Jump to content
Fragile Bird

US Politics: Four Days and Counting

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Well yeah, it wouldn’t be outright undoing birthright citizenship, but it would be the next best thing if you think it should be banned. And as far as legal challenges goes, I really can’t say how that would play out. I think the key would be establishing standing. After that, all bets are off. Lastly, Trump is sending 5,000 to 15,000 troops to the boarder based on national security claims that are totally bogus. I don’t see any reason why he wouldn’t try to do the same with birthright citizenship. It’s not like reality has ever governed his decision making process.

I agree, though I fear at some point Trump will go full Andrew Jackson and tell the courts to shove it. What happens if the courts rule it unconstitutional and Trump simply ignores them?  

Trump going full Andrew Jackson has worried me for two years.  If he does he will burn some of his supporters who think he pulls stunts like the EO for dramatic effect.  I think that’s why he has refrained from the “Full Jackson” so far.  We will see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Interesting. I'm in the UWS and when I voted in 2016, it was similar though I waited maybe 10 minutes then.

I had a similar experience in 2016.  Last year, for the mayor's race, I waltzed right in.  I have a colleague in Brooklyn who has been on line for 2 hours.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Trump going full Andrew Jackson has worried me for two years.  If he does he will burn some of his supporters who think he pulls stunts like the EO for dramatic effect.  I think that’s why he has refrained from the “Full Jackson” so far.  We will see.

Well, he's been ignoring the court order to reunite the families he separated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

I hope for a 50/50 split so that someone like Murkowski can be convinced to switch or caucus with the Democrats (lets not bring up Collin's, eh?)

Yeah.  I personally think that 50/50 is about as good as the Democrats can hope for, and better than I expect.  I agree that recruiting Murkowski is not out of the question. 

NOTE: LOTS OF SPECULATION HERE.  If the night is going well for Democrats in the Senate and 50/50 tie is really in play, it would make the Alaska Governors and House races suddenly a lot more interesting.  If Democrats were able to win either one, it would provide Murkowski more cover for a potential switch. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Frog Eater said:

but its not an amendment to the Constitution if his EO is clarifying that illegal immigrants are not under the jurisdiction of the United States but are acting as foreign agents, and therefore, children between 2 illegal immigrants are not citizens by right of being born in the United States. 

How can they not be under the Jurisdiction of the United States... if they are inside the United States and are not protected by Diplomatic Immunity.  Such a statement would be nonsensical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DMC said:

Again, this is a question for the courts.

It is indeed, and one that will most likely go to the Supreme Court, as if President Trump would issue such an EO, it would be challenged in court the day he signed it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DMC said:

 

Again, this is a question for the courts.

Which has been answered.....  

I mean, there are shades of Marbury that will come up if it actually happened, which is actually....unsettling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Well, he's been ignoring the court order to reunite the families he separated.

He’s fudging that.  He’s not overtly “ refusing the order” he’s pleading difficultly complying with the order.  Not the same thing.

Edited by Ser Scot A Ellison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DMC said:

The litany of Florida polls looked yesterday looked really good, but more for Gillum than Nelson.  Think that one's still up in the air.  As is Nevada in my eyes.  Otherwise, yeah.

It's quite possible I'm leaning too heavily on a combination of slim polling leads and early election prognostications, but I am feeling medium confident about FL and NV.  Both Steve Schale (FL) and Jon Ralston (NV) are rooting for the democrats, but they have a track record of correctly predicting Democrats coming up short in 2016 (FL) and 2012 (Heller).  So I take their opinions seriously. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

He’s fuging that.  He’s not overtly “ refusing the order” he’s pleading difficultly complying with the order.  Not the same thing.

At what point does unable to comply become outright refusal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

I mean, there are shades of Marbury that will come up if it actually happened, which is actually....unsettling.

A little bit, yeah, if the courts were to rule against him.  Roberts proved himself fairly apt in this regard with the ACA decision.  I'd expect a similar needle-threading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

How can they not be under the Jurisdiction of the United States... if they are inside the United States and are not protected by Diplomatic Immunity.  Such a statement would be nonsensical.

https://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/birthright-citizenship-fundamental-misunderstanding-the-14th-amendment

The Argument goes: 

The fact that a tourist or illegal alien is subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws does not place them within the political “jurisdiction” of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment.

This amendment’s language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “[a]ll persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens.

 

Personally: I think birthright citizenship gets upheld in the courts, and I dont think restricting travel of pregnant women will hold up either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Durckad said:

At what point does unable to comply become outright refusal?

When he tells the Court where to shove it.  That is “Full Jackson”.  He should be impeached and removed from office when he does that, but, I doubt it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

How can they not be under the Jurisdiction of the United States... if they are inside the United States and are not protected by Diplomatic Immunity.  Such a statement would be nonsensical.

Well exactly.  And the existing precedents uphold this.

1 minute ago, DMC said:

A little bit, yeah, if the courts were to rule against him.  Roberts proved himself fairly apt in this regard with the ACA decision.  I'd expect a similar needle-threading.

Roberts does NOT want a Constitutional crisis. Agreed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

An aquaintance at my new employer advised that people were being told to completely deactivate their smartphones per Department of Homeland Security instructions.  This was in Greenville County SC.

She also said there were some heated arguments taking place in the long lines to  vote.

I've seen the same coming out of Georgia. I think they just don't want people taking pictures of their ballots as proof of who they voted for. Voting machines don't run on wifi (or shouldn't, at any rate) so there is no reason to turn off your phone. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Frog Eater said:

https://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/birthright-citizenship-fundamental-misunderstanding-the-14th-amendment

The Argument goes: 

The fact that a tourist or illegal alien is subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws does not place them within the political “jurisdiction” of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment.

This amendment’s language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “[a]ll persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens.

 

Personally: I think birthright citizenship gets upheld in the courts, and I dont think restricting travel of pregnant women will hold up either. 

The issue is not the jurisdiction over the traveler or migrant, but the Jurisdiction over their child.  As agents of the United States is taking children who haven’t been born here from their parents, I suggest, that demonstrates US Jurisdiction over any child born within US territory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

I've seen the same coming out of Georgia. I think they just don't want people taking pictures of their ballots as proof of who they voted for. Voting machines don't run on wifi (or shouldn't, at any rate) so there is no reason to turn off your phone. 

I was an election worker in 2016 and we made sure to tell people it was illegal to take a picture of their ballots, precisely for the reason you described above. Hacking voting machines via wifi with a smartphone is not a realistic concern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Yeah.  I personally think that 50/50 is about as good as the Democrats can hope for, and better than I expect.  I agree that recruiting Murkowski is not out of the question. 

NOTE: LOTS OF SPECULATION HERE.  If the night is going well for Democrats in the Senate and 50/50 tie is really in play, it would make the Alaska Governors and House races suddenly a lot more interesting.  If Democrats were able to win either one, it would provide Murkowski more cover for a potential switch. 

 

I think its certainly a possibility if Democrats get to 50-50 and Begich and Galvin prove there is a Democratic path to winning Alaska without relying on running against an indicted Ted Stevens.

However, I suspect she would demand a heavy price and I wonder if its one Democrats would be comfortable with (especially if they win the House and therefore have oversight power already anyway). At a minimum I'd imagine she'd demand to remain as Chair of the Energy/Natural Resources committee rather than give it up to ranking Democratic senator Cantwell and that there be no attempt to undo the recent opening of part of ANWR for drilling.

But maybe Democrats would be willing to pay that if she agreed to vote with the party on blocking Trump judicial nominations (assuming the caucus is otherwise united).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Fez said:

At a minimum I'd imagine she'd demand to remain as Chair of the Energy/Natural Resources committee rather than give it up to ranking Democratic senator Cantwell and that there be no attempt to undo the recent opening of part of ANWR for drilling.

If that's all she asked for the Dems would be fools not to take it.  I'm not gonna get my hopes up regardless of the Alaskan election results, but have to admit Murkowski flipping has a certain Specter/Jeffords feel to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Ghjhero said:

I was an election worker in 2016 and we made sure to tell people it was illegal to take a picture of their ballots, precisely for the reason you described above. Hacking voting machines via wifi with a smartphone is not a realistic concern.

Why would it be illegal for people to take a photo of their own ballot? Not so long ago, ballots were completed in carbon copy and the voter got the carbon one as proof. What's the difference?

They also don't want people recording problems that occur. We've already had at least one machine switch party votes here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×