Trump's attempt to remove Birthright citizenship rights has been rejected by the Supreme Court.
For more interesting than rumours regarding who will get a new job when Burnham is PM
At this point, anyone arguing that SCOTUS is a tool of Trump, or some equivalent, is disqualifying themselves from being taken seriously.
You mean, apart from the three dissenters who said that the Fourteenth Amendment should be ignored because it was something to do with Dems being Woke and all immigrants are basically traitors?
Essentially, declaring that the Constiution is whatever Trump says it is, however astonishing a position that would be to take for an honest judge.
(OK, so there was no honest judge in the dissent, but you get my point.)
Nonetheless, I have to admit to being slightly (and positively) surprised by Roberts cleaving to the actual words of the constitution on a matter so dear to MAGA and Trump. Credit where credit is due, since he was essentially the swing vote. (ACB, I think, actually has principles, even if I don't much like most of them.)
That such a clearcut issue should be decided on a 5/4 vote is in itself pretty shocking to me.
It also has to be said that there was a logic to Kavanaugh's actions - namely, that the idea of birthright citizenship can be modified, but only by Congress and not by executive order.
I mean, I think it's incorrect because of the wording of the constitution, but his logic is not utterly insane the way Thomas' was. Congress have passed nationality acts in the past (although this went a lot further than they did).
American citizenship is not the birthright of the world. It belongs only and solely to Americans. No provision of the Constitution can be read to require our national self-obliteration.
Further evidence that the judges were right.
(I do love the lack of logic in his statement. He does not seem to realise that the whole point is that anyone born in America is an American citizen by birthright.)
Trump's attempt to remove Birthright citizenship rights has been rejected by the Supreme Court.
For more interesting than rumours regarding who will get a new job when Burnham is PM
At this point, anyone arguing that SCOTUS is a tool of Trump, or some equivalent, is disqualifying themselves from being taken seriously.
You mean, apart from the three dissenters who said that the Fourteenth Amendment should be ignored because it was something to do with Dems being Woke and all immigrants are basically traitors?
Essentially, declaring that the Constiution is whatever Trump says it is, however astonishing a position that would be to take for an honest judge.
(OK, so there was no honest judge in the dissent, but you get my point.)
Three out of nine can't do anything alone.
What this court is is what it has been since the last appointment - three who will take the GOP position no matter what, three who will take the Dem position no matter what - and three who will decide based on what the law actually is.
That's obviously not as good as having zero, zero and nine, but it's probably the best we can hope for under current conditions.
The idea that "Trump will get his way because the GOP controls SCOTUS" has been clearly shown in the latest batch of judgments to be what it always was - complete bollocks.
Trump's attempt to remove Birthright citizenship rights has been rejected by the Supreme Court.
For more interesting than rumours regarding who will get a new job when Burnham is PM
At this point, anyone arguing that SCOTUS is a tool of Trump, or some equivalent, is disqualifying themselves from being taken seriously.
You mean, apart from the three dissenters who said that the Fourteenth Amendment should be ignored because it was something to do with Dems being Woke and all immigrants are basically traitors?
Essentially, declaring that the Constiution is whatever Trump says it is, however astonishing a position that would be to take for an honest judge.
(OK, so there was no honest judge in the dissent, but you get my point.)
Three out of nine can't do anything alone.
What this court is is what it has been since the last appointment - three who will take the GOP position no matter what, three who will take the Dem position no matter what - and three who will decide based on what the law actually is.
That's obviously not as good as having zero, zero and nine, but it's probably the best we can hope for under current conditions.
The idea that "Trump will get his way because the GOP controls SCOTUS" has been clearly shown in the latest batch of judgments to be what it always was - complete bollocks.
No, because on some judgements, more have sided with the GOP position on entirely flimsy grounds. They don't kowtow all the time, but they do done of the time.
When it comes to constitutional analysis, "flimsy grounds" are very much in the eye of the beholder.
Plenty of court judgements are made on frankly ludicrous grounds for partisan reasons (and not just in the US). Roe v Wade would be a classic example.
But this isn't even arguable. Anyone born in the US is a US citizen. That's what it says in black and white and plain English.
Just as anyone is entitled to bear arms.
Are they laws we would have today? No.
Are they sensible laws? The first arguably no, the second definitely no (the Second Amendment is the craziest law ever proposed, never mind made, not forgetting the legislature of Indiana wanted to make pi=4).
Are they stuck with them because their constitution? Yes.
And there is at least some situational ambiguity written into the constitution regarding the 2nd amendment - "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.." - though admittedly not really enough to wave away gun rights. And there is certainly more than enough room to argue that the text allows for gun regulation that the SC has only recently judged unconstitutional.
Birthright citizenship, in contrast, is stated simply and without qualification.
Ed Miliband will be CoE and will do a great job in that role. He will work closely with Burnham, knows how to get things done, and frightens the Tories as you can see here on PB.
i hope it is not David Miliband as Foreign Sec. I think he is a lightweight and elitist. Starmer would be better int that role but he is currently too upset and bewildered to accept it, and in any case Vic would blackball the idea.
There’s also a crazy - but uncorroborated - story of a swarm of tiny Ukranian drones that look like a flock of birds, that landed on a group of aircraft at a Russian base.
No, you silly bastards, it has been amended 18 times in US History. The first 10 Amendments were passed en bloc (although there were meant to be 12, but the first two failed to get through).
Ironically, what was meant to be the Second Amendment is the 27th amendment.
Haggled them down by 50% and negotiated a signficant set of upgrades to broadband and TV package.
Not quite what I wanted but saves running four different accounts and possible interruptions to service.
I'm sure that the economic calculations make this a sensible way for a business to behave, but by golly it's dismal for society.
Most people won't spend an hour on the phone haggling.
It's why British Gas (inter alia) get away with issuing false bills. Most people won't spend the long time needed on the phone - deliberately kept on hold to filter them out - to argue their case. Particularly when they do it six or seven times.
Haggled them down by 50% and negotiated a signficant set of upgrades to broadband and TV package.
Not quite what I wanted but saves running four different accounts and possible interruptions to service.
I'm sure that the economic calculations make this a sensible way for a business to behave, but by golly it's dismal for society.
It's like the Telegraph - annual subscription £30 - attempt to renew at £300, resulting in a phone call where within 30 seconds it's back down to £30..
It's performance art with the added pain of having to call up to cancel something I bought online..
PS I have a spare guest subscription if someone wants one.
Trump's attempt to remove Birthright citizenship rights has been rejected by the Supreme Court.
For more interesting than rumours regarding who will get a new job when Burnham is PM
At this point, anyone arguing that SCOTUS is a tool of Trump, or some equivalent, is disqualifying themselves from being taken seriously.
You mean, apart from the three dissenters who said that the Fourteenth Amendment should be ignored because it was something to do with Dems being Woke and all immigrants are basically traitors?
Essentially, declaring that the Constiution is whatever Trump says it is, however astonishing a position that would be to take for an honest judge.
(OK, so there was no honest judge in the dissent, but you get my point.)
Three out of nine can't do anything alone.
What this court is is what it has been since the last appointment - three who will take the GOP position no matter what, three who will take the Dem position no matter what - and three who will decide based on what the law actually is.
That's obviously not as good as having zero, zero and nine, but it's probably the best we can hope for under current conditions.
The idea that "Trump will get his way because the GOP controls SCOTUS" has been clearly shown in the latest batch of judgments to be what it always was - complete bollocks.
Trump's attempt to remove Birthright citizenship rights has been rejected by the Supreme Court.
For more interesting than rumours regarding who will get a new job when Burnham is PM
At this point, anyone arguing that SCOTUS is a tool of Trump, or some equivalent, is disqualifying themselves from being taken seriously.
You mean, apart from the three dissenters who said that the Fourteenth Amendment should be ignored because it was something to do with Dems being Woke and all immigrants are basically traitors?
Essentially, declaring that the Constiution is whatever Trump says it is, however astonishing a position that would be to take for an honest judge.
(OK, so there was no honest judge in the dissent, but you get my point.)
Three out of nine can't do anything alone.
What this court is is what it has been since the last appointment - three who will take the GOP position no matter what, three who will take the Dem position no matter what - and three who will decide based on what the law actually is.
That's obviously not as good as having zero, zero and nine, but it's probably the best we can hope for under current conditions.
The idea that "Trump will get his way because the GOP controls SCOTUS" has been clearly shown in the latest batch of judgments to be what it always was - complete bollocks.
No, because on some judgements, more have sided with the GOP position on entirely flimsy grounds. They don't kowtow all the time, but they do done of the time.
When it comes to constitutional analysis, "flimsy grounds" are very much in the eye of the beholder.
Plenty of court judgements are made on frankly ludicrous grounds for partisan reasons (and not just in the US). Roe v Wade would be a classic example.
But this isn't even arguable. Anyone born in the US is a US citizen. That's what it says in black and white and plain English.
Just as anyone is entitled to bear arms.
Are they laws we would have today? No.
Are they sensible laws? The first arguably no, the second definitely no (the Second Amendment is the craziest law ever proposed, never mind made, not forgetting the legislature of Indiana wanted to make pi=4).
Are they stuck with them because their constitution? Yes.
The meaning of the 'bearing arms' bit in the constitution has, in my very minority opinion, been misunderstood.
The constitution says:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
What it means is simply this: The American state does not require pacifism, which is the teaching of some influential founders especially Quakers. It asserts that it is not wrong to bear arms because a militia is essential and the Quakers, while entitled to their views, are wrong, and American law must reflect this need for a militia.
This concept has history, which the constitution tips a hat to. In the 39 Articles of Religion of 1562 the same issue, whether Christianity requires pacificism, is raised, and dealt with in these words (art 37):
It is lawful for Christian men, at the commandment of the Magistrate, to wear weapons, and serve in the wars.
the USA constitution means the same thing, as a moment's reflection renders obvious. As the usual, wrong, understanding would compel the USA to allow any three year old in any state to possess and use a machine gun. Which is, as they say, repugnant to the intellect.
David Miliband would be a strange one if you're going to make Ed chancellor. Why reignite the brotherly feud stuff?
Fixed it for you
What has he done to demonstrate any interest in senior government role? He’s a chosen a different path in life and all power to him.
Plus it would totally piss off just about every Labour back and front bencher as well as painting burnham’s government as a blairite retread from 20 years ago.
All round an unbelievably stupid idea. So I fully expect it to happen.
David Miliband is like one of those footballers or other sports players who are out injured for ages and the longer they are out “the better they get” as people forget that they were pretty ordinary.
I honestly cannot remember anything special that he did as an MP, any great ideas or insights and frankly I think he came across as a bit of an awkward geek.
Maybe the years earning millions for an international charity have help him develop some great policies.
He slipped up with a banana, while his little brother lost a wrestling match with a slice of greased pig.
Trump's attempt to remove Birthright citizenship rights has been rejected by the Supreme Court.
For more interesting than rumours regarding who will get a new job when Burnham is PM
At this point, anyone arguing that SCOTUS is a tool of Trump, or some equivalent, is disqualifying themselves from being taken seriously.
You mean, apart from the three dissenters who said that the Fourteenth Amendment should be ignored because it was something to do with Dems being Woke and all immigrants are basically traitors?
Essentially, declaring that the Constiution is whatever Trump says it is, however astonishing a position that would be to take for an honest judge.
(OK, so there was no honest judge in the dissent, but you get my point.)
Three out of nine can't do anything alone.
What this court is is what it has been since the last appointment - three who will take the GOP position no matter what, three who will take the Dem position no matter what - and three who will decide based on what the law actually is.
That's obviously not as good as having zero, zero and nine, but it's probably the best we can hope for under current conditions.
The idea that "Trump will get his way because the GOP controls SCOTUS" has been clearly shown in the latest batch of judgments to be what it always was - complete bollocks.
Trump's attempt to remove Birthright citizenship rights has been rejected by the Supreme Court.
For more interesting than rumours regarding who will get a new job when Burnham is PM
At this point, anyone arguing that SCOTUS is a tool of Trump, or some equivalent, is disqualifying themselves from being taken seriously.
You mean, apart from the three dissenters who said that the Fourteenth Amendment should be ignored because it was something to do with Dems being Woke and all immigrants are basically traitors?
Essentially, declaring that the Constiution is whatever Trump says it is, however astonishing a position that would be to take for an honest judge.
(OK, so there was no honest judge in the dissent, but you get my point.)
Three out of nine can't do anything alone.
What this court is is what it has been since the last appointment - three who will take the GOP position no matter what, three who will take the Dem position no matter what - and three who will decide based on what the law actually is.
That's obviously not as good as having zero, zero and nine, but it's probably the best we can hope for under current conditions.
The idea that "Trump will get his way because the GOP controls SCOTUS" has been clearly shown in the latest batch of judgments to be what it always was - complete bollocks.
No, because on some judgements, more have sided with the GOP position on entirely flimsy grounds. They don't kowtow all the time, but they do done of the time.
When it comes to constitutional analysis, "flimsy grounds" are very much in the eye of the beholder.
Plenty of court judgements are made on frankly ludicrous grounds for partisan reasons (and not just in the US). Roe v Wade would be a classic example.
But this isn't even arguable. Anyone born in the US is a US citizen. That's what it says in black and white and plain English.
Just as anyone is entitled to bear arms.
Are they laws we would have today? No.
Are they sensible laws? The first arguably no, the second definitely no (the Second Amendment is the craziest law ever proposed, never mind made, not forgetting the legislature of Indiana wanted to make pi=4).
Are they stuck with them because their constitution? Yes.
The meaning of the 'bearing arms' bit in the constitution has, in my very minority opinion, been misunderstood.
The constitution says:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
What it means is simply this: The American state does not require pacifism, which is the teaching of some influential founders especially Quakers. It asserts that it is not wrong to bear arms because a militia is essential and the Quakers, while entitled to their views, are wrong, and American law must reflect this need for a militia.
This concept has history, which the constitution tips a hat to. In the 39 Articles of Religion of 1562 the same issue, whether Christianity requires pacificism, is raised, and dealt with in these words (art 37):
It is lawful for Christian men, at the commandment of the Magistrate, to wear weapons, and serve in the wars.
the USA constitution means the same thing, as a moment's reflection renders obvious. As the usual, wrong, understanding would compel the USA to allow any three year old in any state to possess and use a machine gun. Which is, as they say, repugnant to the intellect.
An interesting argument.
I think there is also a good case that in a predominantly rural society surrounded by animals (and indeed people) who were frequently hostile there was a fair rationale for having weapons in the house.
Trump's attempt to remove Birthright citizenship rights has been rejected by the Supreme Court.
For more interesting than rumours regarding who will get a new job when Burnham is PM
At this point, anyone arguing that SCOTUS is a tool of Trump, or some equivalent, is disqualifying themselves from being taken seriously.
You mean, apart from the three dissenters who said that the Fourteenth Amendment should be ignored because it was something to do with Dems being Woke and all immigrants are basically traitors?
Essentially, declaring that the Constiution is whatever Trump says it is, however astonishing a position that would be to take for an honest judge.
(OK, so there was no honest judge in the dissent, but you get my point.)
Three out of nine can't do anything alone.
What this court is is what it has been since the last appointment - three who will take the GOP position no matter what, three who will take the Dem position no matter what - and three who will decide based on what the law actually is.
That's obviously not as good as having zero, zero and nine, but it's probably the best we can hope for under current conditions.
The idea that "Trump will get his way because the GOP controls SCOTUS" has been clearly shown in the latest batch of judgments to be what it always was - complete bollocks.
A reminder the three Dems did not attempt to bar Trump from running in 2024 when they could have done.
I'm not convinced that your characterisation of that case is entirely fair.
Even decided the other way, that wouldn't have barred Trump from running except in Colorado (and perhaps a few other states he as never going to win might have followed suit). And they did dissent from the majority on the question of justiciability. And in any case at that point it wasn't Dem policy to DQ Trump, they were still expecting Biden to beat him at the ballot box.
Trump's attempt to remove Birthright citizenship rights has been rejected by the Supreme Court.
For more interesting than rumours regarding who will get a new job when Burnham is PM
At this point, anyone arguing that SCOTUS is a tool of Trump, or some equivalent, is disqualifying themselves from being taken seriously.
You mean, apart from the three dissenters who said that the Fourteenth Amendment should be ignored because it was something to do with Dems being Woke and all immigrants are basically traitors?
Essentially, declaring that the Constiution is whatever Trump says it is, however astonishing a position that would be to take for an honest judge.
(OK, so there was no honest judge in the dissent, but you get my point.)
Three out of nine can't do anything alone.
What this court is is what it has been since the last appointment - three who will take the GOP position no matter what, three who will take the Dem position no matter what - and three who will decide based on what the law actually is.
That's obviously not as good as having zero, zero and nine, but it's probably the best we can hope for under current conditions.
The idea that "Trump will get his way because the GOP controls SCOTUS" has been clearly shown in the latest batch of judgments to be what it always was - complete bollocks.
Trump's attempt to remove Birthright citizenship rights has been rejected by the Supreme Court.
For more interesting than rumours regarding who will get a new job when Burnham is PM
At this point, anyone arguing that SCOTUS is a tool of Trump, or some equivalent, is disqualifying themselves from being taken seriously.
You mean, apart from the three dissenters who said that the Fourteenth Amendment should be ignored because it was something to do with Dems being Woke and all immigrants are basically traitors?
Essentially, declaring that the Constiution is whatever Trump says it is, however astonishing a position that would be to take for an honest judge.
(OK, so there was no honest judge in the dissent, but you get my point.)
Three out of nine can't do anything alone.
What this court is is what it has been since the last appointment - three who will take the GOP position no matter what, three who will take the Dem position no matter what - and three who will decide based on what the law actually is.
That's obviously not as good as having zero, zero and nine, but it's probably the best we can hope for under current conditions.
The idea that "Trump will get his way because the GOP controls SCOTUS" has been clearly shown in the latest batch of judgments to be what it always was - complete bollocks.
No, because on some judgements, more have sided with the GOP position on entirely flimsy grounds. They don't kowtow all the time, but they do done of the time.
When it comes to constitutional analysis, "flimsy grounds" are very much in the eye of the beholder.
Plenty of court judgements are made on frankly ludicrous grounds for partisan reasons (and not just in the US). Roe v Wade would be a classic example.
But this isn't even arguable. Anyone born in the US is a US citizen. That's what it says in black and white and plain English.
Just as anyone is entitled to bear arms.
Are they laws we would have today? No.
Are they sensible laws? The first arguably no, the second definitely no (the Second Amendment is the craziest law ever proposed, never mind made, not forgetting the legislature of Indiana wanted to make pi=4).
Are they stuck with them because their constitution? Yes.
Roe v. Wade is indeed one example I had in mind, as is the egregious Miller II.
But in this case the law doesn't say "anyone born in the US is a US citizen", it says "anyone born in the US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof is a US citizen" and the meaning of the bolded phrase is certainly arguable. Presumably it has some limiting effect because otherwise it wouldn't have been included.
Currently trying to cancel my Sky contract after yet another enormous rise in prices.
I think they're trying to exasperate me into submission via static while on hold.
Its all part of the game. The price isnt the price, the price is how much time and patience you have to keep doing the Istanbul Bazzar haggle....i am leaving....i am walking away....
They wanted me to pay £146.
After I said no, they offered me £120.
I pointed out I can get pretty much the same thing for £58.
It's not as though I watch much TV anyway and I could manage on my mobile data at a pinch.
So we'll see if they haggle their way to £65. I won't renew for more.
I have moved everything to EE including top fibre broad band and full big sports package, multi room plus boost and unlimited sim card use for £99 pm plus £26 for 2 sim cards
I’ve a couple of films on “buy and keep” with sky… would I lose them if I moved?
Trump's attempt to remove Birthright citizenship rights has been rejected by the Supreme Court.
For more interesting than rumours regarding who will get a new job when Burnham is PM
At this point, anyone arguing that SCOTUS is a tool of Trump, or some equivalent, is disqualifying themselves from being taken seriously.
You mean, apart from the three dissenters who said that the Fourteenth Amendment should be ignored because it was something to do with Dems being Woke and all immigrants are basically traitors?
Essentially, declaring that the Constiution is whatever Trump says it is, however astonishing a position that would be to take for an honest judge.
(OK, so there was no honest judge in the dissent, but you get my point.)
Three out of nine can't do anything alone.
What this court is is what it has been since the last appointment - three who will take the GOP position no matter what, three who will take the Dem position no matter what - and three who will decide based on what the law actually is.
That's obviously not as good as having zero, zero and nine, but it's probably the best we can hope for under current conditions.
The idea that "Trump will get his way because the GOP controls SCOTUS" has been clearly shown in the latest batch of judgments to be what it always was - complete bollocks.
Trump's attempt to remove Birthright citizenship rights has been rejected by the Supreme Court.
For more interesting than rumours regarding who will get a new job when Burnham is PM
At this point, anyone arguing that SCOTUS is a tool of Trump, or some equivalent, is disqualifying themselves from being taken seriously.
You mean, apart from the three dissenters who said that the Fourteenth Amendment should be ignored because it was something to do with Dems being Woke and all immigrants are basically traitors?
Essentially, declaring that the Constiution is whatever Trump says it is, however astonishing a position that would be to take for an honest judge.
(OK, so there was no honest judge in the dissent, but you get my point.)
Three out of nine can't do anything alone.
What this court is is what it has been since the last appointment - three who will take the GOP position no matter what, three who will take the Dem position no matter what - and three who will decide based on what the law actually is.
That's obviously not as good as having zero, zero and nine, but it's probably the best we can hope for under current conditions.
The idea that "Trump will get his way because the GOP controls SCOTUS" has been clearly shown in the latest batch of judgments to be what it always was - complete bollocks.
No, because on some judgements, more have sided with the GOP position on entirely flimsy grounds. They don't kowtow all the time, but they do done of the time.
When it comes to constitutional analysis, "flimsy grounds" are very much in the eye of the beholder.
Plenty of court judgements are made on frankly ludicrous grounds for partisan reasons (and not just in the US). Roe v Wade would be a classic example.
But this isn't even arguable. Anyone born in the US is a US citizen. That's what it says in black and white and plain English.
Just as anyone is entitled to bear arms.
Are they laws we would have today? No.
Are they sensible laws? The first arguably no, the second definitely no (the Second Amendment is the craziest law ever proposed, never mind made, not forgetting the legislature of Indiana wanted to make pi=4).
Are they stuck with them because their constitution? Yes.
Roe v. Wade? is indeed one example I had in mind, as is the egregious Miller II.
But in this case the law doesn't say "anyone born in the US is a US citizen", it says "anyone born in the US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof is a US citizen" and the meaning of the bolded phrase is certainly arguable. Presumably it has some limiting effect because otherwise it wouldn't have been included.
A fundamental misunderstanding of the meaning of it. It merely means that anyone born in the US is subject to the jurisdiction of it and becomes a citizen. Add a 'therefore' in your mind between 'and subject' while deleting the 'thereof' and it becomes clearer.
It did also helpfully clarify anyone born on a US flagged ship in international waters became a US citizen as well (which is expansive rather than limiting) but it's nothing more sinister than that.
Currently trying to cancel my Sky contract after yet another enormous rise in prices.
I think they're trying to exasperate me into submission via static while on hold.
Its all part of the game. The price isnt the price, the price is how much time and patience you have to keep doing the Istanbul Bazzar haggle....i am leaving....i am walking away....
They wanted me to pay £146.
After I said no, they offered me £120.
I pointed out I can get pretty much the same thing for £58.
It's not as though I watch much TV anyway and I could manage on my mobile data at a pinch.
So we'll see if they haggle their way to £65. I won't renew for more.
I have moved everything to EE including top fibre broad band and full big sports package, multi room plus boost and unlimited sim card use for £99 pm plus £26 for 2 sim cards
I’ve a couple of films on “buy and keep” with sky… would I lose them if I moved?
Trump's attempt to remove Birthright citizenship rights has been rejected by the Supreme Court.
For more interesting than rumours regarding who will get a new job when Burnham is PM
At this point, anyone arguing that SCOTUS is a tool of Trump, or some equivalent, is disqualifying themselves from being taken seriously.
You mean, apart from the three dissenters who said that the Fourteenth Amendment should be ignored because it was something to do with Dems being Woke and all immigrants are basically traitors?
Essentially, declaring that the Constiution is whatever Trump says it is, however astonishing a position that would be to take for an honest judge.
(OK, so there was no honest judge in the dissent, but you get my point.)
Three out of nine can't do anything alone.
What this court is is what it has been since the last appointment - three who will take the GOP position no matter what, three who will take the Dem position no matter what - and three who will decide based on what the law actually is.
That's obviously not as good as having zero, zero and nine, but it's probably the best we can hope for under current conditions.
The idea that "Trump will get his way because the GOP controls SCOTUS" has been clearly shown in the latest batch of judgments to be what it always was - complete bollocks.
A reminder the three Dems did not attempt to bar Trump from running in 2024 when they could have done.
I'm not convinced that your characterisation of that case is entirely fair.
Even decided the other way, that wouldn't have barred Trump from running except in Colorado (and perhaps a few other states he as never going to win might have followed suit). And they did dissent from the majority on the question of justiciability. And in any case at that point it wasn't Dem policy to DQ Trump, they were still expecting Biden to beat him at the ballot box.
It would have barred him from running in all 13 states that had declared him ineligible due to his treason, but in practice it would have ruled him out of the nomination by simply declaring he was a traitor and therefore the states were right to block him. That would have forced the others to follow suit.
Yes, perhaps they did expect Biden to win, not having foreseen Musk's intervention or Biden's health difficulties, but they did not even raise concerns about it.
No, you silly bastards, it has been amended 18 times in US History. The first 10 Amendments were passed en bloc (although there were meant to be 12, but the first two failed to get through).
Ironically, what was meant to be the Second Amendment is the 27th amendment.
Arguably each of 1-10 were separate amendments to the constitution even if they were passed simultaneously. I’m sure you know the history better than I do but the fact that the first 2 failed to be passed meant that there were separate decisions made
Trump's attempt to remove Birthright citizenship rights has been rejected by the Supreme Court.
For more interesting than rumours regarding who will get a new job when Burnham is PM
At this point, anyone arguing that SCOTUS is a tool of Trump, or some equivalent, is disqualifying themselves from being taken seriously.
You mean, apart from the three dissenters who said that the Fourteenth Amendment should be ignored because it was something to do with Dems being Woke and all immigrants are basically traitors?
Essentially, declaring that the Constiution is whatever Trump says it is, however astonishing a position that would be to take for an honest judge.
(OK, so there was no honest judge in the dissent, but you get my point.)
Three out of nine can't do anything alone.
What this court is is what it has been since the last appointment - three who will take the GOP position no matter what, three who will take the Dem position no matter what - and three who will decide based on what the law actually is.
That's obviously not as good as having zero, zero and nine, but it's probably the best we can hope for under current conditions.
The idea that "Trump will get his way because the GOP controls SCOTUS" has been clearly shown in the latest batch of judgments to be what it always was - complete bollocks.
Trump's attempt to remove Birthright citizenship rights has been rejected by the Supreme Court.
For more interesting than rumours regarding who will get a new job when Burnham is PM
At this point, anyone arguing that SCOTUS is a tool of Trump, or some equivalent, is disqualifying themselves from being taken seriously.
You mean, apart from the three dissenters who said that the Fourteenth Amendment should be ignored because it was something to do with Dems being Woke and all immigrants are basically traitors?
Essentially, declaring that the Constiution is whatever Trump says it is, however astonishing a position that would be to take for an honest judge.
(OK, so there was no honest judge in the dissent, but you get my point.)
Three out of nine can't do anything alone.
What this court is is what it has been since the last appointment - three who will take the GOP position no matter what, three who will take the Dem position no matter what - and three who will decide based on what the law actually is.
That's obviously not as good as having zero, zero and nine, but it's probably the best we can hope for under current conditions.
The idea that "Trump will get his way because the GOP controls SCOTUS" has been clearly shown in the latest batch of judgments to be what it always was - complete bollocks.
No, because on some judgements, more have sided with the GOP position on entirely flimsy grounds. They don't kowtow all the time, but they do done of the time.
When it comes to constitutional analysis, "flimsy grounds" are very much in the eye of the beholder.
Plenty of court judgements are made on frankly ludicrous grounds for partisan reasons (and not just in the US). Roe v Wade would be a classic example.
But this isn't even arguable. Anyone born in the US is a US citizen. That's what it says in black and white and plain English.
Just as anyone is entitled to bear arms.
Are they laws we would have today? No.
Are they sensible laws? The first arguably no, the second definitely no (the Second Amendment is the craziest law ever proposed, never mind made, not forgetting the legislature of Indiana wanted to make pi=4).
Are they stuck with them because their constitution? Yes.
Roe v. Wade? is indeed one example I had in mind, as is the egregious Miller II.
But in this case the law doesn't say "anyone born in the US is a US citizen", it says "anyone born in the US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof is a US citizen" and the meaning of the bolded phrase is certainly arguable. Presumably it has some limiting effect because otherwise it wouldn't have been included.
A fundamental misunderstanding of the meaning of it. It merely means that anyone born in the US is subject to the jurisdiction of it and becomes a citizen. Add a 'therefore' in your mind between 'and subject' while deleting the 'thereof' and it becomes clearer.
It did also helpfully clarify anyone born on a US flagged ship in international waters became a US citizen as well (which is expansive rather than limiting) but it's nothing more sinister than that.
Very little in law is absolute. You can’t say for certain that Driver’s interpretation is wrong.
No, you silly bastards, it has been amended 18 times in US History. The first 10 Amendments were passed en bloc (although there were meant to be 12, but the first two failed to get through).
Ironically, what was meant to be the Second Amendment is the 27th amendment.
Arguably each of 1-10 were separate amendments to the constitution even if they were passed simultaneously. I’m sure you know the history better than I do but the fact that the first 2 failed to be passed meant that there were separate decisions made
Not exactly. They were voted on as individual bills in each legislature (hence why two did not pass at the time) but the ratification was conveyed simultaneously. So the constitution was only amended once for all ten.
Trump's attempt to remove Birthright citizenship rights has been rejected by the Supreme Court.
For more interesting than rumours regarding who will get a new job when Burnham is PM
At this point, anyone arguing that SCOTUS is a tool of Trump, or some equivalent, is disqualifying themselves from being taken seriously.
You mean, apart from the three dissenters who said that the Fourteenth Amendment should be ignored because it was something to do with Dems being Woke and all immigrants are basically traitors?
Essentially, declaring that the Constiution is whatever Trump says it is, however astonishing a position that would be to take for an honest judge.
(OK, so there was no honest judge in the dissent, but you get my point.)
Three out of nine can't do anything alone.
What this court is is what it has been since the last appointment - three who will take the GOP position no matter what, three who will take the Dem position no matter what - and three who will decide based on what the law actually is.
That's obviously not as good as having zero, zero and nine, but it's probably the best we can hope for under current conditions.
The idea that "Trump will get his way because the GOP controls SCOTUS" has been clearly shown in the latest batch of judgments to be what it always was - complete bollocks.
Trump's attempt to remove Birthright citizenship rights has been rejected by the Supreme Court.
For more interesting than rumours regarding who will get a new job when Burnham is PM
At this point, anyone arguing that SCOTUS is a tool of Trump, or some equivalent, is disqualifying themselves from being taken seriously.
You mean, apart from the three dissenters who said that the Fourteenth Amendment should be ignored because it was something to do with Dems being Woke and all immigrants are basically traitors?
Essentially, declaring that the Constiution is whatever Trump says it is, however astonishing a position that would be to take for an honest judge.
(OK, so there was no honest judge in the dissent, but you get my point.)
Three out of nine can't do anything alone.
What this court is is what it has been since the last appointment - three who will take the GOP position no matter what, three who will take the Dem position no matter what - and three who will decide based on what the law actually is.
That's obviously not as good as having zero, zero and nine, but it's probably the best we can hope for under current conditions.
The idea that "Trump will get his way because the GOP controls SCOTUS" has been clearly shown in the latest batch of judgments to be what it always was - complete bollocks.
No, because on some judgements, more have sided with the GOP position on entirely flimsy grounds. They don't kowtow all the time, but they do done of the time.
When it comes to constitutional analysis, "flimsy grounds" are very much in the eye of the beholder.
Plenty of court judgements are made on frankly ludicrous grounds for partisan reasons (and not just in the US). Roe v Wade would be a classic example.
But this isn't even arguable. Anyone born in the US is a US citizen. That's what it says in black and white and plain English.
Just as anyone is entitled to bear arms.
Are they laws we would have today? No.
Are they sensible laws? The first arguably no, the second definitely no (the Second Amendment is the craziest law ever proposed, never mind made, not forgetting the legislature of Indiana wanted to make pi=4).
Are they stuck with them because their constitution? Yes.
The meaning of the 'bearing arms' bit in the constitution has, in my very minority opinion, been misunderstood.
The constitution says:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
What it means is simply this: The American state does not require pacifism, which is the teaching of some influential founders especially Quakers. It asserts that it is not wrong to bear arms because a militia is essential and the Quakers, while entitled to their views, are wrong, and American law must reflect this need for a militia.
This concept has history, which the constitution tips a hat to. In the 39 Articles of Religion of 1562 the same issue, whether Christianity requires pacificism, is raised, and dealt with in these words (art 37):
It is lawful for Christian men, at the commandment of the Magistrate, to wear weapons, and serve in the wars.
the USA constitution means the same thing, as a moment's reflection renders obvious. As the usual, wrong, understanding would compel the USA to allow any three year old in any state to possess and use a machine gun. Which is, as they say, repugnant to the intellect.
FFS it’s just a typo - the right to bare arms. It clearly indicates that tank tops are acceptable and, implicitly, the constitution supports gay marriage
Trump's attempt to remove Birthright citizenship rights has been rejected by the Supreme Court.
For more interesting than rumours regarding who will get a new job when Burnham is PM
At this point, anyone arguing that SCOTUS is a tool of Trump, or some equivalent, is disqualifying themselves from being taken seriously.
You mean, apart from the three dissenters who said that the Fourteenth Amendment should be ignored because it was something to do with Dems being Woke and all immigrants are basically traitors?
Essentially, declaring that the Constiution is whatever Trump says it is, however astonishing a position that would be to take for an honest judge.
(OK, so there was no honest judge in the dissent, but you get my point.)
Three out of nine can't do anything alone.
What this court is is what it has been since the last appointment - three who will take the GOP position no matter what, three who will take the Dem position no matter what - and three who will decide based on what the law actually is.
That's obviously not as good as having zero, zero and nine, but it's probably the best we can hope for under current conditions.
The idea that "Trump will get his way because the GOP controls SCOTUS" has been clearly shown in the latest batch of judgments to be what it always was - complete bollocks.
Trump's attempt to remove Birthright citizenship rights has been rejected by the Supreme Court.
For more interesting than rumours regarding who will get a new job when Burnham is PM
At this point, anyone arguing that SCOTUS is a tool of Trump, or some equivalent, is disqualifying themselves from being taken seriously.
You mean, apart from the three dissenters who said that the Fourteenth Amendment should be ignored because it was something to do with Dems being Woke and all immigrants are basically traitors?
Essentially, declaring that the Constiution is whatever Trump says it is, however astonishing a position that would be to take for an honest judge.
(OK, so there was no honest judge in the dissent, but you get my point.)
Three out of nine can't do anything alone.
What this court is is what it has been since the last appointment - three who will take the GOP position no matter what, three who will take the Dem position no matter what - and three who will decide based on what the law actually is.
That's obviously not as good as having zero, zero and nine, but it's probably the best we can hope for under current conditions.
The idea that "Trump will get his way because the GOP controls SCOTUS" has been clearly shown in the latest batch of judgments to be what it always was - complete bollocks.
No, because on some judgements, more have sided with the GOP position on entirely flimsy grounds. They don't kowtow all the time, but they do done of the time.
When it comes to constitutional analysis, "flimsy grounds" are very much in the eye of the beholder.
Plenty of court judgements are made on frankly ludicrous grounds for partisan reasons (and not just in the US). Roe v Wade would be a classic example.
But this isn't even arguable. Anyone born in the US is a US citizen. That's what it says in black and white and plain English.
Just as anyone is entitled to bear arms.
Are they laws we would have today? No.
Are they sensible laws? The first arguably no, the second definitely no (the Second Amendment is the craziest law ever proposed, never mind made, not forgetting the legislature of Indiana wanted to make pi=4).
Are they stuck with them because their constitution? Yes.
Roe v. Wade? is indeed one example I had in mind, as is the egregious Miller II.
But in this case the law doesn't say "anyone born in the US is a US citizen", it says "anyone born in the US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof is a US citizen" and the meaning of the bolded phrase is certainly arguable. Presumably it has some limiting effect because otherwise it wouldn't have been included.
A fundamental misunderstanding of the meaning of it. It merely means that anyone born in the US is subject to the jurisdiction of it and becomes a citizen. Add a 'therefore' in your mind between 'and subject' while deleting the 'thereof' and it becomes clearer.
It did also helpfully clarify anyone born on a US flagged ship in international waters became a US citizen as well (which is expansive rather than limiting) but it's nothing more sinister than that.
Very little in law is absolute. You can’t say for certain that Driver’s interpretation is wrong.
American citizenship is not the birthright of the world. It belongs only and solely to Americans. No provision of the Constitution can be read to require our national self-obliteration.
Further evidence that the judges were right.
(I do love the lack of logic in his statement. He does not seem to realise that the whole point is that anyone born in America is an American citizen by birthright.)
Here's the thing, Mr Miller. Even if you are correct that the Constitution does not guarantee birthright citizenship, the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act does. And does so very explicitly.
Trump's attempt to remove Birthright citizenship rights has been rejected by the Supreme Court.
For more interesting than rumours regarding who will get a new job when Burnham is PM
At this point, anyone arguing that SCOTUS is a tool of Trump, or some equivalent, is disqualifying themselves from being taken seriously.
You mean, apart from the three dissenters who said that the Fourteenth Amendment should be ignored because it was something to do with Dems being Woke and all immigrants are basically traitors?
Essentially, declaring that the Constiution is whatever Trump says it is, however astonishing a position that would be to take for an honest judge.
(OK, so there was no honest judge in the dissent, but you get my point.)
Three out of nine can't do anything alone.
What this court is is what it has been since the last appointment - three who will take the GOP position no matter what, three who will take the Dem position no matter what - and three who will decide based on what the law actually is.
That's obviously not as good as having zero, zero and nine, but it's probably the best we can hope for under current conditions.
The idea that "Trump will get his way because the GOP controls SCOTUS" has been clearly shown in the latest batch of judgments to be what it always was - complete bollocks.
Trump's attempt to remove Birthright citizenship rights has been rejected by the Supreme Court.
For more interesting than rumours regarding who will get a new job when Burnham is PM
At this point, anyone arguing that SCOTUS is a tool of Trump, or some equivalent, is disqualifying themselves from being taken seriously.
You mean, apart from the three dissenters who said that the Fourteenth Amendment should be ignored because it was something to do with Dems being Woke and all immigrants are basically traitors?
Essentially, declaring that the Constiution is whatever Trump says it is, however astonishing a position that would be to take for an honest judge.
(OK, so there was no honest judge in the dissent, but you get my point.)
Three out of nine can't do anything alone.
What this court is is what it has been since the last appointment - three who will take the GOP position no matter what, three who will take the Dem position no matter what - and three who will decide based on what the law actually is.
That's obviously not as good as having zero, zero and nine, but it's probably the best we can hope for under current conditions.
The idea that "Trump will get his way because the GOP controls SCOTUS" has been clearly shown in the latest batch of judgments to be what it always was - complete bollocks.
No, because on some judgements, more have sided with the GOP position on entirely flimsy grounds. They don't kowtow all the time, but they do done of the time.
When it comes to constitutional analysis, "flimsy grounds" are very much in the eye of the beholder.
Plenty of court judgements are made on frankly ludicrous grounds for partisan reasons (and not just in the US). Roe v Wade would be a classic example.
But this isn't even arguable. Anyone born in the US is a US citizen. That's what it says in black and white and plain English.
Just as anyone is entitled to bear arms.
Are they laws we would have today? No.
Are they sensible laws? The first arguably no, the second definitely no (the Second Amendment is the craziest law ever proposed, never mind made, not forgetting the legislature of Indiana wanted to make pi=4).
Are they stuck with them because their constitution? Yes.
Roe v. Wade? is indeed one example I had in mind, as is the egregious Miller II.
But in this case the law doesn't say "anyone born in the US is a US citizen", it says "anyone born in the US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof is a US citizen" and the meaning of the bolded phrase is certainly arguable. Presumably it has some limiting effect because otherwise it wouldn't have been included.
A fundamental misunderstanding of the meaning of it. It merely means that anyone born in the US is subject to the jurisdiction of it and becomes a citizen. Add a 'therefore' in your mind between 'and subject' while deleting the 'thereof' and it becomes clearer.
It did also helpfully clarify anyone born on a US flagged ship in international waters became a US citizen as well (which is expansive rather than limiting) but it's nothing more sinister than that.
Very little in law is absolute. You can’t say for certain that Driver’s interpretation is wrong.
Currently trying to cancel my Sky contract after yet another enormous rise in prices.
I think they're trying to exasperate me into submission via static while on hold.
Its all part of the game. The price isnt the price, the price is how much time and patience you have to keep doing the Istanbul Bazzar haggle....i am leaving....i am walking away....
They wanted me to pay £146.
After I said no, they offered me £120.
I pointed out I can get pretty much the same thing for £58.
It's not as though I watch much TV anyway and I could manage on my mobile data at a pinch.
So we'll see if they haggle their way to £65. I won't renew for more.
I have moved everything to EE including top fibre broad band and full big sports package, multi room plus boost and unlimited sim card use for £99 pm plus £26 for 2 sim cards
I’ve a couple of films on “buy and keep” with sky… would I lose them if I moved?
Yes.
So “buy and keep” doesn’t actually mean “buy and keep”? Smells like trade misdescripton to me
Trump's attempt to remove Birthright citizenship rights has been rejected by the Supreme Court.
For more interesting than rumours regarding who will get a new job when Burnham is PM
At this point, anyone arguing that SCOTUS is a tool of Trump, or some equivalent, is disqualifying themselves from being taken seriously.
You mean, apart from the three dissenters who said that the Fourteenth Amendment should be ignored because it was something to do with Dems being Woke and all immigrants are basically traitors?
Essentially, declaring that the Constiution is whatever Trump says it is, however astonishing a position that would be to take for an honest judge.
(OK, so there was no honest judge in the dissent, but you get my point.)
Three out of nine can't do anything alone.
What this court is is what it has been since the last appointment - three who will take the GOP position no matter what, three who will take the Dem position no matter what - and three who will decide based on what the law actually is.
That's obviously not as good as having zero, zero and nine, but it's probably the best we can hope for under current conditions.
The idea that "Trump will get his way because the GOP controls SCOTUS" has been clearly shown in the latest batch of judgments to be what it always was - complete bollocks.
Trump's attempt to remove Birthright citizenship rights has been rejected by the Supreme Court.
For more interesting than rumours regarding who will get a new job when Burnham is PM
At this point, anyone arguing that SCOTUS is a tool of Trump, or some equivalent, is disqualifying themselves from being taken seriously.
You mean, apart from the three dissenters who said that the Fourteenth Amendment should be ignored because it was something to do with Dems being Woke and all immigrants are basically traitors?
Essentially, declaring that the Constiution is whatever Trump says it is, however astonishing a position that would be to take for an honest judge.
(OK, so there was no honest judge in the dissent, but you get my point.)
Three out of nine can't do anything alone.
What this court is is what it has been since the last appointment - three who will take the GOP position no matter what, three who will take the Dem position no matter what - and three who will decide based on what the law actually is.
That's obviously not as good as having zero, zero and nine, but it's probably the best we can hope for under current conditions.
The idea that "Trump will get his way because the GOP controls SCOTUS" has been clearly shown in the latest batch of judgments to be what it always was - complete bollocks.
No, because on some judgements, more have sided with the GOP position on entirely flimsy grounds. They don't kowtow all the time, but they do done of the time.
When it comes to constitutional analysis, "flimsy grounds" are very much in the eye of the beholder.
Plenty of court judgements are made on frankly ludicrous grounds for partisan reasons (and not just in the US). Roe v Wade would be a classic example.
But this isn't even arguable. Anyone born in the US is a US citizen. That's what it says in black and white and plain English.
Just as anyone is entitled to bear arms.
Are they laws we would have today? No.
Are they sensible laws? The first arguably no, the second definitely no (the Second Amendment is the craziest law ever proposed, never mind made, not forgetting the legislature of Indiana wanted to make pi=4).
Are they stuck with them because their constitution? Yes.
The meaning of the 'bearing arms' bit in the constitution has, in my very minority opinion, been misunderstood.
The constitution says:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
What it means is simply this: The American state does not require pacifism, which is the teaching of some influential founders especially Quakers. It asserts that it is not wrong to bear arms because a militia is essential and the Quakers, while entitled to their views, are wrong, and American law must reflect this need for a militia.
This concept has history, which the constitution tips a hat to. In the 39 Articles of Religion of 1562 the same issue, whether Christianity requires pacificism, is raised, and dealt with in these words (art 37):
It is lawful for Christian men, at the commandment of the Magistrate, to wear weapons, and serve in the wars.
the USA constitution means the same thing, as a moment's reflection renders obvious. As the usual, wrong, understanding would compel the USA to allow any three year old in any state to possess and use a machine gun. Which is, as they say, repugnant to the intellect.
FFS it’s just a typo - the right to bare arms. It clearly indicates that tank tops are acceptable and, implicitly, the constitution supports gay marriage
Which explains why it goes on to talk about knobbly knees. I'd always wondered.
Currently trying to cancel my Sky contract after yet another enormous rise in prices.
I think they're trying to exasperate me into submission via static while on hold.
Its all part of the game. The price isnt the price, the price is how much time and patience you have to keep doing the Istanbul Bazzar haggle....i am leaving....i am walking away....
They wanted me to pay £146.
After I said no, they offered me £120.
I pointed out I can get pretty much the same thing for £58.
It's not as though I watch much TV anyway and I could manage on my mobile data at a pinch.
So we'll see if they haggle their way to £65. I won't renew for more.
I have moved everything to EE including top fibre broad band and full big sports package, multi room plus boost and unlimited sim card use for £99 pm plus £26 for 2 sim cards
I’ve a couple of films on “buy and keep” with sky… would I lose them if I moved?
Yes.
So “buy and keep” doesn’t actually mean “buy and keep”? Smells like trade misdescripton to me
Amazon is the same.
But good luck trying to get anything done about it.
Supreme Court upholds birthright citizenship, that’s now going to have to be a constitutional amendment.
Actually, that's not necessarily true. Brett Kavanagh's concurrence basically said "the Constitution does not guarantee absolutel birthright citizenship, but the Immigration and Nationality Act does. If you want to end it, repeal it or pass a replacement."
Trump's attempt to remove Birthright citizenship rights has been rejected by the Supreme Court.
For more interesting than rumours regarding who will get a new job when Burnham is PM
At this point, anyone arguing that SCOTUS is a tool of Trump, or some equivalent, is disqualifying themselves from being taken seriously.
You mean, apart from the three dissenters who said that the Fourteenth Amendment should be ignored because it was something to do with Dems being Woke and all immigrants are basically traitors?
Essentially, declaring that the Constiution is whatever Trump says it is, however astonishing a position that would be to take for an honest judge.
(OK, so there was no honest judge in the dissent, but you get my point.)
Three out of nine can't do anything alone.
What this court is is what it has been since the last appointment - three who will take the GOP position no matter what, three who will take the Dem position no matter what - and three who will decide based on what the law actually is.
That's obviously not as good as having zero, zero and nine, but it's probably the best we can hope for under current conditions.
The idea that "Trump will get his way because the GOP controls SCOTUS" has been clearly shown in the latest batch of judgments to be what it always was - complete bollocks.
Trump's attempt to remove Birthright citizenship rights has been rejected by the Supreme Court.
For more interesting than rumours regarding who will get a new job when Burnham is PM
At this point, anyone arguing that SCOTUS is a tool of Trump, or some equivalent, is disqualifying themselves from being taken seriously.
You mean, apart from the three dissenters who said that the Fourteenth Amendment should be ignored because it was something to do with Dems being Woke and all immigrants are basically traitors?
Essentially, declaring that the Constiution is whatever Trump says it is, however astonishing a position that would be to take for an honest judge.
(OK, so there was no honest judge in the dissent, but you get my point.)
Three out of nine can't do anything alone.
What this court is is what it has been since the last appointment - three who will take the GOP position no matter what, three who will take the Dem position no matter what - and three who will decide based on what the law actually is.
That's obviously not as good as having zero, zero and nine, but it's probably the best we can hope for under current conditions.
The idea that "Trump will get his way because the GOP controls SCOTUS" has been clearly shown in the latest batch of judgments to be what it always was - complete bollocks.
No, because on some judgements, more have sided with the GOP position on entirely flimsy grounds. They don't kowtow all the time, but they do done of the time.
When it comes to constitutional analysis, "flimsy grounds" are very much in the eye of the beholder.
Plenty of court judgements are made on frankly ludicrous grounds for partisan reasons (and not just in the US). Roe v Wade would be a classic example.
But this isn't even arguable. Anyone born in the US is a US citizen. That's what it says in black and white and plain English.
Just as anyone is entitled to bear arms.
Are they laws we would have today? No.
Are they sensible laws? The first arguably no, the second definitely no (the Second Amendment is the craziest law ever proposed, never mind made, not forgetting the legislature of Indiana wanted to make pi=4).
Are they stuck with them because their constitution? Yes.
The meaning of the 'bearing arms' bit in the constitution has, in my very minority opinion, been misunderstood.
The constitution says:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
What it means is simply this: The American state does not require pacifism, which is the teaching of some influential founders especially Quakers. It asserts that it is not wrong to bear arms because a militia is essential and the Quakers, while entitled to their views, are wrong, and American law must reflect this need for a militia.
This concept has history, which the constitution tips a hat to. In the 39 Articles of Religion of 1562 the same issue, whether Christianity requires pacificism, is raised, and dealt with in these words (art 37):
It is lawful for Christian men, at the commandment of the Magistrate, to wear weapons, and serve in the wars.
the USA constitution means the same thing, as a moment's reflection renders obvious. As the usual, wrong, understanding would compel the USA to allow any three year old in any state to possess and use a machine gun. Which is, as they say, repugnant to the intellect.
FFS it’s just a typo - the right to bare arms. It clearly indicates that tank tops are acceptable and, implicitly, the constitution supports gay marriage
Which explains why it goes on to talk about knobbly knees. I'd always wondered.
Currently trying to cancel my Sky contract after yet another enormous rise in prices.
I think they're trying to exasperate me into submission via static while on hold.
Its all part of the game. The price isnt the price, the price is how much time and patience you have to keep doing the Istanbul Bazzar haggle....i am leaving....i am walking away....
They wanted me to pay £146.
After I said no, they offered me £120.
I pointed out I can get pretty much the same thing for £58.
It's not as though I watch much TV anyway and I could manage on my mobile data at a pinch.
So we'll see if they haggle their way to £65. I won't renew for more.
I have moved everything to EE including top fibre broad band and full big sports package, multi room plus boost and unlimited sim card use for £99 pm plus £26 for 2 sim cards
I’ve a couple of films on “buy and keep” with sky… would I lose them if I moved?
Yes.
So “buy and keep” doesn’t actually mean “buy and keep”? Smells like trade misdescripton to me
“Buy” has been used to effectively mean “buy a licence to access subject to terms and conditions” when it comes to digital content for my entire adult life pretty much.
Trump's attempt to remove Birthright citizenship rights has been rejected by the Supreme Court.
For more interesting than rumours regarding who will get a new job when Burnham is PM
At this point, anyone arguing that SCOTUS is a tool of Trump, or some equivalent, is disqualifying themselves from being taken seriously.
You mean, apart from the three dissenters who said that the Fourteenth Amendment should be ignored because it was something to do with Dems being Woke and all immigrants are basically traitors?
Essentially, declaring that the Constiution is whatever Trump says it is, however astonishing a position that would be to take for an honest judge.
(OK, so there was no honest judge in the dissent, but you get my point.)
Three out of nine can't do anything alone.
What this court is is what it has been since the last appointment - three who will take the GOP position no matter what, three who will take the Dem position no matter what - and three who will decide based on what the law actually is.
That's obviously not as good as having zero, zero and nine, but it's probably the best we can hope for under current conditions.
The idea that "Trump will get his way because the GOP controls SCOTUS" has been clearly shown in the latest batch of judgments to be what it always was - complete bollocks.
Trump's attempt to remove Birthright citizenship rights has been rejected by the Supreme Court.
For more interesting than rumours regarding who will get a new job when Burnham is PM
At this point, anyone arguing that SCOTUS is a tool of Trump, or some equivalent, is disqualifying themselves from being taken seriously.
You mean, apart from the three dissenters who said that the Fourteenth Amendment should be ignored because it was something to do with Dems being Woke and all immigrants are basically traitors?
Essentially, declaring that the Constiution is whatever Trump says it is, however astonishing a position that would be to take for an honest judge.
(OK, so there was no honest judge in the dissent, but you get my point.)
Three out of nine can't do anything alone.
What this court is is what it has been since the last appointment - three who will take the GOP position no matter what, three who will take the Dem position no matter what - and three who will decide based on what the law actually is.
That's obviously not as good as having zero, zero and nine, but it's probably the best we can hope for under current conditions.
The idea that "Trump will get his way because the GOP controls SCOTUS" has been clearly shown in the latest batch of judgments to be what it always was - complete bollocks.
No, because on some judgements, more have sided with the GOP position on entirely flimsy grounds. They don't kowtow all the time, but they do done of the time.
When it comes to constitutional analysis, "flimsy grounds" are very much in the eye of the beholder.
Plenty of court judgements are made on frankly ludicrous grounds for partisan reasons (and not just in the US). Roe v Wade would be a classic example.
But this isn't even arguable. Anyone born in the US is a US citizen. That's what it says in black and white and plain English.
Just as anyone is entitled to bear arms.
Are they laws we would have today? No.
Are they sensible laws? The first arguably no, the second definitely no (the Second Amendment is the craziest law ever proposed, never mind made, not forgetting the legislature of Indiana wanted to make pi=4).
Are they stuck with them because their constitution? Yes.
The meaning of the 'bearing arms' bit in the constitution has, in my very minority opinion, been misunderstood.
The constitution says:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
What it means is simply this: The American state does not require pacifism, which is the teaching of some influential founders especially Quakers. It asserts that it is not wrong to bear arms because a militia is essential and the Quakers, while entitled to their views, are wrong, and American law must reflect this need for a militia.
This concept has history, which the constitution tips a hat to. In the 39 Articles of Religion of 1562 the same issue, whether Christianity requires pacificism, is raised, and dealt with in these words (art 37):
It is lawful for Christian men, at the commandment of the Magistrate, to wear weapons, and serve in the wars.
the USA constitution means the same thing, as a moment's reflection renders obvious. As the usual, wrong, understanding would compel the USA to allow any three year old in any state to possess and use a machine gun. Which is, as they say, repugnant to the intellect.
FFS it’s just a typo - the right to bare arms. It clearly indicates that tank tops are acceptable and, implicitly, the constitution supports gay marriage
Which explains why it goes on to talk about knobbly knees. I'd always wondered.
And the bit about bare feet...well, just pretending they were a bunch of liberals and democrats.
Trump's attempt to remove Birthright citizenship rights has been rejected by the Supreme Court.
For more interesting than rumours regarding who will get a new job when Burnham is PM
At this point, anyone arguing that SCOTUS is a tool of Trump, or some equivalent, is disqualifying themselves from being taken seriously.
You mean, apart from the three dissenters who said that the Fourteenth Amendment should be ignored because it was something to do with Dems being Woke and all immigrants are basically traitors?
Essentially, declaring that the Constiution is whatever Trump says it is, however astonishing a position that would be to take for an honest judge.
(OK, so there was no honest judge in the dissent, but you get my point.)
Three out of nine can't do anything alone.
What this court is is what it has been since the last appointment - three who will take the GOP position no matter what, three who will take the Dem position no matter what - and three who will decide based on what the law actually is.
That's obviously not as good as having zero, zero and nine, but it's probably the best we can hope for under current conditions.
The idea that "Trump will get his way because the GOP controls SCOTUS" has been clearly shown in the latest batch of judgments to be what it always was - complete bollocks.
Trump's attempt to remove Birthright citizenship rights has been rejected by the Supreme Court.
For more interesting than rumours regarding who will get a new job when Burnham is PM
At this point, anyone arguing that SCOTUS is a tool of Trump, or some equivalent, is disqualifying themselves from being taken seriously.
You mean, apart from the three dissenters who said that the Fourteenth Amendment should be ignored because it was something to do with Dems being Woke and all immigrants are basically traitors?
Essentially, declaring that the Constiution is whatever Trump says it is, however astonishing a position that would be to take for an honest judge.
(OK, so there was no honest judge in the dissent, but you get my point.)
Three out of nine can't do anything alone.
What this court is is what it has been since the last appointment - three who will take the GOP position no matter what, three who will take the Dem position no matter what - and three who will decide based on what the law actually is.
That's obviously not as good as having zero, zero and nine, but it's probably the best we can hope for under current conditions.
The idea that "Trump will get his way because the GOP controls SCOTUS" has been clearly shown in the latest batch of judgments to be what it always was - complete bollocks.
No, because on some judgements, more have sided with the GOP position on entirely flimsy grounds. They don't kowtow all the time, but they do done of the time.
When it comes to constitutional analysis, "flimsy grounds" are very much in the eye of the beholder.
Plenty of court judgements are made on frankly ludicrous grounds for partisan reasons (and not just in the US). Roe v Wade would be a classic example.
But this isn't even arguable. Anyone born in the US is a US citizen. That's what it says in black and white and plain English.
Just as anyone is entitled to bear arms.
Are they laws we would have today? No.
Are they sensible laws? The first arguably no, the second definitely no (the Second Amendment is the craziest law ever proposed, never mind made, not forgetting the legislature of Indiana wanted to make pi=4).
Are they stuck with them because their constitution? Yes.
But in this case the law doesn't say "anyone born in the US is a US citizen", it says "anyone born in the US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof is a US citizen" and the meaning of the bolded phrase is certainly arguable. Presumably it has some limiting effect because otherwise it wouldn't have been included.
It is mad that so many US laws are determined by trying to interpret a 200 year old document as if it is the source of all wisdom.
Yet because it has because it's become politically impossible to make any changes, with nothing substantive amended for over 50 years of their 250 year history.
Ronald Reagan: “You can go to live in France, but you cannot become a Frenchman…But Anyone, from any corner of the Earth, can come to live in America and become an American…This, I believe, is one of the most important sources of America's greatness.”🇺🇸
Trump's attempt to remove Birthright citizenship rights has been rejected by the Supreme Court.
For more interesting than rumours regarding who will get a new job when Burnham is PM
At this point, anyone arguing that SCOTUS is a tool of Trump, or some equivalent, is disqualifying themselves from being taken seriously.
You mean, apart from the three dissenters who said that the Fourteenth Amendment should be ignored because it was something to do with Dems being Woke and all immigrants are basically traitors?
Essentially, declaring that the Constiution is whatever Trump says it is, however astonishing a position that would be to take for an honest judge.
(OK, so there was no honest judge in the dissent, but you get my point.)
Nonetheless, I have to admit to being slightly (and positively) surprised by Roberts cleaving to the actual words of the constitution on a matter so dear to MAGA and Trump. Credit where credit is due, since he was essentially the swing vote. (ACB, I think, actually has principles, even if I don't much like most of them.)
That such a clearcut issue should be decided on a 5/4 vote is in itself pretty shocking to me.
It was a 6-3 vote; albeit only 5 of the 6 held that the Constitution guaranteed birthright ctizenship.
He also seems to want to bat in exactly the same way in all formats.
Which is why I wouldn't make him test captain, despite my Yorkshire allegiance.
He has the potential to be one of the greats but he needs a lot more self discipline and tactical awareness. That innings after Stokes was out against NZ was little short of bizarre.
Trump's attempt to remove Birthright citizenship rights has been rejected by the Supreme Court.
For more interesting than rumours regarding who will get a new job when Burnham is PM
At this point, anyone arguing that SCOTUS is a tool of Trump, or some equivalent, is disqualifying themselves from being taken seriously.
You mean, apart from the three dissenters who said that the Fourteenth Amendment should be ignored because it was something to do with Dems being Woke and all immigrants are basically traitors?
Essentially, declaring that the Constiution is whatever Trump says it is, however astonishing a position that would be to take for an honest judge.
(OK, so there was no honest judge in the dissent, but you get my point.)
Three out of nine can't do anything alone.
What this court is is what it has been since the last appointment - three who will take the GOP position no matter what, three who will take the Dem position no matter what - and three who will decide based on what the law actually is.
That's obviously not as good as having zero, zero and nine, but it's probably the best we can hope for under current conditions.
The idea that "Trump will get his way because the GOP controls SCOTUS" has been clearly shown in the latest batch of judgments to be what it always was - complete bollocks.
Trump's attempt to remove Birthright citizenship rights has been rejected by the Supreme Court.
For more interesting than rumours regarding who will get a new job when Burnham is PM
At this point, anyone arguing that SCOTUS is a tool of Trump, or some equivalent, is disqualifying themselves from being taken seriously.
You mean, apart from the three dissenters who said that the Fourteenth Amendment should be ignored because it was something to do with Dems being Woke and all immigrants are basically traitors?
Essentially, declaring that the Constiution is whatever Trump says it is, however astonishing a position that would be to take for an honest judge.
(OK, so there was no honest judge in the dissent, but you get my point.)
Three out of nine can't do anything alone.
What this court is is what it has been since the last appointment - three who will take the GOP position no matter what, three who will take the Dem position no matter what - and three who will decide based on what the law actually is.
That's obviously not as good as having zero, zero and nine, but it's probably the best we can hope for under current conditions.
The idea that "Trump will get his way because the GOP controls SCOTUS" has been clearly shown in the latest batch of judgments to be what it always was - complete bollocks.
No, because on some judgements, more have sided with the GOP position on entirely flimsy grounds. They don't kowtow all the time, but they do done of the time.
When it comes to constitutional analysis, "flimsy grounds" are very much in the eye of the beholder.
Plenty of court judgements are made on frankly ludicrous grounds for partisan reasons (and not just in the US). Roe v Wade would be a classic example.
But this isn't even arguable. Anyone born in the US is a US citizen. That's what it says in black and white and plain English.
Just as anyone is entitled to bear arms.
Are they laws we would have today? No.
Are they sensible laws? The first arguably no, the second definitely no (the Second Amendment is the craziest law ever proposed, never mind made, not forgetting the legislature of Indiana wanted to make pi=4).
Are they stuck with them because their constitution? Yes.
Roe v. Wade is indeed one example I had in mind, as is the egregious Miller II.
But in this case the law doesn't say "anyone born in the US is a US citizen", it says "anyone born in the US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof is a US citizen" and the meaning of the bolded phrase is certainly arguable. Presumably it has some limiting effect because otherwise it wouldn't have been included.
Jurisprudence has generally been of the view that the clause is designed to exclude the children of diplomats.
Trump's attempt to remove Birthright citizenship rights has been rejected by the Supreme Court.
For more interesting than rumours regarding who will get a new job when Burnham is PM
At this point, anyone arguing that SCOTUS is a tool of Trump, or some equivalent, is disqualifying themselves from being taken seriously.
You mean, apart from the three dissenters who said that the Fourteenth Amendment should be ignored because it was something to do with Dems being Woke and all immigrants are basically traitors?
Essentially, declaring that the Constiution is whatever Trump says it is, however astonishing a position that would be to take for an honest judge.
(OK, so there was no honest judge in the dissent, but you get my point.)
Three out of nine can't do anything alone.
What this court is is what it has been since the last appointment - three who will take the GOP position no matter what, three who will take the Dem position no matter what - and three who will decide based on what the law actually is.
That's obviously not as good as having zero, zero and nine, but it's probably the best we can hope for under current conditions.
The idea that "Trump will get his way because the GOP controls SCOTUS" has been clearly shown in the latest batch of judgments to be what it always was - complete bollocks.
Trump's attempt to remove Birthright citizenship rights has been rejected by the Supreme Court.
For more interesting than rumours regarding who will get a new job when Burnham is PM
At this point, anyone arguing that SCOTUS is a tool of Trump, or some equivalent, is disqualifying themselves from being taken seriously.
You mean, apart from the three dissenters who said that the Fourteenth Amendment should be ignored because it was something to do with Dems being Woke and all immigrants are basically traitors?
Essentially, declaring that the Constiution is whatever Trump says it is, however astonishing a position that would be to take for an honest judge.
(OK, so there was no honest judge in the dissent, but you get my point.)
Three out of nine can't do anything alone.
What this court is is what it has been since the last appointment - three who will take the GOP position no matter what, three who will take the Dem position no matter what - and three who will decide based on what the law actually is.
That's obviously not as good as having zero, zero and nine, but it's probably the best we can hope for under current conditions.
The idea that "Trump will get his way because the GOP controls SCOTUS" has been clearly shown in the latest batch of judgments to be what it always was - complete bollocks.
No, because on some judgements, more have sided with the GOP position on entirely flimsy grounds. They don't kowtow all the time, but they do done of the time.
When it comes to constitutional analysis, "flimsy grounds" are very much in the eye of the beholder.
Plenty of court judgements are made on frankly ludicrous grounds for partisan reasons (and not just in the US). Roe v Wade would be a classic example.
But this isn't even arguable. Anyone born in the US is a US citizen. That's what it says in black and white and plain English.
Just as anyone is entitled to bear arms.
Are they laws we would have today? No.
Are they sensible laws? The first arguably no, the second definitely no (the Second Amendment is the craziest law ever proposed, never mind made, not forgetting the legislature of Indiana wanted to make pi=4).
Are they stuck with them because their constitution? Yes.
Roe v. Wade is indeed one example I had in mind, as is the egregious Miller II.
But in this case the law doesn't say "anyone born in the US is a US citizen", it says "anyone born in the US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof is a US citizen" and the meaning of the bolded phrase is certainly arguable. Presumably it has some limiting effect because otherwise it wouldn't have been included.
I read that as being born in the US means you are subject to its jurisdiction, and that’s what makes you a citizen.
Trump's attempt to remove Birthright citizenship rights has been rejected by the Supreme Court.
For more interesting than rumours regarding who will get a new job when Burnham is PM
At this point, anyone arguing that SCOTUS is a tool of Trump, or some equivalent, is disqualifying themselves from being taken seriously.
You mean, apart from the three dissenters who said that the Fourteenth Amendment should be ignored because it was something to do with Dems being Woke and all immigrants are basically traitors?
Essentially, declaring that the Constiution is whatever Trump says it is, however astonishing a position that would be to take for an honest judge.
(OK, so there was no honest judge in the dissent, but you get my point.)
Nonetheless, I have to admit to being slightly (and positively) surprised by Roberts cleaving to the actual words of the constitution on a matter so dear to MAGA and Trump. Credit where credit is due, since he was essentially the swing vote. (ACB, I think, actually has principles, even if I don't much like most of them.)
That such a clearcut issue should be decided on a 5/4 vote is in itself pretty shocking to me.
It was a 6-3 vote; albeit only 5 of the 6 held that the Constitution guaranteed birthright ctizenship.
What is the last date Roberts can cark it or resign before the midterms and a replacement be rushed through before the new Congress assembles?
I'm guessing maybe October?
Of course, the Republicans may hold the Senate and the point be moot.
I see the rumour that Alito was to retire has been retracted.
Trump's attempt to remove Birthright citizenship rights has been rejected by the Supreme Court.
For more interesting than rumours regarding who will get a new job when Burnham is PM
At this point, anyone arguing that SCOTUS is a tool of Trump, or some equivalent, is disqualifying themselves from being taken seriously.
You mean, apart from the three dissenters who said that the Fourteenth Amendment should be ignored because it was something to do with Dems being Woke and all immigrants are basically traitors?
Essentially, declaring that the Constiution is whatever Trump says it is, however astonishing a position that would be to take for an honest judge.
(OK, so there was no honest judge in the dissent, but you get my point.)
Three out of nine can't do anything alone.
What this court is is what it has been since the last appointment - three who will take the GOP position no matter what, three who will take the Dem position no matter what - and three who will decide based on what the law actually is.
That's obviously not as good as having zero, zero and nine, but it's probably the best we can hope for under current conditions.
The idea that "Trump will get his way because the GOP controls SCOTUS" has been clearly shown in the latest batch of judgments to be what it always was - complete bollocks.
Trump's attempt to remove Birthright citizenship rights has been rejected by the Supreme Court.
For more interesting than rumours regarding who will get a new job when Burnham is PM
At this point, anyone arguing that SCOTUS is a tool of Trump, or some equivalent, is disqualifying themselves from being taken seriously.
You mean, apart from the three dissenters who said that the Fourteenth Amendment should be ignored because it was something to do with Dems being Woke and all immigrants are basically traitors?
Essentially, declaring that the Constiution is whatever Trump says it is, however astonishing a position that would be to take for an honest judge.
(OK, so there was no honest judge in the dissent, but you get my point.)
Three out of nine can't do anything alone.
What this court is is what it has been since the last appointment - three who will take the GOP position no matter what, three who will take the Dem position no matter what - and three who will decide based on what the law actually is.
That's obviously not as good as having zero, zero and nine, but it's probably the best we can hope for under current conditions.
The idea that "Trump will get his way because the GOP controls SCOTUS" has been clearly shown in the latest batch of judgments to be what it always was - complete bollocks.
No, because on some judgements, more have sided with the GOP position on entirely flimsy grounds. They don't kowtow all the time, but they do done of the time.
When it comes to constitutional analysis, "flimsy grounds" are very much in the eye of the beholder.
Plenty of court judgements are made on frankly ludicrous grounds for partisan reasons (and not just in the US). Roe v Wade would be a classic example.
But this isn't even arguable. Anyone born in the US is a US citizen. That's what it says in black and white and plain English.
Just as anyone is entitled to bear arms.
Are they laws we would have today? No.
Are they sensible laws? The first arguably no, the second definitely no (the Second Amendment is the craziest law ever proposed, never mind made, not forgetting the legislature of Indiana wanted to make pi=4).
Are they stuck with them because their constitution? Yes.
The meaning of the 'bearing arms' bit in the constitution has, in my very minority opinion, been misunderstood.
The constitution says:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
What it means is simply this: The American state does not require pacifism, which is the teaching of some influential founders especially Quakers. It asserts that it is not wrong to bear arms because a militia is essential and the Quakers, while entitled to their views, are wrong, and American law must reflect this need for a militia.
This concept has history, which the constitution tips a hat to. In the 39 Articles of Religion of 1562 the same issue, whether Christianity requires pacificism, is raised, and dealt with in these words (art 37):
It is lawful for Christian men, at the commandment of the Magistrate, to wear weapons, and serve in the wars.
the USA constitution means the same thing, as a moment's reflection renders obvious. As the usual, wrong, understanding would compel the USA to allow any three year old in any state to possess and use a machine gun. Which is, as they say, repugnant to the intellect.
Not sure whether I'm agreeing or disagreeing but it being lawful for any tom dick or hank to wander around with an assault rifle doesn't (to me) conjur up images of a 'well regulated militia'.
Trump's attempt to remove Birthright citizenship rights has been rejected by the Supreme Court.
For more interesting than rumours regarding who will get a new job when Burnham is PM
At this point, anyone arguing that SCOTUS is a tool of Trump, or some equivalent, is disqualifying themselves from being taken seriously.
You mean, apart from the three dissenters who said that the Fourteenth Amendment should be ignored because it was something to do with Dems being Woke and all immigrants are basically traitors?
Essentially, declaring that the Constiution is whatever Trump says it is, however astonishing a position that would be to take for an honest judge.
(OK, so there was no honest judge in the dissent, but you get my point.)
Nonetheless, I have to admit to being slightly (and positively) surprised by Roberts cleaving to the actual words of the constitution on a matter so dear to MAGA and Trump. Credit where credit is due, since he was essentially the swing vote. (ACB, I think, actually has principles, even if I don't much like most of them.)
That such a clearcut issue should be decided on a 5/4 vote is in itself pretty shocking to me.
It was a 6-3 vote; albeit only 5 of the 6 held that the Constitution guaranteed birthright ctizenship.
What is the last date Roberts can cark it or resign before the midterms and a replacement be rushed through before the new Congress assembles?
I'm guessing maybe October?
Of course, the Republicans may hold the Senate and the point be moot.
I see the rumour that Alito was to retire has been retracted.
Ruth Bader Ginsberg died on 18 September 2020, and was replaced barely more than a month later on 26 October. So, it clearly can be done in a very short period.
If the Republicans were to lose control of the Senate, then there would be enormous pressure on Thomas and/or Alito to step down to guarantee the conservative majority on the Supreme Court.
Trump's attempt to remove Birthright citizenship rights has been rejected by the Supreme Court.
For more interesting than rumours regarding who will get a new job when Burnham is PM
At this point, anyone arguing that SCOTUS is a tool of Trump, or some equivalent, is disqualifying themselves from being taken seriously.
You mean, apart from the three dissenters who said that the Fourteenth Amendment should be ignored because it was something to do with Dems being Woke and all immigrants are basically traitors?
Essentially, declaring that the Constiution is whatever Trump says it is, however astonishing a position that would be to take for an honest judge.
(OK, so there was no honest judge in the dissent, but you get my point.)
Three out of nine can't do anything alone.
What this court is is what it has been since the last appointment - three who will take the GOP position no matter what, three who will take the Dem position no matter what - and three who will decide based on what the law actually is.
That's obviously not as good as having zero, zero and nine, but it's probably the best we can hope for under current conditions.
The idea that "Trump will get his way because the GOP controls SCOTUS" has been clearly shown in the latest batch of judgments to be what it always was - complete bollocks.
Trump's attempt to remove Birthright citizenship rights has been rejected by the Supreme Court.
For more interesting than rumours regarding who will get a new job when Burnham is PM
At this point, anyone arguing that SCOTUS is a tool of Trump, or some equivalent, is disqualifying themselves from being taken seriously.
You mean, apart from the three dissenters who said that the Fourteenth Amendment should be ignored because it was something to do with Dems being Woke and all immigrants are basically traitors?
Essentially, declaring that the Constiution is whatever Trump says it is, however astonishing a position that would be to take for an honest judge.
(OK, so there was no honest judge in the dissent, but you get my point.)
Three out of nine can't do anything alone.
What this court is is what it has been since the last appointment - three who will take the GOP position no matter what, three who will take the Dem position no matter what - and three who will decide based on what the law actually is.
That's obviously not as good as having zero, zero and nine, but it's probably the best we can hope for under current conditions.
The idea that "Trump will get his way because the GOP controls SCOTUS" has been clearly shown in the latest batch of judgments to be what it always was - complete bollocks.
No, because on some judgements, more have sided with the GOP position on entirely flimsy grounds. They don't kowtow all the time, but they do done of the time.
When it comes to constitutional analysis, "flimsy grounds" are very much in the eye of the beholder.
Plenty of court judgements are made on frankly ludicrous grounds for partisan reasons (and not just in the US). Roe v Wade would be a classic example.
But this isn't even arguable. Anyone born in the US is a US citizen. That's what it says in black and white and plain English.
Just as anyone is entitled to bear arms.
Are they laws we would have today? No.
Are they sensible laws? The first arguably no, the second definitely no (the Second Amendment is the craziest law ever proposed, never mind made, not forgetting the legislature of Indiana wanted to make pi=4).
Are they stuck with them because their constitution? Yes.
Roe v. Wade is indeed one example I had in mind, as is the egregious Miller II.
But in this case the law doesn't say "anyone born in the US is a US citizen", it says "anyone born in the US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof is a US citizen" and the meaning of the bolded phrase is certainly arguable. Presumably it has some limiting effect because otherwise it wouldn't have been included.
Jurisprudence has generally been of the view that the clause is designed to exclude the children of diplomats.
As I have always been taught in contract drafting: say what you mean.
Trump's attempt to remove Birthright citizenship rights has been rejected by the Supreme Court.
For more interesting than rumours regarding who will get a new job when Burnham is PM
At this point, anyone arguing that SCOTUS is a tool of Trump, or some equivalent, is disqualifying themselves from being taken seriously.
You mean, apart from the three dissenters who said that the Fourteenth Amendment should be ignored because it was something to do with Dems being Woke and all immigrants are basically traitors?
Essentially, declaring that the Constiution is whatever Trump says it is, however astonishing a position that would be to take for an honest judge.
(OK, so there was no honest judge in the dissent, but you get my point.)
Three out of nine can't do anything alone.
What this court is is what it has been since the last appointment - three who will take the GOP position no matter what, three who will take the Dem position no matter what - and three who will decide based on what the law actually is.
That's obviously not as good as having zero, zero and nine, but it's probably the best we can hope for under current conditions.
The idea that "Trump will get his way because the GOP controls SCOTUS" has been clearly shown in the latest batch of judgments to be what it always was - complete bollocks.
Trump's attempt to remove Birthright citizenship rights has been rejected by the Supreme Court.
For more interesting than rumours regarding who will get a new job when Burnham is PM
At this point, anyone arguing that SCOTUS is a tool of Trump, or some equivalent, is disqualifying themselves from being taken seriously.
You mean, apart from the three dissenters who said that the Fourteenth Amendment should be ignored because it was something to do with Dems being Woke and all immigrants are basically traitors?
Essentially, declaring that the Constiution is whatever Trump says it is, however astonishing a position that would be to take for an honest judge.
(OK, so there was no honest judge in the dissent, but you get my point.)
Three out of nine can't do anything alone.
What this court is is what it has been since the last appointment - three who will take the GOP position no matter what, three who will take the Dem position no matter what - and three who will decide based on what the law actually is.
That's obviously not as good as having zero, zero and nine, but it's probably the best we can hope for under current conditions.
The idea that "Trump will get his way because the GOP controls SCOTUS" has been clearly shown in the latest batch of judgments to be what it always was - complete bollocks.
No, because on some judgements, more have sided with the GOP position on entirely flimsy grounds. They don't kowtow all the time, but they do done of the time.
When it comes to constitutional analysis, "flimsy grounds" are very much in the eye of the beholder.
Plenty of court judgements are made on frankly ludicrous grounds for partisan reasons (and not just in the US). Roe v Wade would be a classic example.
But this isn't even arguable. Anyone born in the US is a US citizen. That's what it says in black and white and plain English.
Just as anyone is entitled to bear arms.
Are they laws we would have today? No.
Are they sensible laws? The first arguably no, the second definitely no (the Second Amendment is the craziest law ever proposed, never mind made, not forgetting the legislature of Indiana wanted to make pi=4).
Are they stuck with them because their constitution? Yes.
Roe v. Wade is indeed one example I had in mind, as is the egregious Miller II.
But in this case the law doesn't say "anyone born in the US is a US citizen", it says "anyone born in the US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof is a US citizen" and the meaning of the bolded phrase is certainly arguable. Presumably it has some limiting effect because otherwise it wouldn't have been included.
So, it may not apply to a child born of diplomats, for example. Minor exceptions like that aside, its hard to see how you are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US if you are born there.
Edit, apologies, I see Robert has already made the same point.
David Miliband is like one of those footballers or other sports players who are out injured for ages and the longer they are out “the better they get” as people forget that they were pretty ordinary.
I honestly cannot remember anything special that he did as an MP, any great ideas or insights and frankly I think he came across as a bit of an awkward geek.
Maybe the years earning millions for an international charity have help him develop some great policies.
He slipped up with a banana, while his little brother lost a wrestling match with a slice of greased pig.
Truly we are governed by giants
That the British electorate's opinion of them is based on how one held a banana and the other eating a bacon sandwich, says more about the British electorate's competence to cast a ballot than their ability to govern.
"Do I vote for the intelligent hardworking parent who was photographed holding a banana or the lazy dishonest serial philanderer who unsurprisingly looks like he's hurriedly pulled his trousers up, has lost count of his progeny and relies on the generosity of donors? He's a laugh isn't he?"
FFS! Frankly it's the British electorate's fault that the country is in such a state.
Ronald Reagan: “You can go to live in France, but you cannot become a Frenchman…But Anyone, from any corner of the Earth, can come to live in America and become an American…This, I believe, is one of the most important sources of America's greatness.”🇺🇸
David Miliband is like one of those footballers or other sports players who are out injured for ages and the longer they are out “the better they get” as people forget that they were pretty ordinary.
I honestly cannot remember anything special that he did as an MP, any great ideas or insights and frankly I think he came across as a bit of an awkward geek.
Maybe the years earning millions for an international charity have help him develop some great policies.
In many ways David Miliband is Labour's Liz Truss. A slightly odd think-tank adjacent figure promoted rapidly through the party while it was in a position of ascendency who eventually reached the position of foreign secretary. Their paths only diverged because Boris Johnson resigned whereas Gordon Brown lost an election.
The fellow who looks like a badger is more competent than bacon sandwich guy
It does make me smile all the hostility to Team Burnham from the very people on here who thought Boris Johnson got all the big calls right, Liz Truss's budget was the most Conservative budget since 1986 and some, who shall remain nameless, thought Donald Trump was the President to make America great again.
Aaron Rupar @atrupar · 17m LMAO -- Fox News is again broadcasting from Trump's state fair and again there is *nobody* there. I've seen fairs in rural parking lots with more attendees than this.
Aaron Rupar @atrupar · 17m LMAO -- Fox News is again broadcasting from Trump's state fair and again there is *nobody* there. I've seen fairs in rural parking lots with more attendees than this.
Trump's attempt to remove Birthright citizenship rights has been rejected by the Supreme Court.
For more interesting than rumours regarding who will get a new job when Burnham is PM
At this point, anyone arguing that SCOTUS is a tool of Trump, or some equivalent, is disqualifying themselves from being taken seriously.
You mean, apart from the three dissenters who said that the Fourteenth Amendment should be ignored because it was something to do with Dems being Woke and all immigrants are basically traitors?
Essentially, declaring that the Constiution is whatever Trump says it is, however astonishing a position that would be to take for an honest judge.
(OK, so there was no honest judge in the dissent, but you get my point.)
Three out of nine can't do anything alone.
What this court is is what it has been since the last appointment - three who will take the GOP position no matter what, three who will take the Dem position no matter what - and three who will decide based on what the law actually is.
That's obviously not as good as having zero, zero and nine, but it's probably the best we can hope for under current conditions.
The idea that "Trump will get his way because the GOP controls SCOTUS" has been clearly shown in the latest batch of judgments to be what it always was - complete bollocks.
Trump's attempt to remove Birthright citizenship rights has been rejected by the Supreme Court.
For more interesting than rumours regarding who will get a new job when Burnham is PM
At this point, anyone arguing that SCOTUS is a tool of Trump, or some equivalent, is disqualifying themselves from being taken seriously.
You mean, apart from the three dissenters who said that the Fourteenth Amendment should be ignored because it was something to do with Dems being Woke and all immigrants are basically traitors?
Essentially, declaring that the Constiution is whatever Trump says it is, however astonishing a position that would be to take for an honest judge.
(OK, so there was no honest judge in the dissent, but you get my point.)
Three out of nine can't do anything alone.
What this court is is what it has been since the last appointment - three who will take the GOP position no matter what, three who will take the Dem position no matter what - and three who will decide based on what the law actually is.
That's obviously not as good as having zero, zero and nine, but it's probably the best we can hope for under current conditions.
The idea that "Trump will get his way because the GOP controls SCOTUS" has been clearly shown in the latest batch of judgments to be what it always was - complete bollocks.
No, because on some judgements, more have sided with the GOP position on entirely flimsy grounds. They don't kowtow all the time, but they do done of the time.
When it comes to constitutional analysis, "flimsy grounds" are very much in the eye of the beholder.
Plenty of court judgements are made on frankly ludicrous grounds for partisan reasons (and not just in the US). Roe v Wade would be a classic example.
But this isn't even arguable. Anyone born in the US is a US citizen. That's what it says in black and white and plain English.
Just as anyone is entitled to bear arms.
Are they laws we would have today? No.
Are they sensible laws? The first arguably no, the second definitely no (the Second Amendment is the craziest law ever proposed, never mind made, not forgetting the legislature of Indiana wanted to make pi=4).
Are they stuck with them because their constitution? Yes.
Roe v. Wade? is indeed one example I had in mind, as is the egregious Miller II.
But in this case the law doesn't say "anyone born in the US is a US citizen", it says "anyone born in the US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof is a US citizen" and the meaning of the bolded phrase is certainly arguable. Presumably it has some limiting effect because otherwise it wouldn't have been included.
A fundamental misunderstanding of the meaning of it. It merely means that anyone born in the US is subject to the jurisdiction of it and becomes a citizen. Add a 'therefore' in your mind between 'and subject' while deleting the 'thereof' and it becomes clearer.
It did also helpfully clarify anyone born on a US flagged ship in international waters became a US citizen as well (which is expansive rather than limiting) but it's nothing more sinister than that.
Surely the "is" is in the wrong place for that interpretation?
Trump's attempt to remove Birthright citizenship rights has been rejected by the Supreme Court.
For more interesting than rumours regarding who will get a new job when Burnham is PM
At this point, anyone arguing that SCOTUS is a tool of Trump, or some equivalent, is disqualifying themselves from being taken seriously.
You mean, apart from the three dissenters who said that the Fourteenth Amendment should be ignored because it was something to do with Dems being Woke and all immigrants are basically traitors?
Essentially, declaring that the Constiution is whatever Trump says it is, however astonishing a position that would be to take for an honest judge.
(OK, so there was no honest judge in the dissent, but you get my point.)
Three out of nine can't do anything alone.
What this court is is what it has been since the last appointment - three who will take the GOP position no matter what, three who will take the Dem position no matter what - and three who will decide based on what the law actually is.
That's obviously not as good as having zero, zero and nine, but it's probably the best we can hope for under current conditions.
The idea that "Trump will get his way because the GOP controls SCOTUS" has been clearly shown in the latest batch of judgments to be what it always was - complete bollocks.
Trump's attempt to remove Birthright citizenship rights has been rejected by the Supreme Court.
For more interesting than rumours regarding who will get a new job when Burnham is PM
At this point, anyone arguing that SCOTUS is a tool of Trump, or some equivalent, is disqualifying themselves from being taken seriously.
You mean, apart from the three dissenters who said that the Fourteenth Amendment should be ignored because it was something to do with Dems being Woke and all immigrants are basically traitors?
Essentially, declaring that the Constiution is whatever Trump says it is, however astonishing a position that would be to take for an honest judge.
(OK, so there was no honest judge in the dissent, but you get my point.)
Three out of nine can't do anything alone.
What this court is is what it has been since the last appointment - three who will take the GOP position no matter what, three who will take the Dem position no matter what - and three who will decide based on what the law actually is.
That's obviously not as good as having zero, zero and nine, but it's probably the best we can hope for under current conditions.
The idea that "Trump will get his way because the GOP controls SCOTUS" has been clearly shown in the latest batch of judgments to be what it always was - complete bollocks.
No, because on some judgements, more have sided with the GOP position on entirely flimsy grounds. They don't kowtow all the time, but they do done of the time.
When it comes to constitutional analysis, "flimsy grounds" are very much in the eye of the beholder.
Plenty of court judgements are made on frankly ludicrous grounds for partisan reasons (and not just in the US). Roe v Wade would be a classic example.
But this isn't even arguable. Anyone born in the US is a US citizen. That's what it says in black and white and plain English.
Just as anyone is entitled to bear arms.
Are they laws we would have today? No.
Are they sensible laws? The first arguably no, the second definitely no (the Second Amendment is the craziest law ever proposed, never mind made, not forgetting the legislature of Indiana wanted to make pi=4).
Are they stuck with them because their constitution? Yes.
Roe v. Wade? is indeed one example I had in mind, as is the egregious Miller II.
But in this case the law doesn't say "anyone born in the US is a US citizen", it says "anyone born in the US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof is a US citizen" and the meaning of the bolded phrase is certainly arguable. Presumably it has some limiting effect because otherwise it wouldn't have been included.
A fundamental misunderstanding of the meaning of it. It merely means that anyone born in the US is subject to the jurisdiction of it and becomes a citizen. Add a 'therefore' in your mind between 'and subject' while deleting the 'thereof' and it becomes clearer.
It did also helpfully clarify anyone born on a US flagged ship in international waters became a US citizen as well (which is expansive rather than limiting) but it's nothing more sinister than that.
Surely the "is" is in the wrong place for that interpretation?
Well that depends on what your definition of "is" is...
David Miliband is like one of those footballers or other sports players who are out injured for ages and the longer they are out “the better they get” as people forget that they were pretty ordinary.
I honestly cannot remember anything special that he did as an MP, any great ideas or insights and frankly I think he came across as a bit of an awkward geek.
Maybe the years earning millions for an international charity have help him develop some great policies.
He slipped up with a banana, while his little brother lost a wrestling match with a slice of greased pig.
Truly we are governed by giants
That the British electorate's opinion of them is based on how one held a banana and the other eating a bacon sandwich, says more about the British electorate's competence to cast a ballot than their ability to govern.
"Do I vote for the intelligent hardworking parent who was photographed holding a banana or the lazy dishonest serial philanderer who unsurprisingly looks like he's hurriedly pulled his trousers up, has lost count of his progeny and relies on the generosity of donors? He's a laugh isn't he?"
FFS! Frankly it's the British electorate's fault that the country is in such a state.
It is not based on that. In Ed's case it is based on the fact that he is damaging our economy whilst enriching the economies of bigger polluters in a one-eyed utterly vainglorious attempt to be lauded at the international conferences he is so fond of attending. The fact that he chooses to gnash on a bacon sandwich like he's chewing a bee is merely an amusing side order.
Ronald Reagan: “You can go to live in France, but you cannot become a Frenchman…But Anyone, from any corner of the Earth, can come to live in America and become an American…This, I believe, is one of the most important sources of America's greatness.”🇺🇸
And this is what senile, geriatric presidents used to be like.
Reagan’s last speech as president.
Reagan's delivery of, written by others, speeches was second to none. At the time I was very frightened by Reagan but history has been kind to him, certainly in terms of foreign policy.
I wasn't a fan, but Reagan was a giant compared to the nasty imp that is Trump.
Trump's attempt to remove Birthright citizenship rights has been rejected by the Supreme Court.
For more interesting than rumours regarding who will get a new job when Burnham is PM
At this point, anyone arguing that SCOTUS is a tool of Trump, or some equivalent, is disqualifying themselves from being taken seriously.
You mean, apart from the three dissenters who said that the Fourteenth Amendment should be ignored because it was something to do with Dems being Woke and all immigrants are basically traitors?
Essentially, declaring that the Constiution is whatever Trump says it is, however astonishing a position that would be to take for an honest judge.
(OK, so there was no honest judge in the dissent, but you get my point.)
Three out of nine can't do anything alone.
What this court is is what it has been since the last appointment - three who will take the GOP position no matter what, three who will take the Dem position no matter what - and three who will decide based on what the law actually is.
That's obviously not as good as having zero, zero and nine, but it's probably the best we can hope for under current conditions.
The idea that "Trump will get his way because the GOP controls SCOTUS" has been clearly shown in the latest batch of judgments to be what it always was - complete bollocks.
Trump's attempt to remove Birthright citizenship rights has been rejected by the Supreme Court.
For more interesting than rumours regarding who will get a new job when Burnham is PM
At this point, anyone arguing that SCOTUS is a tool of Trump, or some equivalent, is disqualifying themselves from being taken seriously.
You mean, apart from the three dissenters who said that the Fourteenth Amendment should be ignored because it was something to do with Dems being Woke and all immigrants are basically traitors?
Essentially, declaring that the Constiution is whatever Trump says it is, however astonishing a position that would be to take for an honest judge.
(OK, so there was no honest judge in the dissent, but you get my point.)
Three out of nine can't do anything alone.
What this court is is what it has been since the last appointment - three who will take the GOP position no matter what, three who will take the Dem position no matter what - and three who will decide based on what the law actually is.
That's obviously not as good as having zero, zero and nine, but it's probably the best we can hope for under current conditions.
The idea that "Trump will get his way because the GOP controls SCOTUS" has been clearly shown in the latest batch of judgments to be what it always was - complete bollocks.
No, because on some judgements, more have sided with the GOP position on entirely flimsy grounds. They don't kowtow all the time, but they do done of the time.
When it comes to constitutional analysis, "flimsy grounds" are very much in the eye of the beholder.
Plenty of court judgements are made on frankly ludicrous grounds for partisan reasons (and not just in the US). Roe v Wade would be a classic example.
But this isn't even arguable. Anyone born in the US is a US citizen. That's what it says in black and white and plain English.
Just as anyone is entitled to bear arms.
Are they laws we would have today? No.
Are they sensible laws? The first arguably no, the second definitely no (the Second Amendment is the craziest law ever proposed, never mind made, not forgetting the legislature of Indiana wanted to make pi=4).
Are they stuck with them because their constitution? Yes.
Roe v. Wade? is indeed one example I had in mind, as is the egregious Miller II.
But in this case the law doesn't say "anyone born in the US is a US citizen", it says "anyone born in the US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof is a US citizen" and the meaning of the bolded phrase is certainly arguable. Presumably it has some limiting effect because otherwise it wouldn't have been included.
A fundamental misunderstanding of the meaning of it. It merely means that anyone born in the US is subject to the jurisdiction of it and becomes a citizen. Add a 'therefore' in your mind between 'and subject' while deleting the 'thereof' and it becomes clearer.
It did also helpfully clarify anyone born on a US flagged ship in international waters became a US citizen as well (which is expansive rather than limiting) but it's nothing more sinister than that.
Surely the "is" is in the wrong place for that interpretation?
Well that depends on what your definition of "is" is...
Ronald Reagan: “You can go to live in France, but you cannot become a Frenchman…But Anyone, from any corner of the Earth, can come to live in America and become an American…This, I believe, is one of the most important sources of America's greatness.”🇺🇸
And this is what senile, geriatric presidents used to be like.
Reagan’s last speech as president.
Reagan's delivery of, written by others, speeches was second to none. At the time I was very frightened by Reagan but history has been kind to him, certainly in terms of foreign policy.
I wasn't a fan, but Reagan was a giant compared to the nasty imp that is Trump.
He had an excellent turn of phrase: "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.'"
Really superb in summing up a complex argument in a single sentence.
See also: "Live simply, love generously, care deeply, speak kindly, leave the rest to God."
David Miliband is like one of those footballers or other sports players who are out injured for ages and the longer they are out “the better they get” as people forget that they were pretty ordinary.
I honestly cannot remember anything special that he did as an MP, any great ideas or insights and frankly I think he came across as a bit of an awkward geek.
Maybe the years earning millions for an international charity have help him develop some great policies.
He slipped up with a banana, while his little brother lost a wrestling match with a slice of greased pig.
Truly we are governed by giants
That the British electorate's opinion of them is based on how one held a banana and the other eating a bacon sandwich, says more about the British electorate's competence to cast a ballot than their ability to govern.
"Do I vote for the intelligent hardworking parent who was photographed holding a banana or the lazy dishonest serial philanderer who unsurprisingly looks like he's hurriedly pulled his trousers up, has lost count of his progeny and relies on the generosity of donors? He's a laugh isn't he?"
FFS! Frankly it's the British electorate's fault that the country is in such a state.
Totally. I'll take either Miliband brother over the typical British voter any day of the week. They are utterly pathetic. Clueless, shallow, irrational, selfish.
Love this country and its people though. Just today I was in Tesco and got overwhelmed with affection for everyone in there, staff and shoppers alike.
There’s also a crazy - but uncorroborated - story of a swarm of tiny Ukranian drones that look like a flock of birds, that landed on a group of aircraft at a Russian base.
David Miliband is like one of those footballers or other sports players who are out injured for ages and the longer they are out “the better they get” as people forget that they were pretty ordinary.
I honestly cannot remember anything special that he did as an MP, any great ideas or insights and frankly I think he came across as a bit of an awkward geek.
Maybe the years earning millions for an international charity have help him develop some great policies.
He slipped up with a banana, while his little brother lost a wrestling match with a slice of greased pig.
Truly we are governed by giants
That the British electorate's opinion of them is based on how one held a banana and the other eating a bacon sandwich, says more about the British electorate's competence to cast a ballot than their ability to govern.
"Do I vote for the intelligent hardworking parent who was photographed holding a banana or the lazy dishonest serial philanderer who unsurprisingly looks like he's hurriedly pulled his trousers up, has lost count of his progeny and relies on the generosity of donors? He's a laugh isn't he?"
FFS! Frankly it's the British electorate's fault that the country is in such a state.
Totally. I'll take either Miliband brother over the typical British voter any day of the week. They are utterly pathetic. Clueless, shallow, irrational, selfish.
Love this country and its people though. Just today I was in Tesco and got overwhelmed with affection for everyone in there, staff and shoppers alike.
Ronald Reagan: “You can go to live in France, but you cannot become a Frenchman…But Anyone, from any corner of the Earth, can come to live in America and become an American…This, I believe, is one of the most important sources of America's greatness.”🇺🇸
And this is what senile, geriatric presidents used to be like.
Reagan’s last speech as president.
Reagan's delivery of, written by others, speeches was second to none. At the time I was very frightened by Reagan but history has been kind to him, certainly in terms of foreign policy.
I wasn't a fan, but Reagan was a giant compared to the nasty imp that is Trump.
Reagan was well-meaning, Trump is not. He's actively malign and revels in it. That's the big difference imo. There are many others but that's the fundamental one. The problem with Trump isn't his politics, it's him.
David Miliband is like one of those footballers or other sports players who are out injured for ages and the longer they are out “the better they get” as people forget that they were pretty ordinary.
I honestly cannot remember anything special that he did as an MP, any great ideas or insights and frankly I think he came across as a bit of an awkward geek.
Maybe the years earning millions for an international charity have help him develop some great policies.
He slipped up with a banana, while his little brother lost a wrestling match with a slice of greased pig.
Truly we are governed by giants
That the British electorate's opinion of them is based on how one held a banana and the other eating a bacon sandwich, says more about the British electorate's competence to cast a ballot than their ability to govern.
"Do I vote for the intelligent hardworking parent who was photographed holding a banana or the lazy dishonest serial philanderer who unsurprisingly looks like he's hurriedly pulled his trousers up, has lost count of his progeny and relies on the generosity of donors? He's a laugh isn't he?"
FFS! Frankly it's the British electorate's fault that the country is in such a state.
Totally. I'll take either Miliband brother over the typical British voter any day of the week. They are utterly pathetic. Clueless, shallow, irrational, selfish.
Love this country and its people though. Just today I was in Tesco and got overwhelmed with affection for everyone in there, staff and shoppers alike.
Trump's attempt to remove Birthright citizenship rights has been rejected by the Supreme Court.
For more interesting than rumours regarding who will get a new job when Burnham is PM
At this point, anyone arguing that SCOTUS is a tool of Trump, or some equivalent, is disqualifying themselves from being taken seriously.
You mean, apart from the three dissenters who said that the Fourteenth Amendment should be ignored because it was something to do with Dems being Woke and all immigrants are basically traitors?
Essentially, declaring that the Constiution is whatever Trump says it is, however astonishing a position that would be to take for an honest judge.
(OK, so there was no honest judge in the dissent, but you get my point.)
Three out of nine can't do anything alone.
What this court is is what it has been since the last appointment - three who will take the GOP position no matter what, three who will take the Dem position no matter what - and three who will decide based on what the law actually is.
That's obviously not as good as having zero, zero and nine, but it's probably the best we can hope for under current conditions.
The idea that "Trump will get his way because the GOP controls SCOTUS" has been clearly shown in the latest batch of judgments to be what it always was - complete bollocks.
Trump's attempt to remove Birthright citizenship rights has been rejected by the Supreme Court.
For more interesting than rumours regarding who will get a new job when Burnham is PM
At this point, anyone arguing that SCOTUS is a tool of Trump, or some equivalent, is disqualifying themselves from being taken seriously.
You mean, apart from the three dissenters who said that the Fourteenth Amendment should be ignored because it was something to do with Dems being Woke and all immigrants are basically traitors?
Essentially, declaring that the Constiution is whatever Trump says it is, however astonishing a position that would be to take for an honest judge.
(OK, so there was no honest judge in the dissent, but you get my point.)
Three out of nine can't do anything alone.
What this court is is what it has been since the last appointment - three who will take the GOP position no matter what, three who will take the Dem position no matter what - and three who will decide based on what the law actually is.
That's obviously not as good as having zero, zero and nine, but it's probably the best we can hope for under current conditions.
The idea that "Trump will get his way because the GOP controls SCOTUS" has been clearly shown in the latest batch of judgments to be what it always was - complete bollocks.
No, because on some judgements, more have sided with the GOP position on entirely flimsy grounds. They don't kowtow all the time, but they do done of the time.
When it comes to constitutional analysis, "flimsy grounds" are very much in the eye of the beholder.
Plenty of court judgements are made on frankly ludicrous grounds for partisan reasons (and not just in the US). Roe v Wade would be a classic example.
But this isn't even arguable. Anyone born in the US is a US citizen. That's what it says in black and white and plain English.
Just as anyone is entitled to bear arms.
Are they laws we would have today? No.
Are they sensible laws? The first arguably no, the second definitely no (the Second Amendment is the craziest law ever proposed, never mind made, not forgetting the legislature of Indiana wanted to make pi=4).
Are they stuck with them because their constitution? Yes.
The meaning of the 'bearing arms' bit in the constitution has, in my very minority opinion, been misunderstood.
The constitution says:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
What it means is simply this: The American state does not require pacifism, which is the teaching of some influential founders especially Quakers. It asserts that it is not wrong to bear arms because a militia is essential and the Quakers, while entitled to their views, are wrong, and American law must reflect this need for a militia.
This concept has history, which the constitution tips a hat to. In the 39 Articles of Religion of 1562 the same issue, whether Christianity requires pacificism, is raised, and dealt with in these words (art 37):
It is lawful for Christian men, at the commandment of the Magistrate, to wear weapons, and serve in the wars.
the USA constitution means the same thing, as a moment's reflection renders obvious. As the usual, wrong, understanding would compel the USA to allow any three year old in any state to possess and use a machine gun. Which is, as they say, repugnant to the intellect.
An interesting argument.
I think there is also a good case that in a predominantly rural society surrounded by animals (and indeed people) who were frequently hostile there was a fair rationale for having weapons in the house.
That rationale is rather less compelling today.
Sure, in which case you amend the constitution. That involves convincing a lot of people who currently strongly disagree.
That said, my textual interpretation of the archive amendment would allow for quite a degree of regulation of gun ownership, given the reference to a well-regulated militia, and that the reference to people could be said to refer to people in the collective, as opposed to every individual person having an unrestricted right to beat arms.
Ronald Reagan: “You can go to live in France, but you cannot become a Frenchman…But Anyone, from any corner of the Earth, can come to live in America and become an American…This, I believe, is one of the most important sources of America's greatness.”🇺🇸
A great bit of oratory that appeals to the American sense of exceptionalism, but simply isn't true if you take a casual glance at France's football team for example, or indeed our own.
Trump's attempt to remove Birthright citizenship rights has been rejected by the Supreme Court.
For more interesting than rumours regarding who will get a new job when Burnham is PM
At this point, anyone arguing that SCOTUS is a tool of Trump, or some equivalent, is disqualifying themselves from being taken seriously.
You mean, apart from the three dissenters who said that the Fourteenth Amendment should be ignored because it was something to do with Dems being Woke and all immigrants are basically traitors?
Essentially, declaring that the Constiution is whatever Trump says it is, however astonishing a position that would be to take for an honest judge.
(OK, so there was no honest judge in the dissent, but you get my point.)
Three out of nine can't do anything alone.
What this court is is what it has been since the last appointment - three who will take the GOP position no matter what, three who will take the Dem position no matter what - and three who will decide based on what the law actually is.
That's obviously not as good as having zero, zero and nine, but it's probably the best we can hope for under current conditions.
The idea that "Trump will get his way because the GOP controls SCOTUS" has been clearly shown in the latest batch of judgments to be what it always was - complete bollocks.
Trump's attempt to remove Birthright citizenship rights has been rejected by the Supreme Court.
For more interesting than rumours regarding who will get a new job when Burnham is PM
At this point, anyone arguing that SCOTUS is a tool of Trump, or some equivalent, is disqualifying themselves from being taken seriously.
You mean, apart from the three dissenters who said that the Fourteenth Amendment should be ignored because it was something to do with Dems being Woke and all immigrants are basically traitors?
Essentially, declaring that the Constiution is whatever Trump says it is, however astonishing a position that would be to take for an honest judge.
(OK, so there was no honest judge in the dissent, but you get my point.)
Three out of nine can't do anything alone.
What this court is is what it has been since the last appointment - three who will take the GOP position no matter what, three who will take the Dem position no matter what - and three who will decide based on what the law actually is.
That's obviously not as good as having zero, zero and nine, but it's probably the best we can hope for under current conditions.
The idea that "Trump will get his way because the GOP controls SCOTUS" has been clearly shown in the latest batch of judgments to be what it always was - complete bollocks.
No, because on some judgements, more have sided with the GOP position on entirely flimsy grounds. They don't kowtow all the time, but they do done of the time.
When it comes to constitutional analysis, "flimsy grounds" are very much in the eye of the beholder.
Plenty of court judgements are made on frankly ludicrous grounds for partisan reasons (and not just in the US). Roe v Wade would be a classic example.
But this isn't even arguable. Anyone born in the US is a US citizen. That's what it says in black and white and plain English.
Just as anyone is entitled to bear arms.
Are they laws we would have today? No.
Are they sensible laws? The first arguably no, the second definitely no (the Second Amendment is the craziest law ever proposed, never mind made, not forgetting the legislature of Indiana wanted to make pi=4).
Are they stuck with them because their constitution? Yes.
Roe v. Wade is indeed one example I had in mind, as is the egregious Miller II.
But in this case the law doesn't say "anyone born in the US is a US citizen", it says "anyone born in the US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof is a US citizen" and the meaning of the bolded phrase is certainly arguable. Presumably it has some limiting effect because otherwise it wouldn't have been included.
Is the argument then that tourists are not subject to US jurisdiction and wouldn't be prosecuted for crimes they committed while in the US, and therefore any children they might have while touristing don't get US citizenship?
I don't see in what sense tourists on US soil are not subject to US jurisdiction?
Ronald Reagan: “You can go to live in France, but you cannot become a Frenchman…But Anyone, from any corner of the Earth, can come to live in America and become an American…This, I believe, is one of the most important sources of America's greatness.”🇺🇸
A great bit of oratory that appeals to the American sense of exceptionalism, but simply isn't true if you take a casual glance at France's football team for example, or indeed our own.
Still think it is mind blowing that Michael Olise, Antoine Semenyo, and Erling Haaland could have ben playing for England at this World Cup.
Ronald Reagan: “You can go to live in France, but you cannot become a Frenchman…But Anyone, from any corner of the Earth, can come to live in America and become an American…This, I believe, is one of the most important sources of America's greatness.”🇺🇸
And this is what senile, geriatric presidents used to be like.
Reagan’s last speech as president.
Reagan's delivery of, written by others, speeches was second to none. At the time I was very frightened by Reagan but history has been kind to him, certainly in terms of foreign policy.
I wasn't a fan, but Reagan was a giant compared to the nasty imp that is Trump.
He had an excellent turn of phrase: "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.'"
Really superb in summing up a complex argument in a single sentence.
See also: "Live simply, love generously, care deeply, speak kindly, leave the rest to God."
Would be even more superb summing up if Reagan covered governments not trying to help. Which is most of them, including the representative of his party currently occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Ronald Reagan: “You can go to live in France, but you cannot become a Frenchman…But Anyone, from any corner of the Earth, can come to live in America and become an American…This, I believe, is one of the most important sources of America's greatness.”🇺🇸
A great bit of oratory that appeals to the American sense of exceptionalism, but simply isn't true if you take a casual glance at France's football team for example, or indeed our own.
It's surprising how many people are using an endorsement of European ethnonationalism to own the right.
Ronald Reagan: “You can go to live in France, but you cannot become a Frenchman…But Anyone, from any corner of the Earth, can come to live in America and become an American…This, I believe, is one of the most important sources of America's greatness.”🇺🇸
A great bit of oratory that appeals to the American sense of exceptionalism, but simply isn't true if you take a casual glance at France's football team for example, or indeed our own.
Still think it is mind blowing that Michael Olise, Antoine Semenyo, and Erling Haaland could have ben playing for England at this World Cup.
My top fun fact of this World Cup is that there were 56 players at the Cup born in Paris
I am not sure If Miliband would be a great Chancellor but I doubt he's be a terrible one or even a particularly bad one.
For one thing any current Chancellor has so little room for manouver that they are even limited in the damage they can do.
What I am sick of, much like the personalised nasty attacks on Kemi, is the way that people who don't like net zero and the fact that the Minister charged with delivering a policy the public voted for, has done his job well, attacking him with such innecessary and all but malicious intent.
I am SNP, I am not fan of Labour and in particular their Nuclear energy policy, but iIdon't hate the Labour Minister responsible and I certainly won't claim he's an incompetent because he is effective in delivering a policy I don't like.
As an aside, the legal complexities around simply determining the 14th Amendment did not grant birthright citizenship are enormous, because it would throw into doubt the citizenship of anyone who had benefited from it. (And perhaps therefore also their children.)
By contrast, repealing or amending the 1952 act would be much cleaner, because it would be saying "from this date onwards, the new rules for citizenship are [x]."
As an aside, the legal complexities around simply determining the 14th Amendment did not grant birthright citizenship are enormous, because it would throw into doubt the citizenship of anyone who had benefited from it. (And perhaps therefore also their children.)
By contrast, repealing or amending the 1952 act would be much cleaner, because it would be saying "from this date onwards, the new rules for citizenship are [x]."
Perhaps this is how Trump plans to declare himself the official winner of the 2020 election.
Trump's attempt to remove Birthright citizenship rights has been rejected by the Supreme Court.
For more interesting than rumours regarding who will get a new job when Burnham is PM
At this point, anyone arguing that SCOTUS is a tool of Trump, or some equivalent, is disqualifying themselves from being taken seriously.
You mean, apart from the three dissenters who said that the Fourteenth Amendment should be ignored because it was something to do with Dems being Woke and all immigrants are basically traitors?
Essentially, declaring that the Constiution is whatever Trump says it is, however astonishing a position that would be to take for an honest judge.
(OK, so there was no honest judge in the dissent, but you get my point.)
Three out of nine can't do anything alone.
What this court is is what it has been since the last appointment - three who will take the GOP position no matter what, three who will take the Dem position no matter what - and three who will decide based on what the law actually is.
That's obviously not as good as having zero, zero and nine, but it's probably the best we can hope for under current conditions.
The idea that "Trump will get his way because the GOP controls SCOTUS" has been clearly shown in the latest batch of judgments to be what it always was - complete bollocks.
Trump's attempt to remove Birthright citizenship rights has been rejected by the Supreme Court.
For more interesting than rumours regarding who will get a new job when Burnham is PM
At this point, anyone arguing that SCOTUS is a tool of Trump, or some equivalent, is disqualifying themselves from being taken seriously.
You mean, apart from the three dissenters who said that the Fourteenth Amendment should be ignored because it was something to do with Dems being Woke and all immigrants are basically traitors?
Essentially, declaring that the Constiution is whatever Trump says it is, however astonishing a position that would be to take for an honest judge.
(OK, so there was no honest judge in the dissent, but you get my point.)
Three out of nine can't do anything alone.
What this court is is what it has been since the last appointment - three who will take the GOP position no matter what, three who will take the Dem position no matter what - and three who will decide based on what the law actually is.
That's obviously not as good as having zero, zero and nine, but it's probably the best we can hope for under current conditions.
The idea that "Trump will get his way because the GOP controls SCOTUS" has been clearly shown in the latest batch of judgments to be what it always was - complete bollocks.
No, because on some judgements, more have sided with the GOP position on entirely flimsy grounds. They don't kowtow all the time, but they do done of the time.
When it comes to constitutional analysis, "flimsy grounds" are very much in the eye of the beholder.
Plenty of court judgements are made on frankly ludicrous grounds for partisan reasons (and not just in the US). Roe v Wade would be a classic example.
But this isn't even arguable. Anyone born in the US is a US citizen. That's what it says in black and white and plain English.
Just as anyone is entitled to bear arms.
Are they laws we would have today? No.
Are they sensible laws? The first arguably no, the second definitely no (the Second Amendment is the craziest law ever proposed, never mind made, not forgetting the legislature of Indiana wanted to make pi=4).
Are they stuck with them because their constitution? Yes.
Roe v. Wade is indeed one example I had in mind, as is the egregious Miller II.
But in this case the law doesn't say "anyone born in the US is a US citizen", it says "anyone born in the US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof is a US citizen" and the meaning of the bolded phrase is certainly arguable. Presumably it has some limiting effect because otherwise it wouldn't have been included.
Is the argument then that tourists are not subject to US jurisdiction and wouldn't be prosecuted for crimes they committed while in the US, and therefore any children they might have while touristing don't get US citizenship?
I don't see in what sense tourists on US soil are not subject to US jurisdiction?
No because they weren't born there!
Therefore they aren't Americans.
The whole trump case failed because they tried to seperate the two parts so they could get what they want.
The juristiction part excludes foreign Nationals becuase they fall under the juristiction of their home country which is why they have passports to get in and out, and go to their embassy if their are problems while abroad.
I am not sure If Miliband would be a great Chancellor but I doubt he's be a terrible one or even a particularly bad one.
For one thing any current Chancellor has so little room for manouver that they are even limited in the damage they can do.
What I am sick of, much like the personalised nasty attacks on Kemi, is the way that people who don't like net zero and the fact that the Minister charged with delivering a policy the public voted for, has done his job well, attacking him with such innecessary and all but malicious intent.
I am SNP, I am not fan of Labour and in particular their Nuclear energy policy, but iIdon't hate the Labour Minister responsible and I certainly won't claim he's an incompetent because he is effective in delivering a policy I don't like.
Peter.
Miliband will not be a 'great Chancellor'.
I doubt he'll be good, I doubt he'll be adequate, I doubt he'll be lacklustre, and I doubt he'll be poor. He'll be rubbish, useless, incompetent, and and manner of other phrases.
There is no way he can even live up to Rachel from Accounts.
Trump's attempt to remove Birthright citizenship rights has been rejected by the Supreme Court.
For more interesting than rumours regarding who will get a new job when Burnham is PM
At this point, anyone arguing that SCOTUS is a tool of Trump, or some equivalent, is disqualifying themselves from being taken seriously.
You mean, apart from the three dissenters who said that the Fourteenth Amendment should be ignored because it was something to do with Dems being Woke and all immigrants are basically traitors?
Essentially, declaring that the Constiution is whatever Trump says it is, however astonishing a position that would be to take for an honest judge.
(OK, so there was no honest judge in the dissent, but you get my point.)
Three out of nine can't do anything alone.
What this court is is what it has been since the last appointment - three who will take the GOP position no matter what, three who will take the Dem position no matter what - and three who will decide based on what the law actually is.
That's obviously not as good as having zero, zero and nine, but it's probably the best we can hope for under current conditions.
The idea that "Trump will get his way because the GOP controls SCOTUS" has been clearly shown in the latest batch of judgments to be what it always was - complete bollocks.
Trump's attempt to remove Birthright citizenship rights has been rejected by the Supreme Court.
For more interesting than rumours regarding who will get a new job when Burnham is PM
At this point, anyone arguing that SCOTUS is a tool of Trump, or some equivalent, is disqualifying themselves from being taken seriously.
You mean, apart from the three dissenters who said that the Fourteenth Amendment should be ignored because it was something to do with Dems being Woke and all immigrants are basically traitors?
Essentially, declaring that the Constiution is whatever Trump says it is, however astonishing a position that would be to take for an honest judge.
(OK, so there was no honest judge in the dissent, but you get my point.)
Three out of nine can't do anything alone.
What this court is is what it has been since the last appointment - three who will take the GOP position no matter what, three who will take the Dem position no matter what - and three who will decide based on what the law actually is.
That's obviously not as good as having zero, zero and nine, but it's probably the best we can hope for under current conditions.
The idea that "Trump will get his way because the GOP controls SCOTUS" has been clearly shown in the latest batch of judgments to be what it always was - complete bollocks.
No, because on some judgements, more have sided with the GOP position on entirely flimsy grounds. They don't kowtow all the time, but they do done of the time.
When it comes to constitutional analysis, "flimsy grounds" are very much in the eye of the beholder.
Plenty of court judgements are made on frankly ludicrous grounds for partisan reasons (and not just in the US). Roe v Wade would be a classic example.
But this isn't even arguable. Anyone born in the US is a US citizen. That's what it says in black and white and plain English.
Just as anyone is entitled to bear arms.
Are they laws we would have today? No.
Are they sensible laws? The first arguably no, the second definitely no (the Second Amendment is the craziest law ever proposed, never mind made, not forgetting the legislature of Indiana wanted to make pi=4).
Are they stuck with them because their constitution? Yes.
Roe v. Wade is indeed one example I had in mind, as is the egregious Miller II.
But in this case the law doesn't say "anyone born in the US is a US citizen", it says "anyone born in the US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof is a US citizen" and the meaning of the bolded phrase is certainly arguable. Presumably it has some limiting effect because otherwise it wouldn't have been included.
Is the argument then that tourists are not subject to US jurisdiction and wouldn't be prosecuted for crimes they committed while in the US, and therefore any children they might have while touristing don't get US citizenship?
I don't see in what sense tourists on US soil are not subject to US jurisdiction?
No because they weren't born there!
Therefore they aren't Americans.
The whole trump case failed because they tried to seperate the two parts so they could get what they want.
The juristiction part excludes foreign Nationals becuase they fall under the juristiction of their home country which is why they have passports to get in and out, and go to their embassy if their are problems while abroad.
Peter.
Ummm: as a legal immigrant in the US (on a non-immigrant visa... for now), I am certainly subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Comments
It's a case of in one ear and out of the udder.
I mean, I think it's incorrect because of the wording of the constitution, but his logic is not utterly insane the way Thomas' was. Congress have passed nationality acts in the past (although this went a lot further than they did).
American citizenship is not the birthright of the world. It belongs only and solely to Americans. No provision of the Constitution can be read to require our national self-obliteration.
Further evidence that the judges were right.
(I do love the lack of logic in his statement. He does not seem to realise that the whole point is that anyone born in America is an American citizen by birthright.)
And there is certainly more than enough room to argue that the text allows for gun regulation that the SC has only recently judged unconstitutional.
Birthright citizenship, in contrast, is stated simply and without qualification.
He will work closely with Burnham, knows how to get things done, and frightens the Tories as you can see here on PB.
i hope it is not David Miliband as Foreign Sec. I think he is a lightweight and elitist.
Starmer would be better int that role but he is currently too upset and bewildered to accept it, and in any case Vic would blackball the idea.
Because the court’s majority held that the US Constitution is explicit in this regard, there is little that Trump can do to reverse its ruling – and deny birthright citizenship – short of amending America’s founding document. That is an arduous task that has only been accomplished 27 times in US history.
No, you silly bastards, it has been amended 18 times in US History. The first 10 Amendments were passed en bloc (although there were meant to be 12, but the first two failed to get through).
Ironically, what was meant to be the Second Amendment is the 27th amendment.
It's why British Gas (inter alia) get away with issuing false bills. Most people won't spend the long time needed on the phone - deliberately kept on hold to filter them out - to argue their case. Particularly when they do it six or seven times.
It's performance art with the added pain of having to call up to cancel something I bought online..
PS I have a spare guest subscription if someone wants one.
Which is why I wouldn't make him test captain, despite my Yorkshire allegiance.
The constitution says:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
What it means is simply this: The American state does not require pacifism, which is the teaching of some influential founders especially Quakers. It asserts that it is not wrong to bear arms because a militia is essential and the Quakers, while entitled to their views, are wrong, and American law must reflect this need for a militia.
This concept has history, which the constitution tips a hat to. In the 39 Articles of Religion of 1562 the same issue, whether Christianity requires pacificism, is raised, and dealt with in these words (art 37):
It is lawful for Christian men, at the commandment of the Magistrate, to wear weapons, and serve in the wars.
the USA constitution means the same thing, as a moment's reflection renders obvious. As the usual, wrong, understanding would compel the USA to allow any three year old in any state to possess and use a machine gun. Which is, as they say, repugnant to the intellect.
What has he done to demonstrate any interest in senior government role? He’s a chosen a different path in life and all power to him.
Plus it would totally piss off just about every Labour back and front bencher as well as painting burnham’s government as a blairite retread from 20 years ago.
All round an unbelievably stupid idea. So I fully expect it to happen.
Truly we are governed by giants
Apparently this is a hatchet job.
I think there is also a good case that in a predominantly rural society surrounded by animals (and indeed people) who were frequently hostile there was a fair rationale for having weapons in the house.
That rationale is rather less compelling today.
Even decided the other way, that wouldn't have barred Trump from running except in Colorado (and perhaps a few other states he as never going to win might have followed suit). And they did dissent from the majority on the question of justiciability. And in any case at that point it wasn't Dem policy to DQ Trump, they were still expecting Biden to beat him at the ballot box.
But in this case the law doesn't say "anyone born in the US is a US citizen", it says "anyone born in the US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof is a US citizen" and the meaning of the bolded phrase is certainly arguable. Presumably it has some limiting effect because otherwise it wouldn't have been included.
UK - 6%
France - 14%
Spain - 24%
Germany - 32%
Quoted in The Rest is Politics (members only - version for the Great Unwashed sahould be out tomorrow):
https://youtu.be/cT5YE6T0J5g?t=528
It did also helpfully clarify anyone born on a US flagged ship in international waters became a US citizen as well (which is expansive rather than limiting) but it's nothing more sinister than that.
Yes, perhaps they did expect Biden to win, not having foreseen Musk's intervention or Biden's health difficulties, but they did not even raise concerns about it.
But the Supreme Court can, and they have.
But good luck trying to get anything done about it.
Yet because it has because it's become politically impossible to make any changes, with nothing substantive amended for over 50 years of their 250 year history.
https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/2072006359743156318
We don't have a Local Income Tax which would be deducted from pay and handed over to the local council.
I'm guessing maybe October?
Of course, the Republicans may hold the Senate and the point be moot.
I see the rumour that Alito was to retire has been retracted.
If the Republicans were to lose control of the Senate, then there would be enormous pressure on Thomas and/or Alito to step down to guarantee the conservative majority on the Supreme Court.
Edit, apologies, I see Robert has already made the same point.
"Do I vote for the intelligent hardworking parent who was photographed holding a banana or the lazy dishonest serial philanderer who unsurprisingly looks like he's hurriedly pulled his trousers up, has lost count of his progeny and relies on the generosity of donors?
He's a laugh isn't he?"
FFS! Frankly it's the British electorate's fault that the country is in such a state.
Reagan’s last speech as president.
@kiranstacey
EXC: Andy Burnham was briefed on the Defence Investment Plan before it was published.
But I understand he was *not* told that he would have to find an extra £4.7bn to fund it in his first budget. This has come as a surprise today.
https://x.com/kiranstacey/status/2072000458344833384
It does make me smile all the hostility to Team Burnham from the very people on here who thought Boris Johnson got all the big calls right, Liz Truss's budget was the most Conservative budget since 1986 and some, who shall remain nameless, thought Donald Trump was the President to make America great again.
@atrupar
·
17m
LMAO -- Fox News is again broadcasting from Trump's state fair and again there is *nobody* there. I've seen fairs in rural parking lots with more attendees than this.
https://x.com/atrupar/status/2072007633641390324
https://x.com/kiranstacey/status/2072000458344833384
EXC: Andy Burnham was briefed on the Defence Investment Plan before it was published.
But I understand he was *not* told that he would have to find an extra £4.7bn to fund it in his first budget. This has come as a surprise today.
I wasn't a fan, but Reagan was a giant compared to the nasty imp that is Trump.
Really superb in summing up a complex argument in a single sentence.
See also: "Live simply, love generously, care deeply, speak kindly, leave the rest to God."
Love this country and its people though. Just today I was in Tesco and got overwhelmed with affection for everyone in there, staff and shoppers alike.
But well done, you've achieved an internet first, you're the first person ever to call Recep Tayyip Erdoğan 'woke'.
https://x.com/irenewildthyme/status/2071983811735216609?s=61
That said, my textual interpretation of the archive amendment would allow for quite a degree of regulation of gun ownership, given the reference to a well-regulated militia, and that the reference to people could be said to refer to people in the collective, as opposed to every individual person having an unrestricted right to beat arms.
It would not be to continue to call it Turkey.
I don't see in what sense tourists on US soil are not subject to US jurisdiction?
For one thing any current Chancellor has so little room for manouver that they are even limited in the damage they can do.
What I am sick of, much like the personalised nasty attacks on Kemi, is the way that people who don't like net zero and the fact that the Minister charged with delivering a policy the public voted for, has done his job well, attacking him with such innecessary and all but malicious intent.
I am SNP, I am not fan of Labour and in particular their Nuclear energy policy, but iIdon't hate the Labour Minister responsible and I certainly won't claim he's an incompetent because he is effective in delivering a policy I don't like.
Peter.
By contrast, repealing or amending the 1952 act would be much cleaner, because it would be saying "from this date onwards, the new rules for citizenship are [x]."
Therefore they aren't Americans.
The whole trump case failed because they tried to seperate the two parts so they could get what they want.
The juristiction part excludes foreign Nationals becuase they fall under the juristiction of their home country which is why they have passports to get in and out, and go to their embassy if their are problems while abroad.
Peter.
Here he is being magnificently complex and delivering his lines with wonderful tone in Sharpe:
https://youtu.be/AIPivQZHOF8?is=hIZr9o12RLqfZQ3s
I doubt he'll be good, I doubt he'll be adequate, I doubt he'll be lacklustre, and I doubt he'll be poor. He'll be rubbish, useless, incompetent, and and manner of other phrases.
There is no way he can even live up to Rachel from Accounts.