The moonbats won’t stop their moonbattery
A federal judge agreed Thursday to issue a new nationwide block against President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship.
The ruling from US District Judge Joseph Laplante is significant because the Supreme Court last month curbed the power of lower court judges to issue nationwide injunctions, while keeping intact the ability of plaintiffs to seek a widespread block of the order through class action lawsuits, which is what happened Thursday in New Hampshire.
Ruling from the bench, Laplante granted a request from immigration rights attorneys to certify a nationwide class that “will be comprised only of those deprived of citizenship” and issued a preliminary injunction indefinitely blocking Trump’s Day One order from being enforced against any baby born after February 20.
Except, how does one sue when no one subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. has been affected? No one has lost their citizenship? This judge is a George W. Bush appointee, and Bush was a fan of mass amnesty.
In his ruling earlier this year, Laplante said Trump’s order “contradicts the text of the Fourteenth Amendment and the century-old untouched precedent that interprets it.”
Several other judges similarly ruled that Trump’s order was unconstitutional, but their injunctions applied nationwide and prompted the administration to mount the series of appeals that eventually landed before the Supreme Court.
Except, the 14th was meant to turn all slaves born in the US into citizens.
In this case, brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, those proposed representatives had included a Honduran asylum-seeker – referred to in court papers as “Barbara” and who is living in New Hampshire and expecting a baby in October – and a Brazilian man – referred to as “Mark” – who is attempting to get lawful permanent status. Mark’s wife, who is not in the US lawfully, gave birth in March.
The 14th clearly states “subject to the jurisdiction of”, and all associated are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S., but, their home countries. The real question here, as I’ve noted many times, is does Trump have the authority to end birthright citizenship for those subject to foreign jurisdictions per laws passed by the Congress, or, is this something that Congress must pass? Again, Congress has already passed laws that members of a foreign diplomatic mission are ineligible for birthright citizenship, which is the way most nations handle it. So, BRC is not absolute, but, determined by law.
Several conservatives, including Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, warned against courts using class-action litigation to essentially supplant the kind of nationwide injunction the court had just shot down.
“Lax enforcement of the requirements” for certifying a class, Alito wrote in an opinion joined by Thomas, “would create a potentially significant loophole to today’s decision.”
Federal courts, he added, “should thus be vigilant against such potential abuses of these tools.”
Whether Laplante’s decision is an “abuse” or exactly what the Supreme Court had in mind will likely wind up back before the justices in short order.
Let’s see how quick this ends up at the SC, and, if the Trump admin has the requisite authority per previously passed laws to do this.
Lol
Here we go again! Wacko President Trump while in Iowa begins promoting “amnesty for millions ” for illegal migrants working on farms or hotels
Deportation numbers are 30% lower than under Obama
Red MAGA chats being burned in protest
DHS snitch lines burning up with reported sightings of Dora
????
Wacko blogger believes Mr trump should be able to change the Constitution by Executive Order.
The wacko blogger makes the flawed argument that some persons born or naturalized in the United States are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction. What nation has jurisdiction over them?
Right-wingers claim the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right of any person to possess and bear any arm or arms, alhough precious few are members of a well-regulated militia!!