Why the Supreme Court should find for the Judges power, and Birthright Citizenship.

[Rich2018]

You're ignoring five very important words there, but I'm sure you know that.

No, it clearly states that ""All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside".

ie: if you're BORN in the USA, you are or can become, a US citizen.

 

[SavannahMann]

The problem with the denial of Democrats attempting to pervert the courts into a politburo is the shear number of lawsuits filed pleading with forum shopped judges to countermand virtually every action of the Trump administration. If you can count, you can appreciate the tsunami of Democrat lawsuits isn't a defense of the Constitution at all. It's an attempt to destroy it by the imposition of judicial tyranny.

According to Democrats latest tactics we don't have a Constitution anymore. We only have what any jumped up District court judge won't ban with a nationwide injunction. Wrapping this gross political perversion in the Constitution doesn't suddenly transform it into legitimacy.

I note you refer to the Constitutional specification giving the Federal judiciary power to rule over all cases involving law and equity (fairness). What we have seen is District court judges at the behest of Democrats extremists ruling on Presidential decisions as if they are points of law. There is nothing in the Constitutional authority that allows judges to second guess the duly elected President on for example the finding of an invasion of illegal aliens.

My goodness how the Democrat opinion of judges has changed since the Dobbs decision. Disagree with Democrats and they'll dispatch bands of violent thugs to terrorize your family. Support their agenda to undermine the Bad Orange Man and judges are valiant infallible defenders of the Constitution modern Horatius at the gate.

On Dobbs I think you will find that I disagreed with the decision, but I’ve said before that it is now the law of the land. I don’t deny the validity while denouncing the content.

I actually agreed with the reasoning behind the decisions regarding Biden and the Student Loan cases. I don’t misrepresent those decisions as the RW is want to do.

The problem is that Trump actions and orders violate clear statutory law and decided precedent cases. We know what the laws are. Trump just doesn’t care.

Take the issue of Due Process. We have had case law for decades defining what is covered by Due Process. Every Judge who learned it in Law School and applied it in their careers as lawyers is suddenly a Leftist because they think the Constitution means everyone when it says all persons. They should know the Constitution didn’t mean everyone when it says no one shall.

The Courts are not creating new procedures and principles out of thin air. They are applying the law as it was written and interpreted decades ago. So we are told that those precedents don’t actually mean what they say.

As I said. The problem isn’t that the Courts are finding against Trump. The problem is that Trump is not following the law.

If I thought you had a snowballs chance in Hell if being even remotely honest I’d give you examples from the Biden Student Loan decisions. The Supremes said that the President does not get to move money from one mandated purpose to another. Okay. See Biden was awful. Trump doing the same thing as if he was on Performance Enhancing Drugs? The Chief Executive has unlimited Power to decide such things.

It isn’t the Judges. It’s Trump.

 

[AZRWinger]

On Dobbs I think you will find that I disagreed with the decision, but I’ve said before that it is now the law of the land. I don’t deny the validity while denouncing the content.

I actually agreed with the reasoning behind the decisions regarding Biden and the Student Loan cases. I don’t misrepresent those decisions as the RW is want to do.

The problem is that Trump actions and orders violate clear statutory law and decided precedent cases. We know what the laws are. Trump just doesn’t care.

Take the issue of Due Process. We have had case law for decades defining what is covered by Due Process. Every Judge who learned it in Law School and applied it in their careers as lawyers is suddenly a Leftist because they think the Constitution means everyone when it says all persons. They should know the Constitution didn’t mean everyone when it says no one shall.

The Courts are not creating new procedures and principles out of thin air. They are applying the law as it was written and interpreted decades ago. So we are told that those precedents don’t actually mean what they say.

As I said. The problem isn’t that the Courts are finding against Trump. The problem is that Trump is not following the law.

If I thought you had a snowballs chance in Hell if being even remotely honest I’d give you examples from the Biden Student Loan decisions. The Supremes said that the President does not get to move money from one mandated purpose to another. Okay. See Biden was awful. Trump doing the same thing as if he was on Performance Enhancing Drugs? The Chief Executive has unlimited Power to decide such things.

It isn’t the Judges. It’s Trump.

Not a word about the Democrat's massive campaign of filing lawsuits in a blatantly political attempt to recoup election losses through judicial tyranny. It's not only the unprecedented tsunami of lawsuits as a substitute for Congress, it's petty tyrants responding to the Democrats invitation with more nationwide injunctions issued by District judges early in the Trump administration than in the 3 previous administrations combined.

If I thought there was a snowball's chance in the AZ summer of having a reasoned discussion on the Democrats wave of lawsuits vis a vis the Constitution considering for instance things like standing and second guessing the Presidents decisions within his statutory authority, I'd engage. But, the opposition is hopelessly mired in Orange Man Bad zealotry and personal insults. That's why I invite discussion based on easily understood facts, the number of lawsuits and nationwide injunctions.

 

[SavannahMann]

Not a word about the Democrat's massive campaign of filing lawsuits in a blatantly political attempt to recoup election losses through judicial tyranny. It's not only the unprecedented tsunami of lawsuits as a substitute for Congress, it's petty tyrants responding to the Democrats invitation with more nationwide injunctions issued by District judges early in the Trump administration than in the 3 previous administrations combined.

If I thought there was a snowball's chance in the AZ summer of having a reasoned discussion on the Democrats wave of lawsuits vis a vis the Constitution considering for instance things like standing and second guessing the Presidents decisions within his statutory authority, I'd engage. But, the opposition is hopelessly mired in Orange Man Bad zealotry and personal insults. That's why I invite discussion based on easily understood facts, the number of lawsuits and nationwide injunctions.

The fly in the Buttermilk for your rant is the fact you ignore. Many of the Judges finding against Trump were appointed by Republicans. Some were appointed by Trump.

Again the policies and actions are violating decades long precedents. Things that have been essentially settled law long before Trump took office in 2017, much less 2025.

Now if you are going to do that you need to be able to argue that the Precedent is wrong. Trump and Co. have not been making that argument. They have been saying that the Judges have no right to overturn the will of the Voters. The will of the voters might be a valid argument on the partisan news, but it isn’t in court.

It isn’t quite the worst argument you could make in court. But if they ever make a list of top five worst arguments, the law should be subject to the will of the voters is going to be on the list.

You claim this is tyranny. Tyranny would be if the Courts could be overruled on a whim of the Chief Executive.

I’ve asked this question before. What happens when a Democrat again resides in the Oval Office? Do you really want the kind of power you are demanding for Trump to be in anyone else’s hands? Because it will be. In 1984, Reagan won a 49 state Landslide. It looked like Republicans were going to be in power for a Generation. Eight years later Clinton was the President Elect. A Democrat will be in the White House again. And I’ll bet money that you will suddenly be in favor of the Judges blocking unconstitutional actions and policies with National Authority.

 

[Lursa]

Not a word about the Democrat's massive campaign of filing lawsuits in a blatantly political attempt to recoup election losses through judicial tyranny.

This makes no sense. We won the election .

 

[Rich2018]

Not a word about the Democrat's massive campaign of filing lawsuits in a blatantly political attempt to recoup election losses through judicial tyranny...

Y A W N

 

[AZRWinger]

The fly in the Buttermilk for your rant is the fact you ignore. Many of the Judges finding against Trump were appointed by Republicans. Some were appointed by Trump.

Again the policies and actions are violating decades long precedents. Things that have been essentially settled law long before Trump took office in 2017, much less 2025.

Now if you are going to do that you need to be able to argue that the Precedent is wrong. Trump and Co. have not been making that argument. They have been saying that the Judges have no right to overturn the will of the Voters. The will of the voters might be a valid argument on the partisan news, but it isn’t in court.

It isn’t quite the worst argument you could make in court. But if they ever make a list of top five worst arguments, the law should be subject to the will of the voters is going to be on the list.

You claim this is tyranny. Tyranny would be if the Courts could be overruled on a whim of the Chief Executive.

I’ve asked this question before. What happens when a Democrat again resides in the Oval Office? Do you really want the kind of power you are demanding for Trump to be in anyone else’s hands? Because it will be. In 1984, Reagan won a 49 state Landslide. It looked like Republicans were going to be in power for a Generation. Eight years later Clinton was the President Elect. A Democrat will be in the White House again. And I’ll bet money that you will suddenly be in favor of the Judges blocking unconstitutional actions and policies with National Authority.

Another post where you flee in terror at the prospect of discussing the tsunami of politically motivated lawsuits launched by the Orange Man Bad lynch mob. It's an unprecedented assault on the separation of powers specified by the Constitution.

The judiciary is a reactive branch. It can only rule on cases brought before it. No previous political party has attempted to weaponize the judiciary into a super legislature by filing cases over every political issue, neither Republicans nor Democrats nor anyone else. Why? Because they recognized that once the precedent is set not only do elections become meaningless, the Presidency is reduced to a ceremonial office. But hey the ends justify the means to the Orange Man Bad lynch mob.

Of course Republicans will follow the Democrats judicial tyranny playbook. They'll have no choice.

 

[SavannahMann]

Another post where you flee in terror at the prospect of discussing the tsunami of politically motivated lawsuits launched by the Orange Man Bad lynch mob. It's an unprecedented assault on the separation of powers specified by the Constitution.

The judiciary is a reactive branch. It can only rule on cases brought before it. No previous political party has attempted to weaponize the judiciary into a super legislature by filing cases over every political issue, neither Republicans nor Democrats nor anyone else. Why? Because they recognized that once the precedent is set not only do elections become meaningless, the Presidency is reduced to a ceremonial office. But hey the ends justify the means to the Orange Man Bad lynch mob.

Of course Republicans will follow the Democrats judicial tyranny playbook. They'll have no choice.

I don’t flee. I addressed it. Many times so far. Let’s take an easy one. The Trade Court. They determined, correctly, that some Tariffs were improper. For example. The USMCA Trade Agreement prohibits Tariffs between the signatories.

If you violate an agreement as a citizen the Judge is going to get annoyed with you. If the other party in the agreement violates it the annoyance flows towards them. That is what Judges are supposed to do.

The Appeals Court put a hold on that while they look in detail at the question.

If the question being asked is nonsense the Judges say so. If the Judge is wrong the Appeals Court corrects the ruling. But the appeals have been falling against Trump because he is violating the law and the Constitution.

So tell you what. Maybe you can tell me why the Judges should find for Trump when Trump is violating the Constitution, and established precedent legal standards?

 

[Rich2018]

Another post where you flee in terror at the prospect of discussing the tsunami of politically motivated lawsuits launched by the Orange Man Bad lynch mob. It's an unprecedented assault on the separation of powers specified by the Constitution.

And all dismissed.

 

[AZRWinger]

And all dismissed.

Again not a word about Democrats campaign to destroy the executive branch with a judicial tyranny.

 

[Lursa]

Again not a word about Democrats campaign to destroy the executive branch with a judicial tyranny.

It's useless to try and argue with a baseless fantasy like yours. You were told to believe it...and you do. The evidence was produced to prove that wrong...pages and pages and interviews and videos, and quotes...that you ignore it shows pure indoctrination. Live with that. It's not our problem.

 

[AZRWinger]

It's useless to try and argue with a baseless fantasy like yours. You were told to believe it...and you do. The evidence was produced to prove that wrong...pages and pages and interviews and videos, and quotes...that you ignore it shows pure indoctrination. Live with that. It's not our problem.

You have no rebuttal to the fact Democrats have tried to undermine the Constitution with some 150+ lawsuits breeding a judicial tyranny. Can't even attempt one. Instead, all you offer is a weak attempt at deflection claiming I am the problem.

 

[rahl]

Again not a word about Democrats campaign to destroy the executive branch with a judicial tyranny.

Trump appointed judges are trying to destroy the executive?

 

[rahl]

You have no rebuttal to the fact Democrats have tried to undermine the Constitution with some 150+ lawsuits breeding a judicial tyranny.

Trump appointed judges are Democrat tyrants?

Can't even attempt one. Instead, all you offer is a weak attempt at deflection claiming I am the problem.

Trump, and more importantly, YOU his supported, are the problem. The constitution precludes much of what he has tried to do. It’s why he keeps having his ass handed to him by judges of all political leanings. Including ones he himself appointed

 

[Lursa]

You have no rebuttal to the fact Democrats have tried to undermine the Constitution with some 150+ lawsuits breeding a judicial tyranny. Can't even attempt one. Instead, all you offer is a weak attempt at deflection claiming I am the problem.

It's useless to try and argue with a baseless fantasy like yours. You were told to believe it...and you do. The evidence was produced to prove that wrong...pages and pages and interviews and videos, and quotes...that you ignore it shows pure indoctrination. Live with that. It's not our problem.

 

[AZRWinger]

Another post where you repeat the same false claim doesn't suddenly validate it.

Afraid to discuss why Democrats have flooded Federal District courts with an unprecedented volume of lawsuits?

 

[rahl]

Another post where you repeat the same false claim doesn't suddenly validate it.

Afraid to discuss why Democrats have flooded Federal District courts with an unprecedented volume of lawsuits?

This has been answered a dozen times.

 

[Lursa]

Another post where you repeat the same false claim doesn't suddenly validate it.

Afraid to discuss why Democrats have flooded Federal District courts with an unprecedented volume of lawsuits?

Not quoting people in order to hide doesnt say much about your commitment to your own posts' validity.

 

[Contumacious]

We’ll begin with the easy one. Birthright Citizenship. That’s what the Amendment says. What part of Any Person is hard to understand?

No sir , we must begin with the meaning of the word "RECONSTRUCTION" -

Since the Northern STates used "RECONSTRUCTION " to declare MARTIAL LAW >>>>>>>>AFTER AFTER AFTER<<<<<<< the cessation of hostilities and then thereafter

the Northern States FORCIBLY removed 80 Representatives and 23 Senators from Congress

Then we must define the legal fiction known as R E C O N S T R U C T I O N

otherwise the 14A NEVER HAPPENED

 

[AZRWinger]

Not quoting people in order to hide doesnt say much about your commitment to your own posts' validity.

That's because you embedded your whole comment instead of copying the relevant text. But it's another illustration of your commitment to whining and blame shifting.

 

[AZRWinger]

This has been answered a dozen times.

Where? Be specific.

 

[Lursa]

That's because you embedded your whole comment instead of copying the relevant text. But it's another illustration of your commitment to whining and blame shifting.

It's useless to try and argue with a baseless fantasy like yours. You were told to believe it...and you do. The evidence was produced to prove that wrong...pages and pages and interviews and videos, and quotes...that you ignore it shows pure indoctrination. Live with that. It's not our problem.

 

[AZRWinger]

You did it again. Couldn't bother to understand what's causing the problem, you. It's gone from spouting hate filled falsehoods to flat out pathetic.

 

[rahl]

Where? Be specific.

R

Post in thread 'Why the Supreme Court should find for the Judges power, and Birthright Citizenship.'

Jun 10, 2025

Again not a word about Democrats campaign to destroy the executive branch with a judicial tyranny.

Trump appointed judges are trying to destroy the executive?

• rahl

 

[Lursa]

You did it again. Couldn't bother to understand what's causing the problem, you. It's gone from spouting hate filled falsehoods to flat out pathetic.

It's useless to try and argue with a baseless fantasy like yours. You were told to believe it...and you do. The evidence was produced to prove that wrong...pages and pages and interviews and videos, and quotes...that you ignore it shows pure indoctrination. Live with that. It's not our problem.