https://x.com/lauraloomer/status/2072423867398721578?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
So, Newsome can just decide to ignore a SCOTUS ruling because he wants to, Biden also announced that he would not be bound by a SCOTUS ruling, but Trump is somehow held to a different standard.
https://x.com/cwbchicago/status/2072658841167397286?s=46&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
Two gang members, both out on sort of bail, commit more violent crimes wearing their ankle monitors. This is blue city liberal governance at its finest.
I’d bet money that the someone in Chicago has protected these s um from deportation at some point.
Yesterday Zohran Mamdani took to Twitter to warn his subjects about the danger that the hot temperatures were putting the NYC power grid in. He asked everyone to set their thermostats at 78 to take the heat off of the power grid. Of course, this has no connection to the closing of the Indian Point power which was a mere 36 miles from NYC. So, instead of affordable, clean, plentiful power from a nuclear power plant, and instead of renewables which can handle the demand, NYC is simply polluting from coal plants and sweltering inside their homes and businesses. How much do you want to bet that old Zohran doesn't have is thermostat at 78?
https://x.com/bskimike22802/status/2071613116438176109?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
Addressed to Senator Warren
"Well, Senator, I am genuinely glad someone in the Democratic Party has accidentally stumbled onto the greatest argument FOR the conservative court that any Democrat has made all year. You are CELEBRATING a ruling by "a Supreme Court stacked by Donald Trump." Let me let that sentence breathe for a second. YOUR people — Hakeem Jeffries, Jamie Raskin, Chuck Schumer, Ilhan Omar — have spent the last two years calling this exact court the "MAGA Court," a "far-right partisan tool," a "hijacked system," an "arm of the Republican Party." And now the NANOSECOND it rules in your direction, suddenly it has credibility again? Madam Senator, your position has more flip-flops than a beach in July. Here is what a person who hasn't donated their brain to science before they were done with it would notice: THE COURT RULED AGAINST TRUMP. His own appointees. The judges your colleagues have been screaming are "loyalists" and "rubber stamps" looked at the statute, and they followed THE LAW. Not what Trump wanted. THE LAW. Because that is what conservative judges DO — even when it burns the people who put them there. This is not surprising to anyone who has been paying attention. Neil Gorsuch — Trump's own pick — extended Title VII to cover LGBTQ employees. John Roberts — Bush's appointment — saved the ACA TWICE. Sandra Day O'Connor — Reagan's pick — voted to preserve Roe. The list goes on. Conservative justices have a DOCUMENTED, HISTORICAL pattern of ruling against the party that seated them when the law requires it. You know when that has happened with a Democrat-appointed justice? I'll wait. I teach high school. Silence is not new to me. And while you are sitting with that question, try reading a liberal dissent sometime. Count the statute citations. You will run out of fingers embarrassingly fast. What you WILL find are policy preferences wearing legal robes, outcomes decided before the first page was read, and empathy substituting for analysis. That is not jurisprudence. That is a participation trophy with a gavel. Quinn's Law Number 26: liberals like the courts unless the decision doesn't go their way. And Quinn's Law Number 23: liberals love the law unless they disagree with it. Then they just ignore it. So Senator Warren — a certified snollygoster who couldn't pour water out of a boot with instructions on the heel when it comes to economic logic — let me give you the ONLY two options available to you right now: ONE: You were wrong when you called this "Trump's stacked court." In which case, you owe the American people an apology and a retraction of two years of delegitimizing rhetoric. TWO: The court is actually doing its job, following the law regardless of who appointed them. In which case, maybe — JUST MAYBE — you should have been saying that the entire time instead of encouraging your colleagues to scream "MAGA justices" every time a ruling inconvenienced your party. There is no third option. Pick one. I am not going anywhere. As for Bill Pulte being your new villain of the week — you just called a man a "lackey" and demanded his removal in the same breath you are cheering a court ruling. The irony of shrieking about partisan loyalty while standing at the same figurative lectern where Senator Schumer LITERALLY THREATENED sitting justices by name — on the courthouse steps, on camera, with a crowd — apparently escapes you entirely. That was a federal crime, 18 U.S.C. Section 1507, by the way. But what are federal statutes to someone whose brain is on airplane mode with the Wi-Fi off? The blatherskite routine is getting old, Senator. Conservative judges ruled against Trump because that is what principled originalists DO. They follow the text. It makes Republicans furious sometimes. That is called INTEGRITY. The ABSENCE of that pattern on the left — the fact that you cannot name a single case where a Democrat-appointed justice made Democrats genuinely angry — is not a strength. It is an indictment. But what do I know — I am only a medically retired Army combat medic and science teacher who actually reads the dissents, counts the statutory citations, and notices when the same people who spent two years yelling "MAGA Court" suddenly rediscover judicial legitimacy the moment the gavel falls in their favor."
https://x.com/realtheowold/status/2072474849771962708?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
Apparently political rivals Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson could agree on citizenship for immigrants.
https://x.com/ingrahamangle/status/2072473735290835209?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
" Peter Schweizer: "China says it's massive." "Since 2013... we're looking at potentially more than 1 million 'U.S. citizens' that are being raised in China. They're citizens only because their mothers came here to give birth.""
https://x.com/zeekarkham/status/2072322018960097518?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
" Dear “blacker than black” black folks, Question for you all: the 14th amendment is our legacy. It was made for our ancestors. We directly benefit from it today. It’s our’s. The Supreme Court just ruled it’s not our’s and it’s for illegals. People who don’t share our legacy. People who don’t share our history. It was taken away from us. So why aren’t you angry? Why aren’t you talking about “misappropriation?” Why aren’t Al Sharpton and the NAACP marching across Alabama over this? I mean, y’all are ready to screech and rail when you see a white girl with dreadlocks. Why aren’t you more angry over this, which has much more relevance? I mean, I’ve been told I’m a “tether” and a “coon,” so I’m assuming this isn’t my battle. I’m just curious as to your motivations. No hugs. Get your silly self together before you get a hug. Zeek"
https://x.com/marklevinshow/status/2072379843941982463?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
" I am still seeing some insist, with an unwarranted air of sanctimony, that "the Court simply continued interpreting the citizenship clause as it has for 140 years." That is a lie. Clarence Thomas notes in his dissent what the rest of us who've studied this have also known for decades: "The Citizenship Clause was consistently interpreted not to apply to the children of foreign temporary visitors, who were by definition not domiciled in the United States.” “Regardless of administration or party, the Federal Government for decades after ratification regularly denied claims to citizenship by children who were born in the United States but not domiciled here.” Roberts had to ignore this for to do otherwise would undermine his argument. But we don't have to play along. Some are saying, relax, there are statutory fixes. There are no statutory fixes to birthright citizenship per se, certainly not now, since the Court just constitutionalized the practice. A statute cannot fundamentally cure this. And there will not be a constitutional amendment as long as there are Democrats in Congress and RINOs to support them. Well, the issue was a close call, we are lectured. No, it was not. Not if you are thoroughly familiar with it. It was actually straightforward and relatively simply. Read Roberts's opinion. He mostly ignores the contemporary record at the time, which is loaded with statements by relevant congressmen and senators rejecting the entire notion of birthright citizenship, the context of the citizenship clause (even excluding Indians because of dual loyalty), and on and on. There is not a definitive piece of actual historical evidence of any kind supporting the interpretation Roberts and the Majority embrace. Hence, they go to 17th century Britain and power of Kings over servants. The irony is lost on the 250th anniversary of our independence. We are told, look, the border is secure, the damage is limited, there are a number of executive and administrative decisions that can be made to help control this. Tell me, folks, when the Democrats are back in power, why wouldn't they undo every executive and administrative effort to limit the damage since they caused most of it in the first place, and why wouldn't they throw open the immigration doors even more enthusiastically knowing they've the birthright citizenship decision behind them. It is one thing to say don't be hysterical and another to be damn near braindead to what just happened. There is cause for alarm. This isn't some manufactured concern. There's a revolution by immigration. It is swallowing Europe; it is swallowing parts of our country right now. That's precisely why President Trump acted. The Court's ruling has removed one of the most important constitutional and societal tools we have for fending off this crusade, and the Democrat Party's lawlessness in stoking it. The fact that the 14th amendment has been used to promote birthright citizenship for multiple decades is not a rational defense of its constitutionality. The fact that there are other ways to try to deal with this, with varying degrees of effectiveness, is not the point and not relevant to what the Court did. The Court has constitutionalized a policy without a real constitutional, factual, or historical basis. That is what Roberts's opinion demonstrates, and the dissent highlights. It was raised now because President Trump saw what had and was transpiring, including through the abuses of the amendment, took executive action to stop it, and lawsuits were brought to block his action. And what was and is happening is the abuse of birthright citizenship as never before. Thomas and Alito went to great lengths to explain our history and that of the amendment, spending much time correcting Roberts's deceit. And they were blunt about their frustration. So, too, were they emphatic about the dire consequences of the decision. Thomas and Alito are right. I have spent more than half-a-century studying, discussing, and writing about Supreme Court arguments and decisions, etc. I have also participated in several very big issues before the Court. I predict the dissenting opinions will be cited, studied, and praised by scholars and historians long after the Roberts Court is gone, whereas the Roberts opinion will be dismissed as a hodgepodge of mostly gibberish. What was intended to be an amendment to the Constitution to protect the civil liberties and rights of newly freed Black slaves and their progeny, has been turned into a legal absurdity -- a spigot to justify granting citizenship to aliens who have entered our country in violation of federal law and, who in turn, are rewarded with American-citizen babies. The entire purpose of immigration laws used to destroy immigration laws, along with our national security, cultural and societal assimilation, economic determinations, electoral processes, etc. Who knew this was all intended when, in 1868, the 14th amendment was drafted, adopted by Congress, and ratified by the states? Certainly, its authors and the elected federal and state representatives who debated it and approved it had no idea. And I doubt the British monarchy in the 1600s would've approved, either."
https://x.com/libsoftiktok/status/2071952872321720568?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
It's literally a list from A-Z of countries that don't have unrestricted birthright citizenship.
https://x.com/michaeljknowles/status/2072110434673639580?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
" If your family settled Jamestown in 1607, you’re an invader with no claim to this stolen land. If your Chinese mom pops you out in Guam tomorrow, America is your birthright."
https://x.com/mattvanswol/status/2072067721320182265?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
Long thread with good analysis of Thomas dissent.
https://x.com/tomselliott/status/1938670570414972961
Another long, but good thread on the 14th.
https://x.com/occamsbraiser/status/2072162395703980528?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
https://x.com/kevinnbass/status/1901442666367181249?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
" I was a lifelong Democrat. I thought most conservatives were ignorant or evil or lying. I believed almost everything written in the New York Times, The New Republic, and the Atlantic. I was horrified when conservatives criticized the authorities. Every criticism I saw: I thought all of it was motivated by animus, resentment, self-interest, or ignorance. Whatever truth there might have been in the criticism, I saw as a mere "half-truth": an exploitation of this or that cherrypicked fact being weaponized. Why did I see it in terms of weaponization? Because I was biased: I saw liberal establishment institutions and figures as fundamentally good, so all criticism of them was automatically interpreted as being in bad faith. Didn't the critics know that these institutions or figures were fundamentally good? If they didn't, they were ignorant. If they did, they were evil. It was that simple. This meant that any legitimate criticisms would just be dismissed, as if bouncing off of an impenetrable bulletproof shield. This all changed once I started writing about the pandemic. Soon people started talking about me the way I once thought about conservatives. This led to a complete identity collapse as I came to understand that my old worldview was hateful and ignorant, that I hadn't understood what I had been judging. I cannot forget the hearing that led to my dismissal from medical school a year after I started writing. During the hearing, people talked about me as if I wasn't human. My behavior was interpreted in the worst possible light. Complete fabrications were created. Nobody was concerned with the truth, only horrified at my apparent "unprofessional behavior", which was really a mirror of their unprofessional behavior directed at me. They structured the hearing to make it virtually impossible for me to speak and explain that what was being said was a lie. And nobody seemed to have any problem with this. Why? Because I was bad. If I am bad, then every mistreatment and every violation of the school's own policies became justified. A person who is bad does not deserve any rights. They only deserve punishment. But the thing I remember most was the allusions to my social media activity. They said, "Kevin is driven by resentment from his childhood." I wasn't. I was on good terms with my parents. They alleged that I needed psychotherapy to deal with this trauma. It was a completely fake story that they had constructed about me, to demean me, to marginalize me, to try to explain the views I had expressed: that something terribly wrong had happened during the pandemic. They couldn't imagine that I might have legitimate points. So they reduced me to the same kinds of psychological caricatures that I once reduced conservatives to in my own mind. When I was dismissed, I was broken. But I had help from friends who helped me understand what happened. And I came to realize that a hysteria had overtaken the left. I spent a lot of time reading about show trials, about witch trials, and so on. I also connected with people who had experienced similar things and came to realize that something similar had happened to hundreds of physicians around the country. My story wasn't unique. It was all the same story over and over again. I cannot believe the person I once was. I cannot believe that I could exist like that. I still don't understand how I could be like that, or how millions of people in this country could continue being like that. It disturbs me greatly. One thing I know is that whatever this thing is that is driving people crazy needs to be destroyed. It is hostile to civilization and to our humanity. It causes us to dehumanize each other and try to destroy each other. It is the very same monstrous thing that I once attributed to conservatives. But it had been inside me, and I could now see it inside others. This is something I still grapple with."
https://x.com/carlhigbie/status/2071929751267377241?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
