutality of this system? And I'm not sure if I can answer that question yet."

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:
Boom shakalaka Boom

https://x.com/charliekirk11/st.../1938606518850724089

Translation: You’re just a know nothing DEI hire, so just STFU.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:
Boom shakalaka Boom

https://x.com/charliekirk11/st.../1938606518850724089

Translation: You’re just a know nothing DEI hire, so just STFU.

Added Translation: I don't just disagree with you, I think you're stupid.

Explain it to me like I'm dumb like Jackson. Does this ruling allow for deporting "anchor babies"?

A great day for America and Americans, and a bad day for this sack of shit.

https://x.com/EricLDaugh/status/1938606380430344636

That anti-American G-D Commie shit-stain and sack of shit deliberately inflicted tremendous damage and harms upon the country as the head of the FISA court during the early stage of the “get Trump” era. He needs to pay a very heavy price for his mischief.

Roberts look the other way during this time, so he can phuk off too.

These two, and other articles at Treehouse -

“It’s Official, The FISA Court is Compromised – Presiding Judge James Boasberg Hires Former DOJ-NSD Head, Mary McCord, as Amici Curiae to Advise The Court - The FISA Court is Compromised “ - April 28, 2021

https://theconservativetreehou...to-advise-the-court/

“DNI Declassifies FISA Judge James Boasberg 2018 Ruling – FBI Conducted "Tens of Thousands" of Unauthorized NSA Database Queries…” - October 8, 2019

https://theconservativetreehou...sa-database-queries/

quote:

Originally posted by xd45man:
Explain it to me like I'm dumb like Jackson. Does this ruling allow for deporting "anchor babies"?

My understanding is that SCOTUS actually ruled on the nationwide injunction abuse by lower court judges. They did not specifically rule on the constitutionality of the birthright argument.

quote:

Originally posted by xd45man:
Explain it to me like I'm dumb like Jackson. Does this ruling allow for deporting "anchor babies"?

If i were betting on this, i might lean towards an EO coming out stating anyone born here to parents illegally or on vacation, etc, in this country will not become citizens. EO effective as of 0001 hrs, July 4th, 2025.


From there, SCOTUS gets to unravel past events and rule on the EO (noted above) legality in thier next term.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:

quote:

Originally posted by xd45man:
Explain it to me like I'm dumb like Jackson. Does this ruling allow for deporting "anchor babies"?

My understanding is that SCOTUS actually ruled on the nationwide injunction abuse by lower court judges. They did not specifically rule on the constitutionality of the birthright argument.

^^^ this

I'm not a religious zealot, but I think that God is helping Trump get us back on track. It all started when Trump turned his head and avoided a bullet through his brain. I will say that I do pray every day to Jesus to help Trump.

quote:

Originally posted by LS1 GTO:

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:

quote:

Originally posted by xd45man:
Explain it to me like I'm dumb like Jackson. Does this ruling allow for deporting "anchor babies"?

My understanding is that SCOTUS actually ruled on the nationwide injunction abuse by lower court judges. They did not specifically rule on the constitutionality of the birthright argument.

^^^ this

This is correct. While there's a broader question in play re: anchor babies, the justices only took up the narrow question of nationwide injunctions. It will be remanded back to the lower courts to hash out the merits.

This is a good decision for today but in the future when a Dem is in the WH, Repubs won't be able to file for nationwide injunctions on policy decisions. This is a precedent setting case that will bite every party that doesn't hold the WH. Dems are savoring this decision because they know what it means for the future.

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:
Dems are savoring this decision because they know what it means for the future.

Oh, horse shit. They aren't "savoring" a Goddamned thing. They're not happy in the least about this. Don't you understand that?

Can you not let a victory be a victory? For fuck's sake. Cut it out.

Always, ALWAYS, someone here has to take a victory and try to turn it into shit. That's a VERY bad habit.

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:

quote:

Originally posted by LS1 GTO:

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:

quote:

Originally posted by xd45man:
Explain it to me like I'm dumb like Jackson. Does this ruling allow for deporting "anchor babies"?

My understanding is that SCOTUS actually ruled on the nationwide injunction abuse by lower court judges. They did not specifically rule on the constitutionality of the birthright argument.

^^^ this

This is correct. While there's a broader question in play re: anchor babies, the justices only took up the narrow question of nationwide injunctions. It will be remanded back to the lower courts to hash out the merits.

This is a good decision for today but in the future when a Dem is in the WH, Repubs won't be able to file for nationwide injunctions on policy decisions. This is a precedent setting case that will bite every party that doesn't hold the WH. Dems are savoring this decision because they know what it means for the future.

Yup, like it or not, SCOTUS got it right however, there will be backend consequences when another administration (R or D) is elected.

Cut it out. If you can't be happy today, don't try to discourage others. You would rather the ruling went the other way? Ridiculous

I don't want to see any more of this SHIT in this thread.

If you're miserable, just keep it to yourself and let us celebrate.