On 5/12/2025 3:50 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2025 18:20:28 -0700, Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On 11/5/25 16:36, P. Coonan wrote:
The president hasn’t asked the high court to consider the legality of >>>> his
policy – which was called “blatantly unconstitutional” by the first >>>> judge
to review it.
Instead, Trump wants the justices to narrow the scope of multiple court >>>> orders keeping his new rules on hold until the citizenship policy has
been
fully litigated.
The administration argues that, for now, Trump should be able to impose >>>> the change on everyone except the eighteen parents named in the
lawsuits
or, at most, any member of two immigrant rights groups or residents of >>>> a
state that challenged the policy.
The 14th Amendment keeps the USA democratic instead of apartheid.
Hence your opposition to it.
We aren't a democracy
We are, of course, a democracy, as all educated persons understand the concept.
"Yak" <yak@inboxy.com> wrote in message news:hGoUP.51568$FHNb.21940@fx40.iad...Really?
On 5/12/2025 3:50 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2025 18:20:28 -0700, Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On 11/5/25 16:36, P. Coonan wrote:
The president hasn’t asked the high court to consider the legality >>>>> of his
policy – which was called “blatantly unconstitutional” by the first >>>>> judge
to review it.
Instead, Trump wants the justices to narrow the scope of multiple
court
orders keeping his new rules on hold until the citizenship policy
has been
fully litigated.
The administration argues that, for now, Trump should be able to
impose
the change on everyone except the eighteen parents named in the
lawsuits
or, at most, any member of two immigrant rights groups or residents
of a
state that challenged the policy.
The 14th Amendment keeps the USA democratic instead of apartheid.
Hence your opposition to it.
We aren't a democracy
We are, of course, a democracy, as all educated persons understand the
concept.
Perhaps, there can be arguments made that we aren't. What we are and
what we are required to be is a Republic. While there is often massive overlaps between the terms, there are also some key differences between
them.
On 5/12/2025 3:49 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2025 23:36:31 -0000 (UTC), "P. Coonan"That's *not* all they do. They also decide the constitutionality and legality of
<nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
WASHINGTON - Judges across the country have blocked some of President
Donald Trumps biggest policy changes - roadblocks the president has
called toxic and unprecedented.
Trump is counting on the Supreme Court to fix that.
How inclined the justices might be to do so could become apparent on May >>> 15 when the court considers Trumps move to end automatic citizenship for >>> children born in the United States regardless of whether their parents are >>> citizens or permanent residents.
The president hasnt asked the high court to consider the legality of his >>> policy which was called blatantly unconstitutional by the first judge >>> to review it.
Instead, Trump wants the justices to narrow the scope of multiple court
orders keeping his new rules on hold until the citizenship policy has been >>> fully litigated.
The administration argues that, for now, Trump should be able to impose
the change on everyone except the eighteen parents named in the lawsuits >>> or, at most, any member of two immigrant rights groups or residents of a >>> state that challenged the policy.
Unless court orders are narrowly tailored to only cover the actual
litigants, the administration argues, judges will have too much power to >>> stall crucial presidential actions.
Years of experience have shown that the Executive Branch cannot properly >>> perform its functions if any judge anywhere can enjoin every presidential >>> action everywhere, lawyers for the Justice Department told the Supreme
Court in a filing.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/trump-uses-supreme-court-birthright-
citizenship-case-in-bid-to-limit-judges-power/ar-AA1EyRGJ
Judges decide the constiutionality of laws.
That's it.
executive orders, among other things.
On Mon, 12 May 2025 08:42:00 -0700, Lee <cleetius@gmail.corn> wrote:
On 5/12/2025 3:49 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2025 23:36:31 -0000 (UTC), "P. Coonan"That's *not* all they do. They also decide the constitutionality and legality of
<nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
WASHINGTON - Judges across the country have blocked some of President
Donald Trump’s biggest policy changes - roadblocks the president has >>>> called “toxic and unprecedented.”
Trump is counting on the Supreme Court to fix that.
How inclined the justices might be to do so could become apparent on May >>>> 15 when the court considers Trump’s move to end automatic citizenship for
children born in the United States regardless of whether their parents are >>>> citizens or permanent residents.
The president hasn’t asked the high court to consider the legality of his
policy – which was called “blatantly unconstitutional” by the first judge
to review it.
Instead, Trump wants the justices to narrow the scope of multiple court >>>> orders keeping his new rules on hold until the citizenship policy has been >>>> fully litigated.
The administration argues that, for now, Trump should be able to impose >>>> the change on everyone except the eighteen parents named in the lawsuits >>>> or, at most, any member of two immigrant rights groups or residents of a >>>> state that challenged the policy.
Unless court orders are narrowly tailored to only cover the actual
litigants, the administration argues, judges will have too much power to >>>> stall crucial presidential actions.
“Years of experience have shown that the Executive Branch cannot properly
perform its functions if any judge anywhere can enjoin every presidential >>>> action everywhere,” lawyers for the Justice Department told the Supreme >>>> Court in a filing.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/trump-uses-supreme-court-birthright- >>>> citizenship-case-in-bid-to-limit-judges-power/ar-AA1EyRGJ
Judges decide the constiutionality of laws.
That's it.
executive orders, among other things.
Constitutionality. That's it.
They are not permitted to create new law yet they frequently do.They do not. That's a longstanding far right-wingnut lie.
On 2025-05-13 04:48, Scout wrote:
Look at that: you had to use a different TERM!
"Alan" <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote in message news:vvtk6j$1917r$1@dont- email.me...
On 2025-05-12 09:52, Scout wrote:
Really?
"Yak" <yak@inboxy.com> wrote in message news:hGoUP.51568$FHNb.21940@fx40.iad...
On 5/12/2025 3:50 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2025 18:20:28 -0700, Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On 11/5/25 16:36, P. Coonan wrote:
The president hasn’t asked the high court to consider the legality of his
policy – which was called “blatantly unconstitutional” by the first judge
to review it.
Instead, Trump wants the justices to narrow the scope of multiple court
orders keeping his new rules on hold until the citizenship policy has been
fully litigated.
The administration argues that, for now, Trump should be able to impose
the change on everyone except the eighteen parents named in the lawsuits
or, at most, any member of two immigrant rights groups or residents of a
state that challenged the policy.
The 14th Amendment keeps the USA democratic instead of apartheid. >>>>>>> Hence your opposition to it.
We aren't a democracy
We are, of course, a democracy, as all educated persons understand the >>>>> concept.
Perhaps, there can be arguments made that we aren't. What we are and what we
are required to be is a Republic. While there is often massive overlaps >>>> between the terms, there are also some key differences between them.
Name one.
The extent to which the people control the process of making laws.
In a pure Democracy the majority can do whatever they want.... whichisn't the case in a Republic.
"pure democracy".
On 5/13/2025 4:11 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2025 08:42:00 -0700, Lee <cleetius@gmail.corn> wrote:
On 5/12/2025 3:49 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2025 23:36:31 -0000 (UTC), "P. Coonan"That's *not* all they do. They also decide the constitutionality and legality of
<nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
WASHINGTON - Judges across the country have blocked some of President >>>>> Donald Trumps biggest policy changes - roadblocks the president has >>>>> called toxic and unprecedented.
Trump is counting on the Supreme Court to fix that.
How inclined the justices might be to do so could become apparent on May >>>>> 15 when the court considers Trumps move to end automatic citizenship for >>>>> children born in the United States regardless of whether their parents are
citizens or permanent residents.
The president hasnt asked the high court to consider the legality of his >>>>> policy which was called blatantly unconstitutional by the first judge >>>>> to review it.
Instead, Trump wants the justices to narrow the scope of multiple court >>>>> orders keeping his new rules on hold until the citizenship policy has been
fully litigated.
The administration argues that, for now, Trump should be able to impose >>>>> the change on everyone except the eighteen parents named in the lawsuits >>>>> or, at most, any member of two immigrant rights groups or residents of a >>>>> state that challenged the policy.
Unless court orders are narrowly tailored to only cover the actual
litigants, the administration argues, judges will have too much power to >>>>> stall crucial presidential actions.
Years of experience have shown that the Executive Branch cannot properly >>>>> perform its functions if any judge anywhere can enjoin every presidential >>>>> action everywhere, lawyers for the Justice Department told the Supreme >>>>> Court in a filing.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/trump-uses-supreme-court-birthright- >>>>> citizenship-case-in-bid-to-limit-judges-power/ar-AA1EyRGJ
Judges decide the constiutionality of laws.
That's it.
executive orders, among other things.
Constitutionality. That's it.
That's not it. They do far more than that, by design.
They are not permitted to create new law yet they frequently do.They do not. That's a longstanding far right-wingnut lie.
On 5/13/2025 4:48 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and gutless chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, trolled and lied:
"Alan" <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote in message
news:vvtk6j$1917r$1@dont-email.me...
On 2025-05-12 09:52, Scout wrote:
Really?
"Yak" <yak@inboxy.com> wrote in message
news:hGoUP.51568$FHNb.21940@fx40.iad...
On 5/12/2025 3:50 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2025 18:20:28 -0700, Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On 11/5/25 16:36, P. Coonan wrote:
The president hasn’t asked the high court to consider the legality >>>>>>>> of his
policy – which was called “blatantly unconstitutional” by the first
judge
to review it.
Instead, Trump wants the justices to narrow the scope of multiple >>>>>>>> court
orders keeping his new rules on hold until the citizenship policy >>>>>>>> has been
fully litigated.
The administration argues that, for now, Trump should be able to >>>>>>>> impose
the change on everyone except the eighteen parents named in the >>>>>>>> lawsuits
or, at most, any member of two immigrant rights groups or residents >>>>>>>> of a
state that challenged the policy.
The 14th Amendment keeps the USA democratic instead of apartheid. >>>>>>> Hence your opposition to it.
We aren't a democracy
We are, of course, a democracy, as all educated persons understand the >>>>> concept.
Perhaps, there can be arguments made that we aren't. What we are and
what we are required to be is a Republic. While there is often massive >>>> overlaps between the terms, there are also some key differences between >>>> them.
Name one.
The extent to which the people control the process of making laws.
In a pure Democracy
Straw man, scooter. No one has ever advocated "pure democracy" in the U.S.
On 5/13/2025 4:49 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and gutless chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, trolled and lied:
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreude.entf�rben.@gmail.com> wrote in >> message news:cPsUP.45255$RXsc.1830@fx36.iad...
On 5/12/2025 1:03 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-05-12 09:52, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and gutless
chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, trolled and lied:
Really?
"Yak" <yak@inboxy.com> wrote in message
news:hGoUP.51568$FHNb.21940@fx40.iad...
On 5/12/2025 3:50 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2025 18:20:28 -0700, Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 11/5/25 16:36, P. Coonan wrote:
The president hasn’t asked the high court to consider the legality >>>>>>>>> of his
policy – which was called “blatantly unconstitutional” by the >>>>>>>>> first judge
to review it.
Instead, Trump wants the justices to narrow the scope of multiple >>>>>>>>> court
orders keeping his new rules on hold until the citizenship policy >>>>>>>>> has been
fully litigated.
The administration argues that, for now, Trump should be able to >>>>>>>>> impose
the change on everyone except the eighteen parents named in the >>>>>>>>> lawsuits
or, at most, any member of two immigrant rights groups or
residents of a
state that challenged the policy.
The 14th Amendment keeps the USA democratic instead of apartheid. >>>>>>>> Hence your opposition to it.
We aren't a democracy
We are, of course, a democracy, as all educated persons understand >>>>>> the concept.
Perhaps, there can be arguments made that we aren't. What we are and >>>>> what we are required to be is a Republic. While there is often massive >>>>> overlaps between the terms, there are also some key differences
between them.
Name one.
Forget it. scooter doesn't know anything about republicanism.
Well,
Another scooterism
On Tue, 13 May 2025 13:14:23 -0700, Lee <cleetius@gmail.corn> wrote:
On 5/13/2025 4:11 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2025 08:42:00 -0700, Lee <cleetius@gmail.corn> wrote:
On 5/12/2025 3:49 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2025 23:36:31 -0000 (UTC), "P. Coonan"That's *not* all they do. They also decide the constitutionality and legality of
<nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
WASHINGTON - Judges across the country have blocked some of President >>>>>> Donald Trump’s biggest policy changes - roadblocks the president has >>>>>> called “toxic and unprecedented.”
Trump is counting on the Supreme Court to fix that.
How inclined the justices might be to do so could become apparent on May >>>>>> 15 when the court considers Trump’s move to end automatic citizenship for
children born in the United States regardless of whether their parents are
citizens or permanent residents.
The president hasn’t asked the high court to consider the legality of his
policy – which was called “blatantly unconstitutional” by the first judge
to review it.
Instead, Trump wants the justices to narrow the scope of multiple court >>>>>> orders keeping his new rules on hold until the citizenship policy has been
fully litigated.
The administration argues that, for now, Trump should be able to impose >>>>>> the change on everyone except the eighteen parents named in the lawsuits >>>>>> or, at most, any member of two immigrant rights groups or residents of a >>>>>> state that challenged the policy.
Unless court orders are narrowly tailored to only cover the actual >>>>>> litigants, the administration argues, judges will have too much power to >>>>>> stall crucial presidential actions.
“Years of experience have shown that the Executive Branch cannot properly
perform its functions if any judge anywhere can enjoin every presidential
action everywhere,” lawyers for the Justice Department told the Supreme
Court in a filing.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/trump-uses-supreme-court-birthright- >>>>>> citizenship-case-in-bid-to-limit-judges-power/ar-AA1EyRGJ
Judges decide the constiutionality of laws.
That's it.
executive orders, among other things.
Constitutionality. That's it.
That's not it. They do far more than that, by design.
This should be good. Tell us how they are able to go beyond what the Constitution says they can.
They are not permitted to create new law yet they frequently do.They do not. That's a longstanding far right-wingnut lie.
Laughter.
Like finding a "right to privacy" that doesn't exist.
On 5/14/2025 4:08 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2025 13:14:23 -0700, Lee <cleetius@gmail.corn> wrote:
On 5/13/2025 4:11 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2025 08:42:00 -0700, Lee <cleetius@gmail.corn> wrote:
On 5/12/2025 3:49 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2025 23:36:31 -0000 (UTC), "P. Coonan"That's *not* all they do. They also decide the constitutionality and >>>>> legality of
<nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
WASHINGTON - Judges across the country have blocked some of President >>>>>>> Donald Trump’s biggest policy changes - roadblocks the president has >>>>>>> called “toxic and unprecedented.”
Trump is counting on the Supreme Court to fix that.
How inclined the justices might be to do so could become apparent on May
15 when the court considers Trump’s move to end automatic citizenship for
children born in the United States regardless of whether their parents are
citizens or permanent residents.
The president hasn’t asked the high court to consider the legality of his
policy – which was called “blatantly unconstitutional” by the first judge
to review it.
Instead, Trump wants the justices to narrow the scope of multiple court >>>>>>> orders keeping his new rules on hold until the citizenship policy has been
fully litigated.
The administration argues that, for now, Trump should be able to impose >>>>>>> the change on everyone except the eighteen parents named in the lawsuits
or, at most, any member of two immigrant rights groups or residents of a
state that challenged the policy.
Unless court orders are narrowly tailored to only cover the actual >>>>>>> litigants, the administration argues, judges will have too much power to
stall crucial presidential actions.
“Years of experience have shown that the Executive Branch cannot properly
perform its functions if any judge anywhere can enjoin every presidential
action everywhere,” lawyers for the Justice Department told the Supreme
Court in a filing.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/trump-uses-supreme-court-birthright- >>>>>>> citizenship-case-in-bid-to-limit-judges-power/ar-AA1EyRGJ
Judges decide the constiutionality of laws.
That's it.
executive orders, among other things.
Constitutionality. That's it.
That's not it. They do far more than that, by design.
This should be good. Tell us how they are able to go beyond what the
Constitution says they can.
The Constitution doesn't prescribe in any way what findings and orders judges make, dummy.
They are not permitted to create new law yet they frequently do.They do not. That's a longstanding far right-wingnut lie.
Laughter.
Not an adult comment.
Like finding a "right to privacy" that doesn't exist.
It is a direct and necessary implication of explicit rights, dummy. The first,
third, fourth and fifth amendments all imply some right to privacy, and the fourteenth incorporates those against the states. The first amendment regarding
religion, for example, protects a right to make a private choice to adhere to a
faith of the person's choice, or to no faith at all. The fifth amendment protection against self incrimination means you can't be forced to divulge private information that is harmful to you.
But if you really want to go this route, where does the Constitution confer immunity to the president for committing crimes? How did Roberts find presidential immunity if the Constitution doesn't say a word about it?
On 5/14/2025 9:02 AM, Lee wrote:
On 5/14/2025 4:08 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2025 13:14:23 -0700, Lee <cleetius@gmail.corn> wrote:
On 5/13/2025 4:11 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2025 08:42:00 -0700, Lee <cleetius@gmail.corn>
wrote:
On 5/12/2025 3:49 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2025 23:36:31 -0000 (UTC), "P. Coonan"That's *not* all they do. They also decide the constitutionality
<nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
WASHINGTON - Judges across the country have blocked some of
President Donald Trump’s biggest policy changes - roadblocks >>>>>>>> the president has called “toxic and unprecedented.”
Trump is counting on the Supreme Court to fix that.
How inclined the justices might be to do so could become
apparent on May 15 when the court considers Trump’s move to
end automatic citizenship for children born in the United
States regardless of whether their parents are citizens or
permanent residents.
The president hasn’t asked the high court to consider the
legality of his policy – which was called “blatantly
unconstitutional” by the first judge to review it.
Instead, Trump wants the justices to narrow the scope of
multiple court orders keeping his new rules on hold until the
citizenship policy has been fully litigated.
The administration argues that, for now, Trump should be able
to impose the change on everyone except the eighteen parents
named in the lawsuits or, at most, any member of two immigrant >>>>>>>> rights groups or residents of a state that challenged the
policy.
Unless court orders are narrowly tailored to only cover the
actual litigants, the administration argues, judges will have
too much power to stall crucial presidential actions.
“Years of experience have shown that the Executive Branch
cannot properly perform its functions if any judge anywhere can >>>>>>>> enjoin every presidential action everywhere,” lawyers for the >>>>>>>> Justice Department told the Supreme Court in a filing.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/trump-uses-supreme-court-birth >>>>>>>> right-
citizenship-case-in-bid-to-limit-judges-power/ar-AA1EyRGJ
Judges decide the constiutionality of laws.
That's it.
and legality of
executive orders, among other things.
Constitutionality. That's it.
That's not it. They do far more than that, by design.
This should be good. Tell us how they are able to go beyond what
the Constitution says they can.
The Constitution doesn't prescribe in any way what findings and
orders judges make, dummy.
They are not permitted to create new law yet they frequently do.They do not. That's a longstanding far right-wingnut lie.
Laughter.
Not an adult comment.
Like finding a "right to privacy" that doesn't exist.
It is a direct and necessary implication of explicit rights, dummy.
The first, third, fourth and fifth amendments all imply some right to
privacy, and the fourteenth incorporates those against the states.
The first amendment regarding religion, for example, protects a right
to make a private choice to adhere to a faith of the person's choice,
or to no faith at all. The fifth amendment protection against self
incrimination means you can't be forced to divulge private
information that is harmful to you.
But if you really want to go this route, where does the Constitution
confer immunity to the president for committing crimes? How did
Roberts find presidential immunity if the Constitution doesn't say a
word about it?
And "Nobody" runs away again...
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 483 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 183:46:26 |
| Calls: | 9,600 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 13,679 |
| Messages: | 6,151,259 |