Trump / Musk (other than DOGE)

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 12K
  • Views: 633K
  • Politics 
nycfan said:

NPR (@npr.org)

SpaceX and Amazon are asking the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to find the National Labor Relations Board unconstitutional. The federal agency is tasked with enforcing workers' right to organize. https://www.npr.org/2024/11/18/nx-s1-5192918/spacex-amazon-nlrb-labor-board-elon-musk
bsky.app bsky.app
Click to expand...
Yep, part of the plan. Fifth Circuit will do it, Supreme Court will affirm 6-3. It will be Jarkesy redux. That the underlying theory is preposterous and without any basis in the constitution is irrelevant.

They will stop at the Federal Reserve, even though there is no principled distinction between the Fed and any other agency, because they know that invalidating the Fed will affect them adversely.
 
JCTarheel82 said:
Isn't this also unconstitutional?
Click to expand...
Says who? There are only nine justices whose opinions matter, and those justices loathe the 14th Amendment, except when they use it to strike down diversity initiatives. If they want to end birthright citizenship, the fact that the text and original intent of the 14th clearly establish it will not matter to them at all.
 
JCTarheel82 said:
Isn't this also unconstitutional? 14th Amendment?
Click to expand...
To add to what super said, I believe their argument revolves around the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" phrase. That phrase is why children born in the US of diplomats aren't granted citizenship because they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US. The same if a foreign army invaded the US and some soldiers had children while here. Since they are foreign invaders they wouldn't be subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

Conservatives are trying to make the argument that an undocumented immigrant - via their status - and children are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Most people think it's a weak argument but it doesn't matter what most people think.
 
CFordUNC said:
The entire prison population in the United States is currently around 1.2 million people. Fascinating that the Trumpers believe that they'll be able to somehow arrest, detain, and hold 10-15 million undocumented immigrants.
Click to expand...
If it gets done, it will resemble Nazi concentration camps (the ones that were not considered death camps but plenty of people still died of disease and starvation) far more than US prisons. There isn't going to be anything humane about it. Even if their intent is to do it humanely, that will get lost in the process.
 
ChapelHillSooner said:
If it gets done, it will resemble Nazi non-death concentration camps far more than US prisons. There isn't going to be anything humane about it. Even if their intent is to do it humanely, that will get lost in the process.
Click to expand...
Yeah. I agree, the inhumanity of such a scenario would be the worst aspect, and of course there would be dire economic ramifications felt by all of us, as well.

I tend to think that this whole "we're going to deport illegal immigrants" thing will look very similarly to the "build a wall and make Mexico pay for it" bullshit from the first term. There will be widely-publicized raids and round-ups of people who are *already* incarcerated or in the crosshairs of the legal system. There will be an enormous Trumpian show and performative theater, as there always is, and there will be all sorts of outright lying and fudging and obfuscation of statistics and data that will make it seem like the five-figure number of illegal immigrants "deported" actually numbers in the millions. But short of creating a concentration camp-style system of incarceration, it's hard to even understand logistically how Trumpers expect it to work.
 
superrific said:
Says who? There are only nine justices whose opinions matter, and those justices loathe the 14th Amendment, except when they use it to strike down diversity initiatives. If they want to end birthright citizenship, the fact that the text and original intent of the 14th clearly establish it will not matter to them at all.
Click to expand...
Would it be retroactive? Could every citizen who is the child of an immigrant have their citizenship revoked? I mean we are all ultimately children of immigrants (except NA), but I'm wondering if this policy would be going forward only or would existing birthright citizens of immigrant parents be at risk as well?
 
CFordUNC said:
Yeah. I agree, the inhumanity of such a scenario would be the worst aspect, and of course there would be dire economic ramifications felt by all of us, as well.

I tend to think that this whole "we're going to deport illegal immigrants" thing will look very similarly to the "build a wall and make Mexico pay for it" bullshit from the first term. There will be widely-publicized raids and round-ups of people who are *already* incarcerated or in the crosshairs of the legal system. There will be an enormous Trumpian show and performative theater, as there always is, and there will be all sorts of outright lying and fudging and obfuscation of statistics and data that will make it seem like the five-figure number of illegal immigrants "deported" actually numbers in the millions. But short of creating a concentration camp-style system of incarceration, it's hard to even understand logistically how Trumpers expect it to work.
Click to expand...
Hope you're right; I think you're wrong. Cruelty is a feature, not a bug of the gqp. In fact, cruelty is often the only point.
 
mpaer said:
I wonder how many Biological Males that transitioned played HS Womens sports?? The number
And how many of them were built like Lawrence Taylor
Click to expand...
The numbers are very low. I believe I read that the state of NC had 15 trans women athletes.

But thats not really the point. The right wants to use this to turn people against all trans people even those who couldn't care less about playing sports.
 
ChapelHillSooner said:
To add to what super said, I believe their argument revolves around the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" phrase. That phrase is why children born in the US of diplomats aren't granted citizenship because they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US. The same if a foreign army invaded the US and some soldiers had children while here. Since they are foreign invaders they wouldn't be subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

Conservatives are trying to make the argument that an undocumented immigrant - via their status - and children are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Most people think it's a weak argument but it doesn't matter what most people think.
Click to expand...
Just to be clear, I personally think that it is worse than a "weak argument," it is completely laughable. There is no real argument that illegal immigrants aren't subject to US jurisdiction - otherwise we couldn't prosecute them for crimes! I've read the legal theories as to why "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" implicitly requires that the US government have consented to someone's presence here and I'm not convinced. It also would be a practical nightmare to administer and would result in a constant flood of legal proceedings about citizenship.

Of course, none of this means the current activist court won't adopt this insane argument. The hope is that Roberts and ACB, at least, aren't willing to go that far.
 
rodoheel said:
Just to be clear, I personally think that it is worse than a "weak argument," it is completely laughable. There is no real argument that illegal immigrants aren't subject to US jurisdiction - otherwise we couldn't prosecute them for crimes! I've read the legal theories as to why "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" implicitly requires that the US government have consented to someone's presence here and I'm not convinced. It also would be a practical nightmare to administer and would result in a constant flood of legal proceedings about citizenship.

Of course, none of this means the current activist court won't adopt this insane argument. The hope is that Roberts and ACB, at least, aren't willing to go that far.
Click to expand...
At this point, I'd put more hope in Kav on this issue than Roberts.

The entire point of the 14th Am was to grant citizenship to people whose presence was not consented -- e.g. slaves. So you're right. It's not a serious legal theory. But the court embraced all sorts of non-serious theories last term, including of course the immunity one.
 
Enigma94 said:
Would it be retroactive? Could every citizen who is the child of an immigrant have their citizenship revoked? I mean we are all ultimately children of immigrants (except NA), but I'm wondering if this policy would be going forward only or would existing birthright citizens of immigrant parents be at risk as well?
Click to expand...
Well, that's the big question. It's not knowable. I can't answer this question in terms of law, because the premise (i.e. that birthright citizenship is not granted by the 14th) assumes that we've departed from law. One would hope that even if the Court were to adopt this crackpot theory, the reactionaries would appreciate how wrong it would be to apply that principle retroactively. They might be able to find some sort of weird hook on which to base the citizenship ruling, but applying it retroactively challenges fundamental tenets of the rule of law, which they might or might not care about.

It should be said that Supreme Court precedent has said that citizenship-stripping is an unconstitutional form of punishment, because it is fundamentally untenable and wrong to render someone without a country, without a home. That's an old precedent, and it hasn't been tested recently.

This would be different: it wouldn't be citizenship-stripping so much as a declaration that the citizenship was never valid. Still, a person born in the U.S. to immigrant parents who became naturalized US citizens would not necessarily be a citizen of the "home country" and if denied citizenship in the US, the person would not have any citizenship at all.
 
superrific said:
Dude, "rooting out inefficiency in government" has been a GOP thing for decades. Every GOP administration sets up some sort of task force to cut the fat. Sometimes Congress too. Do you remember Simpson Bowles?

And the reason you don't hear about it is that there just isn't much waste at all (outside of the DoD, which I can't comment on). When the GOP talks about waste, they are only talking about things they don't like (as always) and it's usually ignorant. These things have a purpose. If you don't like the purpose, fine, but it's not just waste or inefficiency.

You'll see. This DOGE thing will come up with basically nothing and probably you will never hear of it again after the inauguration. If you do, it will be some symbolic bullshit or talking about cutting valuable programs that Musk etc. just don't like (which is not the same thing at all).
Click to expand...
You forgot the 3rd option besides cutting waste and outright cutting programs - doing things more efficiently. For example, SpaceX, rather than letting the booster engines fall to earth, rendering them unusable for future launches, figured out a way to catch them and reuse them. That's something that the federal government, because it doesn't have any true concern about a budget, would never think to do.

 
ZenMode said:
You forgot the 3rd option besides cutting waste and outright cutting programs - doing things more efficiently. For example, SpaceX, rather than letting the booster engines fall to earth, rendering them unusable for future launches, figured out a way to catch them and reuse them. That's something that the federal government, because it doesn't have any true concern about a budget, would never think to do.
Click to expand...
Yeah, NASA never ever thought about re-useability. That's why we never invented a spaceship that could land on a runway like an airplane and then be reused. What's that, we've had something like that for a long time?

Did you know that NASA experimented extensively with reusable rockets in the 1960s and 1970s. It couldn't be done with that tech at the time.

And you've gotten the causality 100% incorrect. The reason that NASA couldn't have developed that technology was that Congress DID give it a budget, and within that budget, there was not enough $$ to invest in speculative technology. It's an open question whether private companies are necessarily more innovative than governments, but that's not your point. Your point is that the government doesn't think about a budget when in fact the existence of this phenomenon is specifically the result of budgetary constraints.

And the reason that NASA doesn't have a big budget is that we've already done this "government efficiency" dance over and over again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top