US US Politics General 2: Hope Edition - Discussion of President Trump and other politicians

  • 🇵🇦 Nuestro primer dominio localizado está en español en kiwifarms.pa. Our first localized domain is on Spanish on kiwifarms.pa.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
General Trump Banner.png

Should be a wild four years.

Helpful links for those who need them:

Current members of the House of Representatives
https://www.house.gov/representatives

Current members of the Senate
https://www.senate.gov/senators/

Current members of the US Supreme Court
https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/biographies.aspx

Members of the Trump Administration
https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/
 
Ostatnio edytowane przez moderatora:
Final opinion is here, it is for the birthright citizenship case known as Trump v. Barbara.

The court strikes down the executive order.

It is ultimately a 6-3 ruling.

The court holds that the order violates the 14th Amendment.

Thomas has a dissenting opinion, joined by Alito; Alito and Gorsuch filed dissenting opinions.

Kavanaugh concurs in the judgment and dissents in part. He says that the EO does not violate the 14th Amendment but does violate the federal statute that codified the 14th Amendment.

Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, and Jackson join the Roberts opinion in full.

Roberts concludes that children born to parents who are in the United States unlawfully or temporarily are "born in the United States" and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." "Under the Constitution, they are citizens at birth."
 

Załączniki

Next case opinion ruling is for the campaign finance one, National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission.

The vote is 6-3. Kagan dissents, joined by Sotomayor and Jackson.

This was a challenge to a federal law that limits the amount of money that political parties can spend in coordination with a candidate for federal office. In 2001, in FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee, the court upheld the limits by a vote of 5-4 – with Justice Clarence Thomas (the only member of that court now on the current court) writing for the dissent. When this case went to the court of appeals, it said, in essence, that the challengers had some good arguments, but that it was bound by the Supreme Court’s decision in the 2001 case. The Trump administration declined to defend the party-expenditure limits, so the justices appointed Roman Martinez, a former clerk to Chief Judge John Roberts and then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh, to do so.

The court holds that the law's "limits on political parties' coordinated expenditures violate the First Amendment."

The court also overruled its decision in the Colorado case.

Kavanaugh writes that its reasoning in that case "has been rejected by subsequent cases and is no longer good law in light of the court's more recent precedents. To the extent that Colorado II has retained any vitality, it is now overruled."
This tips the scales in favor of Republicans come November.
 
Thats right, grassroots campaigning and personally getting out there to slowly push the needle towards your side because commies have been subverting shit since the 40's and to expect that politcal conquest can happen overnight is absurd. Seriously the niggers shouting "EITHER DO IT NOW NOW NOW OR IM GOING TO SELF SABOTAGE" should be thrown in the mass grave with the traitors
It is extremely optimistic to the point naivety. Forces own more than 60% of industry labor entertainment journalism do not want your goals. On top of that we are a ethnic minority in 18-30 range. Even with stacking rep houses that will maybe tip the scales to be a 50-50 split for the midterms. Add on no voter id laws where you can just lie about results in your favor and a almost majority of states trying to set up a direct democracy there is no peaceful solution. There won't be a peaceful solution even if the other side wins.
 
Wstecz
Top Na dole