domain:parrhesia.co
Hadad
1d ago
Yes, amnesty was entirely legal. It was also a disaster. It is but one of many reasons I no longer care if actions are lawful or not, merely whether they direct the country in the right direction.
anon_
1d ago
The fact that they let the nationwide injunction stand for another 30 days is likewise indicative of this.
anti_dan
1d ago
I will try but I have no idea how they work. We have had this happen one time before at our previous residence. The driver hung a bag over the fencing of the adjacent lot and took a picture then 3 minutes later I went to look for it and there was nothing. We never were told what happened in that case. I suspect unless I file my own police report (which I dont really have cause for because they fully refunded me) I would ever get any notice.
I know that on large purchases Amazon does file its own reports with local PD. But that is for over $1k at a single location, and then the PD will try to see if there is a camera and file charges. But for $50 of takeout we ordered because we both had really stressful Friday workdays? I doubt it.
anon_
1d ago
Gutierrez v. Saenz - Criminal Procedure. A lurid murder case gives rise to a pretty boring dispute about death-row inmates' standing to request post-conviction testing of DNA evidence. I can't really figure out the nuances of the Texas law at issue or the procedural history, but it looks like the Sotomayor-led majority thinks Gutierrez has standing; he has a Fourteenth Amendment liberty interest in the ability to request post-conviction DNA testing, even though the prosecutor apparently has both the right and the express intention to refuse that request in this case.[...] My read: SCOTUS lets a death-row inmate file a doomed, pointless post-conviction motion that doesn't have any hope of success but will probably delay his execution for a few more years (Gutierrez was convicted in 1998).
Alternative read: An enormous amount of capital appeals has been about everything except whether the defendant actually murdered someone. This Court in particular has had little patience for endless appeals regarding mental capacity, culpability, IQ, age, execution methods, history of abuse/neglect and all the other sentencing-phase stuff.
But now they are signaling that they are amenable to something like DNA that can (theoretically) be relevant to the actual verdict. The message seems to clearly tell the appellate folks what not to focus on.
dr_analog
top 1% of underdog fetishists
1d ago
Amnesty was an act of Congress signed by the President. The country was also a bit different then. We wanted the labor and felt compassion for people fleeing communist hell holes.
I'm not really arguing against ending birthright citizenship going forward given how much different the circumstances are now.
anti_dan
1d ago
Fully refunded + $10 on the platform my wife ordered through. Not worth my time to file a police report, but who knows what their policy is. If cops come in the next 30 days and ask for the footage I will have it.
jkf
1d ago
All of the effectiveness stats are 'effectiveness in use' -- so 'using' condoms includes 'yeah I use condoms but sometimes run out or whatever', just as 'using' the pill includes people who forget to take it, 'using' NFP includes 'but baby I need you now', and 'using' withdrawal includes... um, accidents.
anon_
1d ago
"Nationwide" or "universal" injunctions have been part of the playbook for activists' (especially progressive activists) lawfare for a long time. The idea is to find some sympathetic plaintiff who would be affected by a statute or executive action you don't like, shop around the whole country until you find a judge who agrees with you, and then get that judge--before the case has even been tried--to indefinitely prevent the government from applying the challenged law/regulation/action to anyone, anywhere in the country.
Oh short political memories. This was also the playbook of conservative activists, especially given that there are single-judge districts in the 5^th circuits with some very conservative jurists. You don't even have to shop them, you can 100% pick. And there were at least a dozen such nationwide injunctions against Biden-admin policies: Texas v. U.S (twice!), Louisiana v US, GA v US, NE v US Top Cop v Garland. Which was fair turnabout given Trump I given Obama (remember DACA and the DOL persuader rule, probably not) and so forth.
When there's next a D administration, it's gonna be short memories again, and everyone will trade places around a merry-go-round of pretending to be actually concerned about procedural matters. It's predictable and would be distressing except that I suppose we're all just numb to it now.
[ FWIW, if you care about my actual thoughts on the merits, I think the decision is fine. I would probably sign mostly onto Kav's concurrence which joins the opinion in full. ]
anon_
1d ago
Again, you can wish for a different Bruen.
how the Second Amendment was interpreted from immediately after its ratification through the end of the 19th century represented a critical tool of constitutional interpretation (internal quotes removed)
And
Second, we looked to “19th-century cases that interpreted the Second Amendment” and found that they “universally support an individual right” to keep and bear arms.
Bruen isn't a decision that grants you, personally, the precise 2A jurisprudence that you want.
Hadad
1d ago
It genuinely should be done. Amnesty was a mistake, generously; more cynically, it was treachery. Birthright citizenship is insane, and rewarding illegals for bleeding on our magic soil is deeply infuriating.
Hadad
1d ago
It's crazy on multiple levels. His age, like you said, but also that it's blatantly illegal.
This isn't crazy once you accept a not insignificant number of people -- an amount I perceive to be growing, not shrinking, with time -- believe the laws are already being routinely broken, including constitutional rights, with no penalty.
Sure, a third term's unconstitutional. So is the constant deprivation of my gun rights in blue states. I'm not convinced the third term rule is more important than the gun rule.
gattsuru
1d ago
Given that we could end up in situations where newborns in certain states acquire citizenship and other newborns don't, I would've thought the Supreme Court would issue a decision on birthright citizenship within the present term. Is it just that there's not enough time?
They don't have a current case on it; almost everything is early in preliminary process at the district or appeals level. The oral args brought up cases in the First, Fourth, and Ninth Circuit, there's no chance of the feds winning the 9th Circuit barring pod people, and the feds committed to requesting cert if they lost (for whatever a lawyer's promise is worth, lol). Bondi's statement, charitably, would involve a fast resolution to one of those cases, an October term hearing, and decisions months after that. This timeline might not give us an answer until Spring or Summer 2026 (although I think it'd be obvious before then).
But I don't think CASA prohibits all preliminary protections. The majority opinion openly invites class certification and class-wide relief, and the extent that the feds tried to argue against class certification during oral args was kinda a joke:
KAVANAUGH: If you were to oppose it, on what basis would you plausibly oppose [classwide certification]?
GENERAL SAUER: There may be problems of commonality and typicality, for example. For -- for example, there's two different sets of groups that are affected by the Executive Order. There are those where the mothers are temporarily present and those where the mother are illegally present, and in both cases, the father is neither a citizen nor a lawful permanent resident. So there might be issues of typicality. Adequacy of representation might very well be an issue. So there would have to be that rigorous application of those criteria. Now the argument may be this is a case that is a natural candidate for a Rule 23(b)(2) certification. That may well be true. The government hasn't taken a position on that. Our position is not that class certification will necessarily be granted.
((I'm increasingly thinking SCOTUS picked such a broad case because the more grounded alternatives for preliminary relief are fairly straightforward.))
What are the chances that the Supreme Court actually strikes down birthright citizenship? My impression from the start was that this was always going to be a losing case given how far back the precedent goes, but I'm far from an expert.
It's pretty low. The legal arguments aren't as obviously wrong as at first glance, but they're still a long reach, and mixing that, the reliance interests, the seeing-as-a-state problems, everything like that... I don't want to say zero, because zero isn't a probability, but it's low low. I'd honestly consider 9-0 more likely than 6-3 or 7-2.
Hadad
1d ago
If Trump declared elections suspended tomorrow and proclaimed himself first emperor of America, he would have more supporters than Obama trying to run for a third term, and lots of his opponents would object less.
I'm not convinced this is true. I think Obama would absolutely cinch the vote if he ran for a third term, especially given the other options Democrats have to choose from.
Agreed on the headlines, though. Obama had significantly more earnest and intense elite buy in than Trump. They loved Obama as much as they hate the orange man.
mrvanillasky
Indo Aryan Thot Leader
1d ago
First time hearing of a woman doing this. I usually only see videos of dysgenic looking men do it. Did you file a complain?
anti_dan
1d ago
I've been saying it for a while: it's gotten to a point where saying "having a kid out of wedlock is a bad idea" is left-coded.
Only to the extent that its a subset of "having kids is bad" which is a strong left coded meme. I think if you are to have a child the left generally would prefer it being out of wedlock.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
1d ago
"Now, sure, every time in the last 200 years that a nation declared itself as enlightened atheists guided by pure reason they immediately proceeded with the worst atrocities yet visited upon man, but hey, what's religion got to do with anything?"
Which non-communist countries would these be? Because I think the single unifying trait you are ignoring here is communism.
You're better than this response, not least of all because your challenges were answered and you missed it in your haste to throw down the "tl;dr lol."
My response was not "tl;dr lol." You did not answer my challenges, you just keep insisting that Rome and China and the Weimar republic all fell for reasons they did not.
Avarice is self-evidently ruinous. Caprice was explained at the top:
Sure, but I could name a bunch of other ruinous traits also easily found in most countries in decline. This argument is specifically about whether it's control of women (or lack thereof) that is a unifying thread. You mentioned automation. I could mention that and a host of other economic, technological, and tribal concerns that probably figure much more prominently in any potential societal collapse than the "mistake" of letting women have sexual agency.
anti_dan
1d ago
Condoms are not used correctly, in practice, is my understanding of their failure rate. Contra @alexander_turok's assertions in the OP, condoms are, actually, the low class birth control option. If you aren't willing to go raw with a man you shouldn't even be pondering sex with them. And condoms are easy to sabotage both intentionally (hole pokes being most common) and inadvertently (heat, cold, old age, abrasion). Also, apparently there are application problems that are common specifically regarding looseness and tightness of fit which are vague memories I have from sophomore age sex ed.
So yeah, its birth control for dumb, untrustworthy, probably intoxicated people. Of course it doesnt work well.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1d ago
But the prohibition on ex post facto laws is about laws. The supreme court is not very consistent about when its declared constitutional rules apply retroactively, but the answer is not "never." To the extent individuals have gotten citizenship by birth due to the fourteenth amendment (rather than an act of Congress) such citizenship would be open to retroactive removal by the court.
gattsuru
1d ago
Trump v. CASA is very specifically about universal injunctions; none of the majority really delves into the likelihood of success in the merits, and I'm extremely skeptical that it could get more than two votes max on the merits of the underlying lawsuit.
I'm skeptical the EO will even avoid pretrial mass relief: the majority openly invites state-wide injunctions or class action lawsuits, and this would be one of the cleanest Rule 23 class actions possible. I'd be willing to bet 100 USD to a charity of your choice that there are at least three circuits where almost all children of illegal immigrants are covered by an injunction before the end of the year, and I'm only going that low because of friction effects.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
1d ago
A child support order is going to say, throughout, "for the support of the child" and among other things will typically specify that support will end when the child turns 18, etc. If we have to black out every mention of "child" then I suppose it might be hard to figure out what the purpose of the order is.
What elements would you point to in order to refute the competing hypothesis that the primary function of the policy is actually mother support?
The fact that the support ends when the child reaches age of majority, and that the calculation of support is based on the child's needs, not the mother's. ("Mother support" is called alimony, and as I mentioned already, it's awarded rarely nowadays, usually only in a marriage of long standing where one spouse has substantially depended on the other and has no ready means of earning income once separated.)
I am guessing your grievance is that the mother (or, more rarely, father) is given $X per month in child support and nothing really prevents her or him from spending it on heroin or lotto tickets. True except inasmuch as failure to care for the child would be subject to court oversight and in extreme cases loss of custody, but if Mom puts all the child support in the same pot of money as her other sources of income (let's assume she has a job, which most often she does) - how would you prefer to make sure she does not personally benefit from the child support? Suppose you think she's spending too much money on clothes for herself. But she can always say "The child support money is what paid for the food Child ate and the Child's clothes, I bought my clothes with the other money." You could argue that without the child support she wouldn't have been able to afford to buy clothes for herself. While true, the point of child support is that children add expenses. If she weren't taking care of the child she could afford to buy clothes for herself.
I have also had this argument about a hundred times. It always boils down to a desire to be punitive and/or bail on financial obligations, almost always rooted in a sense of bitterness and injustice, not actual concern for the welfare of any children in question.
George_E_Hale
insufferable blowhard
1d ago
Interesting. It certainly seemed to be something like this, but it was in Arabic and right there on Twitter so I assumed it had to be less tawdry somehow.
Jiro
1d ago
Scott originally gave as an example "There isn’t enough Stalinism in this country!" There isn't enough leftism is an obvious extension.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
1d ago
While I'm not a lawyer, I don't see how there could be any such retroactive action, considering the constitution explicitly forbids ex post facto laws. Presumably even if we do get rid of birthright citizenship, it would apply only to future cases, not past cases.
jake
1d ago
"Now, sure, every time in the last 200 years that a nation declared itself as enlightened atheists guided by pure reason they immediately proceeded with the worst atrocities yet visited upon man, but hey, what's religion got to do with anything?"
You're better than this response, not least of all because your challenges were answered and you missed it in your haste to throw down the "tl;dr lol."
Avarice is self-evidently ruinous. Caprice was explained at the top:
When birthrates decline in an otherwise prosperous nation the cause is always the same: multiple avenues for intrasexual competition where women attain status aside from wifehood and motherhood.
Left to their own devices, the majority will choose serial fleeting satisfactions rather than the long-term happiness that comes in continuing the human race by creating more people. This is capriciousness.
I do agree my jab at the end was hyperbole, but it's because my timeframe is right. Simulacra will reach ubiquity before "Generation Supercritical" reaches the age of majority and adopts them in mass. As for you calling this doomsaying, I'm deathly serious about my concerns, I don't see the flaw and I think about this constantly. If you do, if you think you have a superior understanding, if you see how we get out of this mess of young people seeing no purpose in life, especially when automation comes for everything, I'm all ears. I want to be wrong, I would want you to be right, because then all posterity doesn't hinge on this one achievement.
Jeez, you'd think they'd at least say "the round little red ones"
More options
Context Copy link