Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Latest Breaking News

PSPS

(15,139 posts)

7. "meeting in private"

Reply to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Fri Nov 21, 2025, 04:44 PM

Nov 21

The way the corrupt supreme court justices roll is this:

1. Determine what you want the decision to be.
2. Compare that to what the law says now.
3. Discard any stare decisis.
4. Without breaking your back, make up a convoluted "opinion" that somehow "justifies" your move from #2 to #1 regardless of its embarrassing lack of legal merit. Feel free to throw in bible verses.
5. Collect that bag with your name and a large dollar sign on it when you retire to your home-bound bullet-proof limousine with its armed guards.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

BigMin28 Shipwack area51 NotHardly

21 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Supreme Court Weighs Decision on Birthright Citizenship: What To Know [View all] BumRushDaShow Nov 21 OP

6 - 3 Decision yankee87 Nov 21 #1

Wouldn't that affect the orange piggy since his mother was not born in America? kimbutgar Nov 21 #2

No. According to the EO.... reACTIONary Nov 21 #12

Seems to me Timewas Nov 21 #3

"Since it is actually in the constitution,and I don't see any ambiguity in the wording,... BumRushDaShow Nov 21 #6

What I said n/t Timewas Nov 21 #8

I am interpreting what you said BumRushDaShow Nov 21 #9

Trump made money from doing exactly that mgardener Nov 21 #4

Wait, "if neither parent WAS"? Is this fuckhead trying to do this RETROACTIVELY? AZJonnie Nov 21 #5

No. The executive order.... reACTIONary Nov 21 #13

Even so, I'm not sure the SCOTUS can give it a go-ahead without it declaring it applies retroactively AZJonnie Nov 21 #14

There are multiple "practical" problems with this EO.... reACTIONary Nov 21 #20

"meeting in private" PSPS Nov 21 #7

Oh, and maybe include a quote published in 1512, from the Vice-Mayor of West Bumfuckshire, England AZJonnie Nov 21 #15

Well............. the maga 6 might have to look in the mirror and ask if there relatives were immigrants................ turbinetree Nov 21 #10

It's pretty simple. A change like this takes a constitutional amendment just like the second amendment regarding guns. cstanleytech Nov 21 #11

We've seen this game before. Shipwack Nov 21 #16

They did a carve-out for 45 BumRushDaShow Nov 21 #17

Thanks! Forgot about that part. Shipwack Nov 21 #19

Virtually all of us Cirsium Nov 21 #18

What a bunch of asswipes mdbl Nov 22 #21