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.
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.
On 5/11/25 7:36 PM, P. Coonan 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.
"Judges" ... they should have limited authority over
Executive decisions.
On 5/12/2025 3:50 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2025 18:20:28 -0700, Siri Cruz <[email protected]>
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.
On 5/12/2025 9:52 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and gutless chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, trolled and lied:
"Yak" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:hGoUP.51568$[email protected]...
On 5/12/2025 3:50 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2025 18:20:28 -0700, Siri Cruz <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 11/5/25 16:36, P. Coonan wrote:
The president hasn’t asked the high court to consider the legality of >>>>>> his
policy – which was called “blatantly unconstitutional” by the first
judge
to review it.
Instead, Trump wants the justices to narrow the scope of multiple
court
orders keeping his new rules on hold until the citizenship policy has >>>>>> been
fully litigated.
The administration argues that, for now, Trump should be able to
impose
the change on everyone except the eighteen parents named in the
lawsuits
or, at most, any member of two immigrant rights groups or residents >>>>>> of a
state that challenged the policy.
The 14th Amendment keeps the USA democratic instead of apartheid.
Hence your opposition to it.
We aren't a democracy
We are, of course, a democracy, as all educated persons understand the
concept.
Perhaps, there can be arguments made that we aren't.
No, scooter, there can be no rational argument that we are not.
On 2025-05-12 09:52, Scout wrote:
Really?
"Yak" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:hGoUP.51568$[email protected]...
On 5/12/2025 3:50 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2025 18:20:28 -0700, Siri Cruz <[email protected]>
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.
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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:hGoUP.51568$[email protected]...
On 5/12/2025 3:50 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2025 18:20:28 -0700, Siri Cruz <[email protected]> >>>>> 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.
On Mon, 12 May 2025 08:43:09 -0700, Yak <[email protected]> wrote:
On 5/12/2025 3:50 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2025 18:20:28 -0700, Siri Cruz <[email protected]>
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.
Well there's a contraction in terms because we *aren't* a democracy.
On Mon, 12 May 2025 08:43:09 -0700, Yak <[email protected]> wrote:
On 5/12/2025 3:50 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2025 18:20:28 -0700, Siri Cruz <[email protected]>
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.
Well there's a contraction [sic] in terms because we *aren't* a democracy.
"Alan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:vvtk6j$1917r$1@dont- email.me...Look at that: you had to use a different TERM!
On 2025-05-12 09:52, Scout wrote:
Really?
"Yak" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:hGoUP.51568$[email protected]...
On 5/12/2025 3:50 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2025 18:20:28 -0700, Siri Cruz <[email protected]> >>>>> 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.
On Mon, 12 May 2025 08:43:09 -0700, Yak <[email protected]> wrote:
On 5/12/2025 3:50 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2025 18:20:28 -0700, Siri Cruz <[email protected]>
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.
Well there's a contraction in terms because we *aren't* a democracy.
On 2025-05-13 04:48, Scout wrote:
want.... which
"Alan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:vvtk6j$1917r$1@dont- email.me...
On 2025-05-12 09:52, Scout wrote:
Really?
"Yak" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:hGoUP.51568$[email protected]...
On 5/12/2025 3:50 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2025 18:20:28 -0700, Siri Cruz
<[email protected]>
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
isn't the case in a Republic.Look at that: you had to use a different TERM!
"pure democracy".
On 5/13/2025 2:06 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-05-13 04:48, Scout wrote:
Look at that: you had to use a different TERM!
"Alan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:vvtk6j$1917r$1@dont-
email.me...
On 2025-05-12 09:52, Scout wrote:
Really?
"Yak" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:hGoUP.51568$[email protected]...
On 5/12/2025 3:50 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2025 18:20:28 -0700, Siri Cruz
<[email protected]> 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....isn't the case in a Republic.
which
"pure democracy".
Which is a straw man, because no one has ever advocated that the U.S.
should be a "pure democracy."
Trump uses Supreme Court birthright citizenship case in bid to limit
judges' power...
On 13 May 2025, J Carlson <[email protected]> posted some news:1000cic$21hp1$[email protected]:
On 5/13/2025 2:06 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-05-13 04:48, Scout wrote:
> > In a pure Democracy the majority can do whatever they want....
"Alan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:vvtk6j$1917r$1@dont-
email.me...
On 2025-05-12 09:52, Scout wrote:
Really?
"Yak" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:hGoUP.51568$[email protected]...
On 5/12/2025 3:50 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2025 18:20:28 -0700, Siri Cruz
<[email protected]> 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.
> > which
isn't the case in a Republic.Look at that: you had to use a different TERM!
"pure democracy".
Which is a straw man, because no one has ever advocated that the U.S.
should be a "pure democracy."
Left-wing agitators, aka Democrats do.
On Sun, 11 May 2025 21:47:51 -0400, c186282 <[email protected]> wrote:
"Judges" ... they should have limited authority over
Executive decisions. CONGRESS is supposed to do that,
it CAN over-ride XOs. All we're seeing now is vengeful
Dem tampering/delaying - more lawfare.
Anybody has the right to file a suit. Remember all the election suits Republicans filed four years ago? Lawfare indeed.
However even the Executive will not really be able to
get around the USSC - it has equal authority with the
other branches.
He already has. He's simply ignoring their rulings.
Equal but not superior. The libs seems to think it's superiority.
On 5/16/25 6:17 PM, howie ruffe wrote:immigrant
On 13 May 2025, J Carlson <[email protected]> posted some
news:1000cic$21hp1$[email protected]:
On 5/13/2025 2:06 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-05-13 04:48, Scout wrote:
"Alan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:vvtk6j$1917r$1@dont-
email.me...
On 2025-05-12 09:52, Scout wrote:
"Yak" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:hGoUP.51568$[email protected]...
On 5/12/2025 3:50 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2025 18:20:28 -0700, Siri Cruz
<[email protected]> 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
oftenrights 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
> > In a pure Democracy the majority can do whatever they want....massive overlaps between the terms, there are also some keyReally?
differences between them.
Name one.
The extent to which the people control the process of making laws.
> > which
isn't the case in a Republic.Look at that: you had to use a different TERM!
"pure democracy".
Which is a straw man, because no one has ever advocated that the U.S.
should be a "pure democracy."
Left-wing agitators, aka Democrats do.
UNTIL - small step - it no longer serves
their purposes :-)
The "democracy" issue is just deep deep
lefty BULLSHIT.
On Sun, 18 May 2025 01:05:53 -0400, c186282 <[email protected]> wrote:
Which is a straw man, because no one has ever advocated that the U.S.
should be a "pure democracy."
Left-wing agitators, aka Democrats do.
UNTIL - small step - it no longer serves
their purposes :-)
The "democracy" issue is just deep deep
lefty BULLSHIT.
Rightists used to be the staunchest defenders of democracy. Today,
they're the staunchest defenders of dictatorship.
Governor Swill <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
On Sun, 18 May 2025 01:05:53 -0400, c186282 <[email protected]> wrote:
Which is a straw man, because no one has ever advocated that the U.S. >>>>> should be a "pure democracy."
Left-wing agitators, aka Democrats do.
UNTIL - small step - it no longer serves
their purposes :-)
The "democracy" issue is just deep deep
lefty BULLSHIT.
Rightists used to be the staunchest defenders of democracy. Today,
they're the staunchest defenders of dictatorship.
Remember when they were opposedExcept billionaires self-dealing...
to government regulation? Now there is
nothing they won't ban or regulate.
On Mon, 19 May 2025 13:03:31 +0000, Mitchell Holman <[email protected]>
wrote:
Governor Swill <[email protected]> wrote<snip>
Rightists used to be the staunchest defenders of democracy. Today,Remember when they were opposed
they're the staunchest defenders of dictatorship.
to government regulation? Now there is
nothing they won't ban or regulate.
Except a business.
GOP bill could ban hairdressers from
giving gender-nonconforming haircuts
to minors March 19, 2025
https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2025/03/gop-lawmakers-introduce-bill-that-could-ban-hairdressers-from-giving-gender-nonconforming-haircuts/
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 32:19:05 |
| Calls: | 12,109 |
| Files: | 15,006 |
| Messages: | 6,518,297 |