Maybe. But who's going to join Roberts to cross the aisle? There's no way Gorsuch crosses over. Its either Kavanaugh or Barrett. I don't see either one with any legal sanity or courage to do it.

philly1121 said:

---

Maybe. But who's going to join Roberts to cross the aisle? There's no way Gorsuch crosses over. Its either Kavanaugh or Barrett. I don't see either one with any legal sanity or courage to do it.

---

I think all of them probably join Roberts on it. This is pretty cut-and-dried stuff that's written into the text, and has already been well-litigated in the past.

"Massive" Infrastructure announcement today will be revealed by President Trump in the White House.

I've previously read snippets that Biden's Infrastructure plans were minimal because of deep and complicated DEI requirements.

According to the Brookings Institute, the Biden administration leaves the Trump administration with $294 billion to be awarded from a previously passed 'bipartisan' bill.

All of them?? Snowballs chance in hell of that happening.

Likely $500B investment in AI infrastructure to be announced today in the WH, $100B to start.

I heard that Trump didn't even place is left hand on the Bible.
Is that true?

Was it not a "God Bless the USA" bible made in China for $59.99?

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

I know this was discussed lately on Off Topic by the outraged Trump fanboys, but my searching doesn't get any hits from the board software, so I'll have to place this here for lack of knowing the appropriate place. I read a news story in the Spokane Spokesman-Review newspaper that Gavin Newsom, Washington Governor Bob Ferguson and at least 12 other states ordered flags to be raised temporarily to full staff yesterday for Trump's inauguration then lowered back to half-staff at sundown. I know movielover and 2034 wouldn't point this out, so I thought I would. It's the appropriate resolution to the conflicting situations.

---

Yes. I think I read like 20-something states did that. My own state of Oregon did not. This one isn't worth worrying about IMO.

I believe he's running for Ohio governor. A number of world-class Alpha males at MAL. Vivek can come off a little arrogant. ("My wife is one of the best xyz doctors in the world!" Dude, I'm sure she's great, and I'm sure we have great doctors in LA, San Diego, Boston, NY, etc.)

Vivek was done as soon as he did that Twitter post that basically said white American culture was bad and inferior to Asian standards of achievement. Pretty much as I thought.

Hannity to interview POTUS Wed night in the Oval.

Will he shut up?

No.

Narcissists are like that.

sycasey said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

All of them?? Snowballs chance in hell of that happening.

---

Anyway, my thought is that ending birthright citizenship gets no more than 3 votes in the current Court. It really shouldn't get any, but even for a very right-wing group it's hard to go against explicit text.

---

The birthright citizenship question turns entirely on the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th amendment. The supreme court has not ruled on this directly in over 125 years - United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). For example, children born to diplomats in the US are not given US citizenship.

There's a good discussion of the issue here https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/revisiting-the-birthright-citizenship-question-and-the-constitution

I don't think its a slam dunk that Trump loses.

I think there's a decent chance the supreme court rules a person in the US illegally (or perhaps evading a deportation order) is not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US and therefore their children are not entitled to US citizenship. I believe that is one basis on which to distinguish the Wong Kim Ark case - Wong Kim Ark's parents were (from what I can tell) lawfully in the US when he was born. And for the record, if the SC does make a change in the law, I suspect it would apply going forward only since citizenship was conferred on newborn's prior to Trump's change.

There's also a chance that the SC rules that congress is empowered to enact implementation legislation determining who is "subject to the jurisdiction" in which case Trump's executive order is invalid. That would be the correct result in my view (politically, if not constitutionally).

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

All of them?? Snowballs chance in hell of that happening.

---

Anyway, my thought is that ending birthright citizenship gets no more than 3 votes in the current Court. It really shouldn't get any, but even for a very right-wing group it's hard to go against explicit text.

---

The birthright citizenship question turns entirely on the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th amendment. The supreme court has not ruled on this directly in over 125 years - United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). For example, children born to diplomats in the US are not given US citizenship.

There's a good discussion of the issue here https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/revisiting-the-birthright-citizenship-question-and-the-constitution

I don't think its a slam dunk that Trump loses.

I think there's a decent chance the supreme court rules a person in the US illegally (or perhaps evading a deportation order) is not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US and therefore their children are not entitled to US citizenship. I believe that is one basis on which to distinguish the Wong Kim Ark case - Wong Kim Ark's parents were (from what I can tell) lawfully in the US when he was born. And for the record, if the SC does make a change in the law, I suspect it would apply going forward only since citizenship was conferred on newborn's prior to Trump's change.

There's also a chance that the SC rules that congress is empowered to enact implementation legislation determining who is "subject to the jurisdiction" in which case Trump's executive order is invalid. That would be the correct result in my view (politically, if not constitutionally).

---

And again I say to you and other Republicans:

Good luck with that.

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

All of them?? Snowballs chance in hell of that happening.

---

Anyway, my thought is that ending birthright citizenship gets no more than 3 votes in the current Court. It really shouldn't get any, but even for a very right-wing group it's hard to go against explicit text.

---

The birthright citizenship question turns entirely on the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th amendment. The supreme court has not ruled on this directly in over 125 years - United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). For example, children born to diplomats in the US are not given US citizenship.

There's a good discussion of the issue here https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/revisiting-the-birthright-citizenship-question-and-the-constitution

I don't think its a slam dunk that Trump loses.

I think there's a decent chance the supreme court rules a person in the US illegally (or perhaps evading a deportation order) is not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US and therefore their children are not entitled to US citizenship. I believe that is one basis on which to distinguish the Wong Kim Ark case - Wong Kim Ark's parents were (from what I can tell) lawfully in the US when he was born. And for the record, if the SC does make a change in the law, I suspect it would apply going forward only since citizenship was conferred on newborn's prior to Trump's change.

There's also a chance that the SC rules that congress is empowered to enact implementation legislation determining who is "subject to the jurisdiction" in which case Trump's executive order is invalid. That would be the correct result in my view (politically, if not constitutionally).

---

And again I say to you and other Republicans:

Good luck with that.

---

The point was your "explicit text" argument is not as strong as you think it is. But you're too lazy to engage with that. No problem. I get it - you're modeling your debate on Biden.

---

No, I still think your chances of success here are very slim. But again: good luck with that. Your side won and will get to pursue whatever initiatives they prefer.

This is a very bad look for Trump.

Reporter: “What can we expect from the NATO countries that spend the least (…), like Spain, below 5%?”

Trump: “Spain is very low. Are they a BRICS nation?”

Reporter: “What?”

Trump: “They are a BRICS nation. Spain. Do you know what a BRICS nation is?” pic.twitter.com/bad4CKH69O

— AlexandruC4 (@AlexandruC4) January 21, 2025

LAFD example #1.

Cal88 said:

---

This is a very bad look for Trump.

Reporter: “What can we expect from the NATO countries that spend the least (…), like Spain, below 5%?”

Trump: “Spain is very low. Are they a BRICS nation?”

Reporter: “What?”

Trump: “They are a BRICS nation. Spain. Do you know what a BRICS nation is?” pic.twitter.com/bad4CKH69O

— AlexandruC4 (@AlexandruC4) January 21, 2025

---

HAHAHAHAHHAHAAAAAAA!

I'm surprised that event was not covered here, this IMO is Trump's biggest goof in his 4 years and 1 day as POTUS.

DiabloWags said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

I'm surprised that event was not covered here, this IMO is Trump's biggest goof in his 4 years and 1 day as POTUS.

---

I guess that BRICS stands for the following:

Brazil
Russia
India
China
Spain

Here comes tariffs for SPAIN.

LMFAO!

Trump mistakes Spain for a member of the BRICS bloc and repeats the threat of massive tariffs

---

They speak Spanish, they must be in it, right?

sycasey said:

---

They speak Spanish, they must be in it, right?

---

I think Trump kicked out South Africa because of the Nazi "influence".
lol

MAL, and they declined transition $$ / IT management from the Democrat Swamp.

Cal88 said:

---

I'm surprised that event was not covered here, this IMO is Trump's biggest goof in his 4 years and 1 day as POTUS.

---

I think during his first term or right before it, Trump asked a room full of politicians and diplomats what NATO is and why we needed it and no one could answer him.

Trump signs EO for deportation of non citizens who support terrorist organizations.

https://www.instagram.com/p/DFJofGasJ7z/?igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

BREAKING: After call with Pres. Trump, the Saudi crown prince agrees to $600 BILLION investment push with U.S.

— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) January 23, 2025

After President Trump said he would only visit Saudi Arabia if they started buying more American products, the Saudi Crown Prince just called and said they want to invest $600 BILLION in the United States

THE ART OF THE DEAL.