Sotomayor:"the Act grants the President power to detain and remove foreign citizens of a “hostile nation or government” when “there is a declared war” with such nation or when a “foreign nation”threatens “invasion or predatory incursion” against the territory of the United States"
The act doesn't say "foreign citizens" it says "all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects".
The act doesn't say "foreign nation" it says "foreign nation or government".
The act doesn't say "threatens" it says "is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened".
So she has intentionally and deceitfully removed many relevant conditions and terms from the law in her dissent opinion. This continues throughout the whole opinion, for example:
Sotomayor:"There is, of course, no ongoing war between the United States and Venezuela. Nor is Tren de Aragua itself a “foreign nation.”
The act doesn't require and ongoing war, nor a foreign nation; a government was clearly recognized as something different from a nation. And Tren de Aragua is a government - they govern their "subjects". Your home owner association is a governing body. Whether the act can apply to a Venezuelan HOA that forms a militia and invades is maybe a question for the court, but clearly with saying natives, denizens and subjects they're not envisioning that only official Red Coats can be deported.
This continues:
Sotomayor:"Congress requires the President to “mak[e] public proclamation” of his intention to invoke the Alien Enemies Act."
Again a distortion. The law says the President can deport them when he "makes public proclamation of the event" - not the intention to invoke the act, but a proclamation of the event. And he's been calling it an invasion for some time, which is maybe all that's required.
I give Katanji a pass on this because she's a moron. Sotomayor isn't dumb enough to use that as an excuse - she's just an evil, duplicitous bitch.
I am ok using her supposed position as the pinnacle of female legal knowledge and pretense of retardation as a basis for saying all women are apparently incapable of correctly discerning and/or statements, and so are unfit to serve on the judiciary in any capacity.
Go ahead and ham up your 5th grade reading comprehension to twist the law the way you want ladies. It will only help pass the most important reform needed to make the legal system impartial again.
This is the same justice that asked, during the Masterpiece Cakeshop hearing, if the owner blocked anyone from buying anything. When informed that he hadn't, on the record, she admitted was surprised to learn that and it was contrary to "what she heard".
She still joined the dissent with the opinion that he should have been forced to make the troll cake. Absolutely brainless waste of oxygen. (But when demonrats need someone to just follow orders, the fewer braincells the better.)
Your rely on ambiguity - 'governing' in governing body is very different from the kind of 'governing' that a government does. Obviously, a home owner's association doesn't have even a claimed monopoly of force over a given territory.
But of course, this is about the result and not whether or not the logic is actually valid.
I'm actually not, I'm saying that what "government" meant in the early 1800s is "a question for the court" - but I'm pretty sure it didn't unambiguously mean "nation" since the law listed out both.
The issue before the court will be whether Tren de Aragua is covered - Trump admin says it is.
So when Sotomayor says the case shouldn't even be heard because they aren't a "nation" she's prejudging the question before the court on behalf of all the other Supremes. Which I have to say is at least consistent with her "wise Latina" arrogance.
It does seem clear to me that the law was intended as 'any identifiable, organized group of foreigners'. Back then it wasn't just well-formed US / Canada / Mexico as basically all of North America. There were Indian tribes, local and splinter governments, and independent lands. I really doubt they intended for the Navajo to be okay invading us because they weren't a nation-state, or for the government to deport all Shoshone after a Ute incursion.
That seems to me the intent of the "public proclamation of the event" - so it's clear who is getting rounded up and only those people in the group that actually did it.
I'm pretty sure it didn't unambiguously mean "nation" since the law listed out both.
I agree, though the whole definition of 'nation' opens up a whole new can of worms, particularly as it is commonly used.
The issue before the court will be whether Tren de Aragua is covered - Trump admin says it is.
Doesn't seem like the strongest argument to me, but we'll see what happens. I think that Trump admin goes for a lot of unlikely Hail Mary legal arguments, like with the birthright citizenship. I think that is stupid, but it would take a miracle for the court to adopt Trump's position.
It does seem clear to me that the law was intended as 'any identifiable, organized group of foreigners'. Back then it wasn't just well-formed US / Canada / Mexico as basically all of North America. There were Indian tribes, local and splinter governments, and independent lands.
Hey, it's a living constitution. And things change. There weren't any gangs back then, like there weren't any machine guns, so we get to do what we want. Isn't that the argument they use when they want to abuse it for something?
I really doubt they intended for the Navajo to be okay invading us because they weren't a nation-state, or for the government to deport all Shoshone after a Ute incursion.
Right, but they were a nation, which means people. Aren't Indians often called 'X Nation'? If you're right that the original intent was something different, then you're still right.
If, for whatever reason, the majority of “”migrants””” were attractive young women, then US citizen women would be against letting them in.
This experiment has been done a couple of times. Most recently, a lot of Ukrainian women are going to China because they can snag the richest Chinese men. Chinese women are up in arms
Years ago, there was a trend in Sweden for the men to marry Thai women. They passed laws to stop that.
Years ago, there was a trend in Sweden for the men to marry Thai women. They passed laws to stop that.
What's your source? There's no way sweden would do this while Malmö is in the state it is and you can't even defend yourself from the mudslime invaders.
Sotomayor isn't looking too well. 70s. Has teh diabeetus and heart issues. Hopefully Trump makes a better choice this time. People were warning him about Barrett but he charged ahead and appointed that depraved quisling anyways.
None of his appointments were perfect. I think Gorsuch is a good deal worse with raping the Civil Rights Act to pretend that troons are protected by it.
No, the tradition is him sperging in every thread possible about the same topic whether it's on topic in said threads or not. Since he can't do that here currently he's now doing so on other boards, including at least 3 he mods himself, 2 of which are literally just him blogging with no other users actually taking part. He's the opposite side of the coin to crazy cat ladies screeching about everything and at least they can sometimes have the excuse of toxoplasmosis causing their insanity.
While I don't agree with them, they dislike him because he actively argues against the anti-Jewish people, because he thinks they distract from the real enemy (women) by talking about a fake one (Jews).
No, some of us dislike him because he never STFUs and feels the need to interject and derail every fucking thread that exists. He wants to go sperg and shout on a digital street corner like a crazy homeless man would have done pre-Internet he can go do that, but he can do that somewhere else where it's at least relevant to his spergings without causing obvious damage or manipulation, the latter of which applies to the MGTOW board here that evidently has plenty of users susceptible to the spergings because they're just aligned enough to take root. He's doing the exact same thing LW1 did with Wizardchan telling them precisely what they want to hear despite an ulterior motive behind every word.
The essential nature of women is selfish and corrosive to society, unless kept in check by social pressure and shaming self-centered, short term pleasure-seeking.
Feminism is both the dominant political paradigm. It will bring about the destruction of western world if left to run amuck for much longer. See the UK, Sweden, Korea, Germany, etc.
The political movement of Feminism and its children like 'The Domestic Violence Industry', DEI, Intersectional Feminism, are funded by billions of dollars of taxpayer funds every year. These female-centric political movements are the tip of the spear for a conspiracy of globalist interests that use these movements as a reliable method for gaining the collaboration of most of female population (largest demographic of voters) to implement the strategy of 'Managed Decline'; which keeps the population compliant while the resources of nations are funneled into the pockets of a few.
Jesus, Kagen sure looks like a man in drag to me.
common among the tribe, ginsburg looked like Larry king
Doesn't look like Larry King to me: https://media.cnn.com/api/v1/images/stellar/prod/190823154237-07-alt-justice-ruth-bader-ginsberg.jpg?q=w_888,c_fill
Or do you mean ' when she was 80'?
Larry King in his twenties could very well looked like young ginsburg
Steve Guttenberg or Al Franken doing a bit.
Damn, that just might be Al Franken
Sotomayor: "the Act grants the President power to detain and remove foreign citizens of a “hostile nation or government” when “there is a declared war” with such nation or when a “foreign nation” threatens “invasion or predatory incursion” against the territory of the United States"
The act doesn't say "foreign citizens" it says "all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects".
The act doesn't say "foreign nation" it says "foreign nation or government".
The act doesn't say "threatens" it says "is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened".
So she has intentionally and deceitfully removed many relevant conditions and terms from the law in her dissent opinion. This continues throughout the whole opinion, for example:
Sotomayor: "There is, of course, no ongoing war between the United States and Venezuela. Nor is Tren de Aragua itself a “foreign nation.”
The act doesn't require and ongoing war, nor a foreign nation; a government was clearly recognized as something different from a nation. And Tren de Aragua is a government - they govern their "subjects". Your home owner association is a governing body. Whether the act can apply to a Venezuelan HOA that forms a militia and invades is maybe a question for the court, but clearly with saying natives, denizens and subjects they're not envisioning that only official Red Coats can be deported.
This continues:
Sotomayor: "Congress requires the President to “mak[e] public proclamation” of his intention to invoke the Alien Enemies Act."
Again a distortion. The law says the President can deport them when he "makes public proclamation of the event" - not the intention to invoke the act, but a proclamation of the event. And he's been calling it an invasion for some time, which is maybe all that's required.
I give Katanji a pass on this because she's a moron. Sotomayor isn't dumb enough to use that as an excuse - she's just an evil, duplicitous bitch.
I am ok using her supposed position as the pinnacle of female legal knowledge and pretense of retardation as a basis for saying all women are apparently incapable of correctly discerning and/or statements, and so are unfit to serve on the judiciary in any capacity.
Go ahead and ham up your 5th grade reading comprehension to twist the law the way you want ladies. It will only help pass the most important reform needed to make the legal system impartial again.
But she feels like this is what the law means
This is the same justice that asked, during the Masterpiece Cakeshop hearing, if the owner blocked anyone from buying anything. When informed that he hadn't, on the record, she admitted was surprised to learn that and it was contrary to "what she heard".
She still joined the dissent with the opinion that he should have been forced to make the troll cake. Absolutely brainless waste of oxygen. (But when demonrats need someone to just follow orders, the fewer braincells the better.)
Your rely on ambiguity - 'governing' in governing body is very different from the kind of 'governing' that a government does. Obviously, a home owner's association doesn't have even a claimed monopoly of force over a given territory.
But of course, this is about the result and not whether or not the logic is actually valid.
I'm actually not, I'm saying that what "government" meant in the early 1800s is "a question for the court" - but I'm pretty sure it didn't unambiguously mean "nation" since the law listed out both.
The issue before the court will be whether Tren de Aragua is covered - Trump admin says it is.
So when Sotomayor says the case shouldn't even be heard because they aren't a "nation" she's prejudging the question before the court on behalf of all the other Supremes. Which I have to say is at least consistent with her "wise Latina" arrogance.
It does seem clear to me that the law was intended as 'any identifiable, organized group of foreigners'. Back then it wasn't just well-formed US / Canada / Mexico as basically all of North America. There were Indian tribes, local and splinter governments, and independent lands. I really doubt they intended for the Navajo to be okay invading us because they weren't a nation-state, or for the government to deport all Shoshone after a Ute incursion.
That seems to me the intent of the "public proclamation of the event" - so it's clear who is getting rounded up and only those people in the group that actually did it.
I agree, though the whole definition of 'nation' opens up a whole new can of worms, particularly as it is commonly used.
Doesn't seem like the strongest argument to me, but we'll see what happens. I think that Trump admin goes for a lot of unlikely Hail Mary legal arguments, like with the birthright citizenship. I think that is stupid, but it would take a miracle for the court to adopt Trump's position.
Hey, it's a living constitution. And things change. There weren't any gangs back then, like there weren't any machine guns, so we get to do what we want. Isn't that the argument they use when they want to abuse it for something?
Right, but they were a nation, which means people. Aren't Indians often called 'X Nation'? If you're right that the original intent was something different, then you're still right.
So they want young, fit, aggressive males back in the country. Huh.
How to tell us you have a rape fantasy without saying it.
Oh, it won't be them, they live in their gated community or under high protection at the least. They want it for other people, they are evil.
If, for whatever reason, the majority of “”migrants””” were attractive young women, then US citizen women would be against letting them in.
This experiment has been done a couple of times. Most recently, a lot of Ukrainian women are going to China because they can snag the richest Chinese men. Chinese women are up in arms
Years ago, there was a trend in Sweden for the men to marry Thai women. They passed laws to stop that.
There were stories from NBC lamenting Russian illegal immigration some years back as well.
What's your source? There's no way sweden would do this while Malmö is in the state it is and you can't even defend yourself from the mudslime invaders.
"No, not THAT kind of diversity!"
does not compute.
Useless cunts are useless cunts
Sotomayor isn't looking too well. 70s. Has teh diabeetus and heart issues. Hopefully Trump makes a better choice this time. People were warning him about Barrett but he charged ahead and appointed that depraved quisling anyways.
Sotomayor is just relieved that she’s no longer the dumbest one there, now that Jackson is in.
None of his appointments were perfect. I think Gorsuch is a good deal worse with raping the Civil Rights Act to pretend that troons are protected by it.
Yeah, hopefully they don't decide her replacement needs to check the same DEI boxes.
There's no way he wouldn't replace her with another woman.
Feminism is cancer
Feminism isn't the reason for this. It's just female nature. You tell women a sad enough story and they'll do anything you want them to.
Feminism is what put them in male roles i.e. making important decisions.
Burn the witches, stone the whores. Don't be like our recent ancestors and let them have power instead.
DEI strikes again
Imp is right yet again unfortunately.
Quick, ban him for another year.
Isn't that tradition? Punishing Imp for being right?
No, the tradition is him sperging in every thread possible about the same topic whether it's on topic in said threads or not. Since he can't do that here currently he's now doing so on other boards, including at least 3 he mods himself, 2 of which are literally just him blogging with no other users actually taking part. He's the opposite side of the coin to crazy cat ladies screeching about everything and at least they can sometimes have the excuse of toxoplasmosis causing their insanity.
He never gets the full nuke, though. Almost everyone else gets the full nuke the first infraction.
That might be timeline based after Imp caused so many issues he ended up shaping policy.
Imp is hated here because one side of people here think he’s a Jewish plant because most of the feminists he talks about are white
He supports mass immigration so he wouldn't even be upset about this ruling.
While I don't agree with them, they dislike him because he actively argues against the anti-Jewish people, because he thinks they distract from the real enemy (women) by talking about a fake one (Jews).
No, some of us dislike him because he never STFUs and feels the need to interject and derail every fucking thread that exists. He wants to go sperg and shout on a digital street corner like a crazy homeless man would have done pre-Internet he can go do that, but he can do that somewhere else where it's at least relevant to his spergings without causing obvious damage or manipulation, the latter of which applies to the MGTOW board here that evidently has plenty of users susceptible to the spergings because they're just aligned enough to take root. He's doing the exact same thing LW1 did with Wizardchan telling them precisely what they want to hear despite an ulterior motive behind every word.
I used to think that too, but he's just a full blown Zionist. It's obvious he's just a Jew.
I don't support banning him, but what has he ever been right about?
The essential nature of women is selfish and corrosive to society, unless kept in check by social pressure and shaming self-centered, short term pleasure-seeking.
Feminism is both the dominant political paradigm. It will bring about the destruction of western world if left to run amuck for much longer. See the UK, Sweden, Korea, Germany, etc.
The political movement of Feminism and its children like 'The Domestic Violence Industry', DEI, Intersectional Feminism, are funded by billions of dollars of taxpayer funds every year. These female-centric political movements are the tip of the spear for a conspiracy of globalist interests that use these movements as a reliable method for gaining the collaboration of most of female population (largest demographic of voters) to implement the strategy of 'Managed Decline'; which keeps the population compliant while the resources of nations are funneled into the pockets of a few.
TheImp supports mass immigration. He'd side with the judges.
Good times make men forget women are easily emotionally manipulated
Easily emotionally manipulated women get into power and make bad times.
Two of them are so ugly I wonder if they are actually men.
And the other two are so ugly I'd rather date the men.
Username checks out? 🤔
Coney Barrett is actually smiling. While doing a photo-op, standing next to these cunts.
What a disgrace.
They're her colleagues. What exactly did you expect? People on the left were attacking their own justices for speaking nicely about Scalia and Thomas.