1 hour ago, jerrymahoney said:

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

 

Therefore, Plaintiffs ask the Court to Grant Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification;
certify a Rule 23(b)(2) class of “all children who have been born or will be born in the United States on or after February 19, 2025, who are designated by Executive Order 14,160 to be ineligible for birthright citizenship, and their parents;” allow the complaint to proceed on a classwide basis; and appoint counsel from the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project as class counsel.

I read an analysis that birthright citizenship may still be judged by a lower federal court due to the wording of the SC.

2 minutes ago, stevenl said:

I read an analysis that birthright citizenship may still be judged by a lower federal court due to the wording of the SC.

The thing is that there are a lot of injunctions and stays bouncing around but very few cases have been presented on the merits. Federal cases need to have the lower court investigate and make a finding on the facts. Without that it does not move up for appeals. Injunctions and stays are pretrial motions.

38 minutes ago, cjinchiangrai said:

Please go on, did Q send you the rest of the script? Miller will not end well.

Are you waiting on your talking points so you answer my question?  

3 minutes ago, TedG said:

Are you waiting on your talking points so you answer my question?  

You mean actual verifiable facts? Great concept but the GQP is allergic to them.

20 minutes ago, cjinchiangrai said:

You mean actual verifiable facts? Great concept but the GQP is allergic to them.

Why not try bring a fact to the table.  It seems your type  never can. 

5 hours ago, stevenl said:

Why go to the trouble of posting facts, facts he requested? It will only be ignored because it doesn't suit his thinking.

Which is why i didn't respond.

Has the class action actually been certified? 

2 hours ago, stevenl said:

I read an analysis that birthright citizenship may still be judged by a lower federal court due to the wording of the SC.

It will be judged by the lower court and end up back in the Supreme Court. 

34 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

It will be judged by the lower court and end up back in the Supreme Court. 

According to the analysis i read judged by the lower court with a possible nationwide injunction.

2 minutes ago, stevenl said:

According to the analysis i read judged by the lower court with a possible nationwide injunction.

An injunction on what? 

19 hours ago, jerrymahoney said:

From the 119 page SCOTUS decision -- (Justice) Alito concurrence:

<SKIP>
Lax enforcement of the requirements for third-party
standing and class certification would create a potentially
significant loophole to today’s decision. Federal courts
should thus be vigilant against such potential abuses of
these tools. 

Trump adversaries see silver linings in his ‘monumental’ Supreme Court win
Class actions and other legal strategies may allow Trump’s opponents to keep pursuing broad blocks against at least some of his policies.

06/27/2025

 

But Barrett’s 26-page opinion leaves a surprising degree of wiggle room. Yes, conventional nationwide injunctions are off the table, but Trump’s opponents say they see alternative routes to obtain effectively the same sweeping blocks of at least some policies that run afoul of the law and the Constitution.

 

The court appeared to leave open three specific alternatives: Restyle the legal challenges as class-action lawsuits; rely on state-led lawsuits to obtain broad judicial rulings; or challenge certain policies under a federal administrative law that authorizes courts to strike down the actions of executive branch agencies.

 

The viability of these three potential alternatives is not yet clear. But the court explicitly declined to rule them out. That led Justice Samuel Alito — who joined the majority opinion — to write a concurrence to raise concerns that the court was leaving loopholes that could undercut its main holding.

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/06/27/trump-supreme-court-birthright-injunction-loopholes-00430225

 

 

38 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

but Trump’s opponents say they see alternative routes to obtain effectively the same sweeping blocks of at least some policies that run afoul of the law and the Constitution.

Lawfare continues and they will keep losing

From May 13, 2025 SCOTUS Oral arguments birthright citizenship:

(Sauer) The government hasn't taken a position on that. Our position is not that class certification will necessarily be granted. Our position is that Rule 23 is how these sorts of claims should be channeled.

Justice Kavanaugh (42:44): And you think, I think you just said it's very possible that class certification may be granted?

General Sauer (42:50): It is possible.

Bye bye America; it is going to be a long painful suicide.

26 minutes ago, JimHuaHin said:

Bye bye America; it is going to be a long painful suicide.

Trump is the champion winner and that bugs you is all.

On 6/27/2025 at 10:35 AM, TimBKK said:

Was it a quick finish after the decision was posted?  Did you have a smoke after?

The better question is if you had a heart attack or not.  Did you.

1 hour ago, JimHuaHin said:

Bye bye America; it is going to be a long painful suicide.

Why??   You think that a lone radical Judge appointed by Obama and Biden should be able to interfere with power of the President granted by the Constitution?  The vote should have been 9-0 but we have the three Leftist that are not there to do their job of interrupting the law.  They are there because they are radicals. 

1 hour ago, JimHuaHin said:

Bye bye America; it is going to be a long painful suicide.

Why?

Read though some although not all comments. Appears to me that there are far too many not dealing with the nuances here. Bu, for the most part, I observe is is those leaning in support of trump. That is consistent, in that the studies have shown those are most inclined to want yes/no, right/wrong answers in life. The nuances, the critical thinking appears to complicated….. “Just do it” rather than thinking things through … which is why we have trump …

Off topic troll post removed

On 6/27/2025 at 10:13 PM, SunnyinBangrak said:

Another great victory, thanks supreme court, just shows common sense still sometimes prevails

Oh, good! So you’re saying that, in January 2029 (if not sooner), when President Newsom or President Ocasio-Cortez takes office, they can immediately issue an executive order that likewise flies in the face of the Constitution, say sending the military into US neighborhoods to go door to door and collect everyone’s guns, and the order takes immediate effect even while the matter works its gradual way through the lower courts, a process that could take years. Even if the courts ultimately rule against the order, by then it will be a fait accompli as the guns will have already been confiscated. Something to look forward to!

On 6/28/2025 at 9:22 AM, Will B Good said:

As I understand it this ruling only prevents federal judges from issuing nationwide restrictions.

 

State by state restrictions will continue unimpeded where cases are brought and granted.

 

Sorry to say, federal laws TRUMP state laws.

Thank You for your attention in this matter.

54 minutes ago, Cory1848 said:

Oh, good! So you’re saying that, in January 2029 (if not sooner), when President Newsom or President Ocasio-Cortez takes office, they can immediately issue an executive order that likewise flies in the face of the Constitution, say sending the military into US neighborhoods to go door to door and collect everyone’s guns, and the order takes immediate effect even while the matter works its gradual way through the lower courts, a process that could take years. Even if the courts ultimately rule against the order, by then it will be a fait accompli as the guns will have already been confiscated. Something to look forward to!

Weak at best! The second Amendment takes care of that argument  And your pipe dream of a Newsom or Cotez is weak too . The only way is to repeal it and thats a pipe dream too .

"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”.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/repealing-the-second-amendment-is-it-even-possible/

39 minutes ago, riclag said:

Weak at best! The second Amendment takes care of that argument  And your pipe dream of a Newsom or Cotez is weak too . The only way is to repeal it and thats a pipe dream too .

"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”.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/repealing-the-second-amendment-is-it-even-possible/

Exactly! And what is the current issue all about? Trump’s executive order denying birthright citizenship. And what does the 14th Amendment say? <All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.> So where exactly does your confusion lie? Or, I suppose, some constitutional amendments carry more weight than others, depending on how deep down in the Trump rabbit hole your brain resides.

1 hour ago, Chosenfew said:

Sorry to say, federal laws TRUMP state laws.

Thank You for your attention in this matter.

As of now THIS is the law:

 

8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
U.S. Code

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

 

The Trump Executive Order "By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:"

 

only offers a new interpretation thereof and sets new policy at Sec. 2

 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship/

6 hours ago, wwest5829 said:

Read though some although not all comments. Appears to me that there are far too many not dealing with the nuances here. Bu, for the most part, I observe is is those leaning in support of trump. That is consistent, in that the studies have shown those are most inclined to want yes/no, right/wrong answers in life. The nuances, the critical thinking appears to complicated….. “Just do it” rather than thinking things through … which is why we have trump …

And why we have people that believe men can give birth 

3 hours ago, Cory1848 said:

Exactly! And what is the current issue all about? Trump’s executive order denying birthright citizenship. And what does the 14th Amendment say? <All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.> So where exactly does your confusion lie? Or, I suppose, some constitutional amendments carry more weight than others, depending on how deep down in the Trump rabbit hole your brain resides.

 

No, but you are supposed to understand that what "...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..."  is arguable. 

 

That you do not is telling. You are not from the United States, are you? 

 

To be clear, I think the court strikes it down, but to dismiss it out of hand as unconstitutional is pretty week. 

 

Native Americans were not granted citizenship until 1924. 

8 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

And why we have people that believe men can give birth 

Obsessed much by this non issue?

5 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Obsessed much by this non issue?

What non-issue? 

55 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

No, but you are supposed to understand that what "...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..."  is arguable. 

 

That you do not is telling. You are not from the United States, are you? 

 

To be clear, I think the court strikes it down, but to dismiss it out of hand as unconstitutional is pretty week. 

 

Native Americans were not granted citizenship until 1924. 

Fair enough with respect to Native Americans in the nineteenth century, who were at least to some extent considered to belong to sovereign nations and thus under separate jurisdictions. However, I don’t believe the constitutionality of birthright citizenship has ever been seriously questioned with respect to immigrants and their children; at least, as I understand it, the Supreme Court has routinely upheld this standard.

 

The first person I was responding to pointed out the unassailability of Americans’ right to bear arms as per the 2nd Amendment, but the application of the phrase “a well-regulated militia,” and the fact that firearms have evolved considerably over the past 200 years, have certainly rendered that amendment debatable: whether the amendment should be interpreted to mean that everyone and their drunk uncle has the right to go out and purchase an assault rifle.

 

I’m no legal scholar but would suggest that the phrase “well-regulated militia” has been debated far more vigorously than the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” especially as the 2nd Amendment has had a far more deleterious effect on US society than the 14th, but both have been pretty broadly interpreted, as far as I know.

let's see if you got it this time, the guy is a loser and as the old saying goes... a loser always a loser, got it? hope so because your trolls are one too many

Trump Is Four-Times a Loser as Judge Blocks ‘Big Law’ Attack

 

https://au.news.yahoo.com/trump-four-times-loser-judge-181352570.html