Author Topic: Court packing  (Read 2774 times)

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7851
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7851
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Re: Court packing
« Reply #91 on: October 17, 2022, 05:56:50 pm »
https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-declines-case-aimed-162803173.html

Quote
The Supreme Court declined to take a case challenging its 100-year-old racist precedents that continue to deny equal rights to the 3.6 million residents of overseas U.S. territories on Monday.

Three American Samoans living in Utah and a Samoan nonprofit petitioned the court in Fitisemanu v. U.S. to overturn the Insular Cases, the court’s early 20th-century precedents that enabled the country’s colonial expansion by allowing it to absorb overseas territories populated by non-white peoples while denying them equal rights or a path to statehood.

“It’s a punch in the gut for the Justices to leave in place a ruling that says I am not equal to other Americans simply because I was born in a U.S. territory,” John Fitisemanu, the lead plaintiff in the case, said in a statement. “I was born on U.S. soil, have a U.S. passport, and pay my taxes like everyone else. But because of a discriminatory federal law, I am not recognized as a U.S. citizen.”

The Insular Cases that deny people like Fitisemanu equal rights as citizens were explicitly founded on racist premises. The cases, which occurred from 1901 to 1922, claimed that the people of the overseas territories the U.S. conquered in the Spanish-American War came from “savage tribes” and “alien” and “uncivilized race” who were “absolutely unfit to receive” the rights provided by the Constitution. The court invented a new legal class of “unincorporated territory” for the colonial possessions taken from Spain that denied them equal rights and statehood.

In other words, "non-whites" are not to be considered part of the demos. This is essential to understanding democracy as it was originally intended by Western civilization, as I repeatedly point out:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/western-democracy/msg15478/#msg15478

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/western-democracy/msg15278/#msg15278

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/western-democracy/msg14249/#msg14249

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/debate-with-the-liberals/msg14918/#msg14918

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/how-the-u-s-stole-mexico/msg13791/#msg13791

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/colonialism-as-viewed-by-westerners/msg14730/#msg14730

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/voter-suppression/msg10716/#msg10716

Quote
Today, the Insular Cases still govern the U.S. overseas territories of American Samoa, Guam, Northern Marianas Islands, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. In each territory, Congress has negotiated different rules for people’s access to their rights as Americans.

For example, unlike other territorial inhabitants, American Samoans are not officially U.S. citizens, but American nationals. This means that even if they move to a state or the District of Columbia, they will be denied the right to vote. This was one of the chief complaints made by Fitisemanu and the other plaintiffs in the case.
...
Fitisemanu v. U.S. challenged the constitutionality of the Insular Cases by arguing that the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause grants U.S. citizenship to all people “born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” As these territories are both a part of the U.S. and subject to its jurisdiction, the residents of the territories ought to be granted full access to that citizenship, the plaintiffs argued.

It doesn't matter how correct Fitsemanu's argument is. What matters is that those who consider Fitsemanu's argument correct have nevertheless not assassinated Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett.

guest78

  • Guest
The Supreme Court Case That Could Wipe Out Indigenous Sovereignty In The U.S.
Quote
The Supreme Court is hearing arguments in a high-stakes case about indigenous children and culture. On the surface, the case known as Brackeen v. Haaland revolves around a dispute over whether a non-native family can adopt a native baby. At the heart of the case is the Indian Child Welfare Act, a law passed in 1978 that says if a state determines a Native child must be legally removed from their home, they must be placed with an American Indian family or, if possible, a member of the child’s extended family or tribe. Non-native families and states are challenging the constitutionality of ICWA, arguing it discriminates on the basis of race. But the case could have implications that extend far beyond that - potentially upending Native sovereignty altogether. “A lot of laws flow from this special nation-to-nation relationship between tribes and the US federal government,” says Cherokee Nation journalist Rebecca Nagle. “And the fear is that because the plaintiffs are making such broad and sweeping arguments in Brackeen, (if the court strikes down ICWA) they could turn all of that – literally centuries of laws – on their head.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvS-Z7GLGCI

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7851
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Re: Court packing
« Reply #93 on: December 14, 2022, 06:26:03 pm »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUMpqlRn9q0

I still don't understand why Kavanaugh has not been assassinated yet.

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7851
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Re: Court packing
« Reply #94 on: December 19, 2022, 06:35:28 pm »
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/us-judge-blocks-biden-bid-to-end-remain-in-mexico-policy

Quote
AMARILLO, Texas (AP) — A federal judge on Thursday temporarily blocked the Biden administration from ending a Trump-era policy requiring asylum-seekers to wait in Mexico for hearings in U.S. immigration court.

U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk in Texas stayed the termination until legal challenges by Texas and Missouri are settled but didn’t order the policy reinstated. The impact on the program wasn’t immediately clear.
...
Kacsmaryk, a Trump appointee in Amarillo, ordered that the policy be reinstated in 2021.


90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7851
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Re: Court packing
« Reply #95 on: December 27, 2022, 07:27:02 pm »
And again:

https://us.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-blocks-biden-administration-212318729.html

Quote
Supreme Court blocks Biden administration for now from ending migrant expulsions under Title 42
...
Oral arguments are expected in February. In the meantime, expulsions will continue.

Even Gorsuch(!) admits the ruling is nonsensical:

Quote
The court's decision on the states' emergency request was "unwise," Gorsuch wrote. "The emergency on which those (Title 42) orders were premised has long since lapsed."

"The only plausible reason for stepping in," Gorsuch said, has to do with the states' concerns about immigration and the situation on the border.

"But the current border crisis is not a COVID crisis,'' Gorsuch added.  "And courts should not be in the business of perpetuating administrative edicts designed for one emergency only because elected officials have failed to address a different emergency. We are a court of law, not policymakers of last resort."

90sRetroFan

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7851
  • WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST DIE!
    • View Profile
Re: Court packing
« Reply #96 on: January 22, 2023, 01:10:05 am »
It's OK for penises to be "white":

https://www.yahoo.com/news/brett-kavanaugh-sexual-assault-allegations-081747455.html

Quote
New Brett Kavanaugh Sexual Assault Allegations Revealed in Secret Sundance Doc
...
Brett Kavanaugh’s 2018 confirmation to the Supreme Court was embroiled in controversy when multiple women accused him of sexual assault. One of them, Christine Blasey Ford, testified before Congress about the alleged attempted **** she suffered at his hands in high school. Justice is a horrifying and infuriating inquiry into those claims, told in large part by friends of Ford, lawyers and medical experts, and another of Kavanaugh’s alleged victims: Deborah Ramirez, a classmate of his at Yale.

Most damning of all, it features a never-heard-before audio recording made by one of Kavanaugh’s Yale colleagues—Partnership for Public Service president and CEO Max Stier—that not only corroborates Ramirez’s charges, but suggests that Kavanaugh violated another unnamed woman as well.
...
In it, Stier relays that he lived in the same Yale dorm as Kavanaugh and, one evening, wound up in a room where he saw a severely inebriated Kavanaugh with his pants down, at which point a group of rowdy soccer players forced a drunk female freshman to hold Kavanaugh’s ****.
...
Stier says he was told that, after Kavanaugh stuck his naked member in Ramirez’s face, he went to the bathroom and was egged on by classmates to make himself erect; once he’d succeeded in that task, he returned to harass Ramirez some more.
...
Through juxtapositions of Kavanaugh’s on-the-record statements and various pieces of evidence, Justice reveals the many lies advanced by the judge in order to both sway public opinion and to give Republicans enough reasonable-doubt cover to vote in favor of his confirmation.

Moreover, in a lengthy segment about text conversations between Kavanaugh’s college buddies and Ramirez’s Yale classmate Kerry Berchem, the film persuasively suggests that Kavanaugh and his team were aware of Ford and Ramirez’s charges before they became public, and sought to preemptively counter them by planting alternate-narrative seeds with friends and acquaintances.
...
the FBI ignored Stier’s tip, along with the majority of the 4,500 others they received regarding Kavanaugh. The Bureau instead chose to send along any “relevant” reports to the very Trump-administration White House that was committed to getting their nominee approved.
...
In her remarks about Kavanaugh’s laughter as he perpetrated his misconduct—chortling that Ford also mentions to Congress—she provides an unforgettable detail that encapsulates the arrogant, entitled cruelty of her abuser, as well as the unjust system that saw fit to place him on the nation’s highest legal pedestal.