Does this mean Ted Cruz could be deported?
4 Likes
We could only hope.
I envision a catapult being involved.
1 Like
If weâre considering obsolete technology may I suggest a guillotine?
1 Like
A trebuchet can easily handle even a lardass like Cruz. We can aim at Cancun, and if weâre lucky heâll fall short and land in the water.
4 Likes
This is why the Council of Elrond should have just used a catapult to send Frodo and the Ring to Mordor.
I heard a tiny voice from the past warning,
âAww, be tweet to FrodoâŚâ
Guillotine not totally obsolete! I prefer that for Ted.
Itâs hard to engage backspin for a catapult toss though! Itâs best if he bounces and backs up to stay on Mars.
It would be a shame to foul the Gulf of Mexico.
2 Likes
I am lost for words at the fascist ruling that came out of SCOTUS yesterday. Federal judges no longer have jurisdiction over federal laws.
KBJ pointed out that a future president could now issue an order to seize guns nationwide, and the NRA would not be able to run to a federal court to stop it. Or, in un-hypothetical terms, religious fundies can no longer run to that one lunatic in Amarillo to block pro-choice legislation.
The fig leaf is that a group of states or a class can bring action to get relief for that group of states or class. But that just means we now are, in fact, two different countries: the red states (where Trump EOs are stone tablets from God) and blue states where sanity rules (at least until SCOTUS strikes down their lawsuits).
The last bulwark against Trump - the judicial branch - has collapsed.
2 Likes
To get to the point where she can return us to the state-by-state determination of citizenship practiced during the enslaver period of this country, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who wrote the majority opinion for the Republicans, argues that nationwide injunctions should never be a thing. Her principal reasoning for this is⌠the High Court of Chancery in England, which existed at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. I wish I were making that up, but Iâm not nearly creative enough to do it. Barrett, and the rest of her Republican colleagues, determined that nationwide injunctions cannot be used in 2025 to stop a president from violating the Constitution of the United States, because the High Court in Englandâwhich existed during a time of hereditary monarchyâdid not use a historical equivalent of a nationwide injunction to enforce the laws against [checks notes] their King.
Read the whole thing.
1 Like
Apparently thereâs an AI app for legal research that you can ask for cases to justify the position you want to take. Justice Flagboy used it to dredge up a justification for overturning Roe from some 17th century disgraced British witch-burning (i.e. woman-burning) judge.
The problem with the app is that it does not pull up case law that contradicts your position. So when justices use it in lieu of legal research (and Iâm being generous here that they actually trying to do legit research) it simply affirms the premise they first thought of.
Seems that Justice Serena Joy is using the same shit as Flagboy.
1 Like
From the article Lefty linked above, the always insightful Mystal lays it out:
If Trump violates my constitutional rights in New York, I can sue and potentially win. But if Trump violates your constitutional rights in exactly the same way in New Jersey, you have to sue for yourself. Indeed, the ruling probably means that if Trump violates your constitutional rights in exactly the same way in New York , you have to bring a separate lawsuit in New York to defend your constitutional rights. Every person has to individually ask for their constitutional rights. Itâs everyone for themselves, according to the Supreme Court. Everybody needs to lawyer up.
So if youâre a poor brown person in Mississippi who gets yoinked from your house after ICE blows the door off its hinges, itâs up to you to sue the federal government to get your rights back. This, while in immigration custody where there is no right to legal representation because you are not under criminal indictment. Catch 22 is now part of the constitution.
Basically deep pockets have rights and for everyone else it depends on which state you happen to be in at the time. So, exactly like access to abortion.
The more power these asshats grant Trumpâs GOP the less likely any of them are to ever let a Dem win another election. The U.S. is cooked.
5 Likes
Trump is going to cancel the 2026 mid-terms. Itâs the only way his presidency survives. Anyone who doesnât think this will happen is deluding themselves.
1 Like
Theyâll keep their powder dry for 2028. Losing the House does not matter. It will have outlived its usefulness once the BBB is passed. At the rate consolidation is progressing any sequel to BBB in 2027 or whenever will just be done by executive order. They still care about the Senate, but Republicans have a very favorable map in 2026, even against a potential blue wave. Whatever sketchy stuff they try will probably involve ratfucking select Senate races.
But in 2028 all bets are offâŚ
If the can successfully cancel 2026, they wonât need to worry about 2028. If cancelling 2026 doesnât work, they get to regroup and go again two years later.
The one lesson Trump learned from his first term was not to put off to tomorrow what you can rat-fuck today.
1 Like
wrong thread