Latest Breaking News

Marthe48

(23,169 posts)

40. pedo and his henchmen should move to Tx or Fl and let the rest of us get our country back

Reply to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Mon Mar 30, 2026, 11:49 AM

2 hrs ago

How much longer will this nightmare last?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

43 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Looking to limit birthright citizenship, Trump turns to an 1884 Supreme Court ruling against a Native American man [View all] BumRushDaShow 20 hrs ago OP

Can't wait to hear the arguments before the court. Fiendish Thingy 20 hrs ago #1

With THIS court? bluestarone 20 hrs ago #3

My guess, 7-2 against. Nt Fiendish Thingy 18 hrs ago #8

I know for sure bluestarone 18 hrs ago #10

Wow, had not seen your response but mine was exactly the same..."With this court?" Escurumbele 6 hrs ago #32

Weak sauce. bucolic_frolic 20 hrs ago #2

Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 nullified Elk v Wilkins Historic NY 20 hrs ago #4

Since the SCOTUS doesn't care about "stare decisis" BumRushDaShow 19 hrs ago #6

But this isn't stare decicis Fiendish Thingy 18 hrs ago #9

Have you forgotten BumRushDaShow 17 hrs ago #11

Haven't forgotten at all Fiendish Thingy 17 hrs ago #12

"if birthright citizenship is revoked, can the reinstitution of slavery still be off limits?" BumRushDaShow 17 hrs ago #13

All the more reason why we must only elect Dem senators willing to kill the filibuster and expand the court Fiendish Thingy 17 hrs ago #15

Roe was focused on enforcement of the PRIVATE right for women to choose what to do with her own body BumRushDaShow 8 hrs ago #30

And that horrific ruling will continue to stand Fiendish Thingy 3 hrs ago #36

That was the hope in 2022 BumRushDaShow 3 hrs ago #37

That's because Biden wanted to wait on the report from the bipartisan commission on court reform Fiendish Thingy 1 hr ago #42

Not exactly. Ms. Toad 16 hrs ago #17

Birthright citizenship is also a law LeftInTX 15 hrs ago #23

It is the interpretation of the constitution that is at issue. Ms. Toad 15 hrs ago #24

I disagree Fiendish Thingy 14 hrs ago #25

"If the constitution says two term limit for a president, it doesn't mean three" BumRushDaShow 5 hrs ago #33

But the Constitution doesn't say two terms for a p president. Ms. Toad 4 hrs ago #34

Two means two, not three Fiendish Thingy 4 hrs ago #35

Again, you are reducing a paragraph to a single word. Ms. Toad 2 hrs ago #38

At this time, it's probably a moot point Fiendish Thingy 1 hr ago #43

Except that the US constitution does NOT Farmer-Rick 13 hrs ago #27

Article III of the constitution and Marbury v. Madison. Ms. Toad 2 hrs ago #39

In that Supreme Court ruling Farmer-Rick 1 hr ago #41

I'll see Elk v. Wilkins, cloudbase 19 hrs ago #5

The funny thing is, Wong Ark was decided in 1898 NickB79 16 hrs ago #18

Trump would have required both parents to be wnylib 18 hrs ago #7

Doesn't seem relevant Renew Deal 17 hrs ago #14

So at that time territories weren't considered "The US"? Callie1979 16 hrs ago #20

That's the way I'm reading it Renew Deal 15 hrs ago #22

I Think They Are Talking About Indian Territories DallasNE 13 hrs ago #28

If thats the story then it would seem to have zero meaning to today's case. Callie1979 7 hrs ago #31

What total bullshit. Another argument of convenience. Scalded Nun 16 hrs ago #16

Sounds like a "3/5ths" argument; seen as lesser individuals. Callie1979 16 hrs ago #19

This case in an interpretation that is consistent with how the provision has always been interpreted. Ms. Toad 16 hrs ago #21

I'm not buying that argument Bayard 14 hrs ago #26

Call DHS Immediately! Nasruddin 11 hrs ago #29

pedo and his henchmen should move to Tx or Fl and let the rest of us get our country back Marthe48 2 hrs ago #40