Latest Breaking News

Fiendish Thingy

(23,206 posts)

42. That's because Biden wanted to wait on the report from the bipartisan commission on court reform

Mon Mar 30, 2026, 12:40 PM

Yesterday

Which ended up saying a whole lot of nothing.

IMO that was the second biggest mistake of his otherwise very progressive administration.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

43 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Looking to limit birthright citizenship, Trump turns to an 1884 Supreme Court ruling against a Native American man [View all] BumRushDaShow Sunday OP

Can't wait to hear the arguments before the court. Fiendish Thingy Sunday #1

With THIS court? bluestarone Sunday #3

My guess, 7-2 against. Nt Fiendish Thingy Sunday #8

I know for sure bluestarone Sunday #10

Wow, had not seen your response but mine was exactly the same..."With this court?" Escurumbele Yesterday #32

Weak sauce. bucolic_frolic Sunday #2

Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 nullified Elk v Wilkins Historic NY Sunday #4

Since the SCOTUS doesn't care about "stare decisis" BumRushDaShow Sunday #6

But this isn't stare decicis Fiendish Thingy Sunday #9

Have you forgotten BumRushDaShow Sunday #11

Haven't forgotten at all Fiendish Thingy Sunday #12

"if birthright citizenship is revoked, can the reinstitution of slavery still be off limits?" BumRushDaShow Sunday #13

All the more reason why we must only elect Dem senators willing to kill the filibuster and expand the court Fiendish Thingy Sunday #15

Roe was focused on enforcement of the PRIVATE right for women to choose what to do with her own body BumRushDaShow Yesterday #30

And that horrific ruling will continue to stand Fiendish Thingy Yesterday #36

That was the hope in 2022 BumRushDaShow Yesterday #37

That's because Biden wanted to wait on the report from the bipartisan commission on court reform Fiendish Thingy Yesterday #42

Not exactly. Ms. Toad Sunday #17

Birthright citizenship is also a law LeftInTX Sunday #23

It is the interpretation of the constitution that is at issue. Ms. Toad Sunday #24

I disagree Fiendish Thingy Sunday #25

"If the constitution says two term limit for a president, it doesn't mean three" BumRushDaShow Yesterday #33

But the Constitution doesn't say two terms for a p president. Ms. Toad Yesterday #34

Two means two, not three Fiendish Thingy Yesterday #35

Again, you are reducing a paragraph to a single word. Ms. Toad Yesterday #38

At this time, it's probably a moot point Fiendish Thingy Yesterday #43

Except that the US constitution does NOT Farmer-Rick Yesterday #27

Article III of the constitution and Marbury v. Madison. Ms. Toad Yesterday #39

In that Supreme Court ruling Farmer-Rick Yesterday #41

I'll see Elk v. Wilkins, cloudbase Sunday #5

The funny thing is, Wong Ark was decided in 1898 NickB79 Sunday #18

Trump would have required both parents to be wnylib Sunday #7

Doesn't seem relevant Renew Deal Sunday #14

So at that time territories weren't considered "The US"? Callie1979 Sunday #20

That's the way I'm reading it Renew Deal Sunday #22

I Think They Are Talking About Indian Territories DallasNE Yesterday #28

If thats the story then it would seem to have zero meaning to today's case. Callie1979 Yesterday #31

What total bullshit. Another argument of convenience. Scalded Nun Sunday #16

Sounds like a "3/5ths" argument; seen as lesser individuals. Callie1979 Sunday #19

This case in an interpretation that is consistent with how the provision has always been interpreted. Ms. Toad Sunday #21

I'm not buying that argument Bayard Sunday #26

Call DHS Immediately! Nasruddin Yesterday #29

pedo and his henchmen should move to Tx or Fl and let the rest of us get our country back Marthe48 Yesterday #40