End Birthright Citizenship-Trump

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by nosborne48, Dec 9, 2024.

Loading...
  1. Lerner

    Lerner Well-Known Member

    What about the federal judges rulling that challenges the EO, is the EO on hold? If the couple mentioned had child born today or while the EO is on hold?
    I'm far from understanding the legal aspects of such matters.

    If a federal judge rules that an EO is unconstitutional or violates legal principles, they might issue an injunction (a court order) temporarily blocking the EO's enforcement. This doesn't automatically make the EO null and void, but it means the EO can't be enforced while the legal process continues. The ruling could apply nationwide or to specific regions, depending on the judge's decision. However, this could be appealed to higher courts, which may eventually uphold, modify, or overturn the ruling.
    If a federal judge has issued a ruling that blocks the EO, I think the EO is considered "on hold" in areas affected by the ruling. This means the government cannot enforce the provisions of the EO while the case is being appealed or reconsidered. If the ruling is overturned on appeal, the EO could go back into effect.
    In terms of the couple mentioned and their child, if their child was born after the judge’s ruling temporarily blocked the EO, the legal situation would depend on the specific contents of the EO and the judge's ruling. If the EO involved matters like immigration, citizenship, or travel restrictions, and the judge's ruling temporarily blocked those provisions, the couple may not be affected by those provisions for the time being. However, if the EO is ultimately upheld, it could still affect their situation in the future.

    In simple terms: If a child is born during a temporary "hold" on the EO, the legal conditions at that time would govern, but the situation could change if the EO is later.
    It can be challenging to follow legal proceedings, especially when it comes to temporary injunctions, appeals, and the broader implications of court rulings. The key takeaway is that if the EO is on hold due to a court order, the couple would likely be under the status quo (existing laws and policies) until the court case is resolved, and the final ruling is made.
    Anyway an immigration atorney should be consulted in such situation if comunity can assist in retaining one.
     
  2. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    My understanding is that judge ruled that the EO is on hold while it goes through the legal process. This is a very rare ruling. He took this unusual course because he felt that the EO was obviously unconstitutional. The argument in favor of the EO was weak and that they needed far better justification just to not be such a silly joke. Something along the lines of the weakest argument he's seen in court in his whole career.

    I note that the ruling did not involve the ACLU case. That is New Hampshire. The ruling that you refer to was in Seattle.
     
    NotJoeBiden likes this.
  3. NotJoeBiden

    NotJoeBiden Active Member

    Imagine having 4 years, a whole think-tank, and billions of dollars to come up with a plan to stop birth-right citizenship only for a Reagan-appointed judge to shut it down and call out the administrations incompetence in a scathing review.
     
  4. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    When you think about it, they've had twelve years.
     
    NotJoeBiden and Jonathan Whatley like this.
  5. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    Longer even than that. Birthright citizenship has infuriated the Right for a hundred years or more.
     
    NotJoeBiden likes this.
  6. NotJoeBiden

    NotJoeBiden Active Member

    Haha, they're such losers.
     
  7. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    For the non-lawyers out there, equity relief can come in three stages. These are 1) temporary restraining order which usually lasts two weeks and can be granted ex parte but wasn't in this case, 2) preliminary injunction after initial arguments and can stay in effect throughout the litigation, and permanent injunction which is the final order.

    Because the preliminary injunction happens after a hearing, granting it usually means the respondents have lost.
     
  8. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    Birthright citizenship (the fourteenth amendment) was enacted because the racists folks after the civil war were denying citizenship to freed slaves so that their rights could be more easily suppressed. The racists MAGA folks now want to do the same because they are such losers, as you mention.
     
    NotJoeBiden likes this.
  9. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    Yes, and the exact reason the 14th amendment citizenship clause is there is to guarantee that no future Congress, let alone a future President, would ever be able to undo it.
     
  10. Donald Trump is a disgusting moron!
     
  11. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    Disgusting, yes. Strictly transactional with no whiff of principal or ideals. Utterly self-focused. But not stupid. Not a moron.
     
  12. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    I generally agree. He has some huge blind spots though. He’s extremely weak when needing to empathize with others, for example. So when it comes to empathy one might say he’s a moron.
     
  13. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    Remember, the goal is not to run the government, it's to run it into the ground. The outcome is a hobbled government less able to restrict Trump and his Billionaires Club from going about their business of enriching themselves.

    That's why they're also doing all the "red meat" stuff. It's to keep the loyalty of the Red Hats, enlisting their help to keep it all a mess.

    The Republicans in Congress can put a stop to all of this tomorrow. They could impeach Trump in the House and convict him in the Senate.

    But they won't. They're just as much a part of this, too.
     
  14. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    He didn't used to be. But if you look at him in interviews in the '80s and '90s compared to his public speaking in the last fifteen years, there's a marked difference. Something happened to the guy.
     
  15. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    And it's probably a good thing, too, because President Vance would be worse.

    That said, Senate Republicans won't even vote down Trump's manifestly unqualified Cabinet nominees, so clearly that route is a dead end.
     
    NotJoeBiden likes this.
  16. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    A federal judge in Maryland just issued a preliminary injunction against the executive order. This is the second step toward a final order in the trial court and happens only after a full hearing with both parties present. A preliminary injunction has no time limit unlike the temporary restraining order in the Seattle case.

    Two of the general requirements for issuing a preliminary injunction are that the petitioner will suffer serious harm if relief isn't granted immediately and that the petitioner is clearly likely to prevail at trial.

    A thought. These cases will each eventually reach the Courts of Appeal. If every Court of Appeal arrives at the same conclusion, that the executive order is unconstitutional, the U.S. Supreme Court might decide not to grant certiorari but instead to allow the appellate court decisions to stand.
     
  17. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    The legal explanation is much appreciated. Thank you!
     
  18. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    Judge Coughenour has issued his final injunction with a very nasty swipe at the President. From here, it will go to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on direct appeal.
     
  19. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    Best guess is that Coughenour's permanent injunction will be upheld in the 9th Circuit. Whether the other Circuits will follow suit remains to be seen. If they agree, as I say, the Supreme Court might think "discretion is the better part of valor." But if the 5th Circuit, say, in the Deep South decides Trump is correct, the Supreme Court will have no choice but to take the case on. At that point, all bets are off.
     
  20. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    It's very frustrating. Judge Coughenour spent ink and time attacking President Trump. WHY? It's stupid and casts doubt on the Judge's impartiality. Much better to enter a careful, well researched set of findings that, if it doesn’t persuade the Appeals Courts, will at least make ignoring his findings difficult to do without intense and public embarrassment. I could have drafted such a set of findings myself with little trouble.

    You see, Federal District Court opinions are published.
     

Share This Page