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.
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.