The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
SCOTUS allows TX to deport illegals
Poast new message in this thread
Date: March 19th, 2024 2:33 PM Author: razzle field degenerate Justice Sbarro is angry
https://twitter.com/stevenmazie/status/1770151826479825096 |
Date: March 19th, 2024 2:36 PM Author: hideous home Holy shit. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47507605) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 2:37 PM Author: haunting address incel wow, i agree with the outcome but that's gotta be some real shitty law, like a conservative roe. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47507611) |
 |
Date: March 19th, 2024 2:39 PM Author: razzle field degenerate agreed (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47507616) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 2:46 PM Author: Exciting center Didn't we establish that an individual state has the right to protect itself from foreign invasion? How is this like Roe which took away states' rights? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47507638) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 2:50 PM Author: razzle field degenerate "invasion" argument is unconvincing, supremacy clause seems like it should win the day to me. like roe, seems like judges searching for a preferred outcome rather than strictly following the law as written (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47507656) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 2:51 PM Author: Exciting center It seemed convincing to me and something the framers actually contemplated but not a con law master man (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47507663) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 2:55 PM Author: razzle field degenerate i havent studied the historical record so im no expert on the subject, but "invasion" sounds to me to like it would go beyond simple unlawful entry (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47507685) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 3:28 PM Author: cocky crackhouse ratface yeah, that is total bullshit. calling this a conservative roe sounds about right.
looks like my career is over, btw. tesla, amazon and some other companies have challenged the constitutionality of the NLRA, and SCOTUS might actually agree. |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 3:39 PM Author: razzle field degenerate damn 120 man, whats your next move? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47507808) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 3:41 PM Author: cocky crackhouse ratface i'm just concerned about getting my HIV under control. my t cells are way low rn.
actually, i dunno. if that were to happen i'd just leave law and get some bullshit job.
i'm 45 and my wife and i have around 2m in retirement accounts, $200k and growing in crypto, house is largely paid off, college for our two kids is mostly funded through 529s, etc. so i guess i don't NEED to keep making 400-500k a year and i kinda want to get out of this in the next 10 years anyway. following the rule of thumb that index funds tend to double every 10 years, then by the time we're 65, we should have around 8 mil even if we don't save another dime toward retirement.
ideas for a job where i can make like 120-150k and kind of chill out? |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 3:45 PM Author: razzle field degenerate you could start six substacks (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47507824) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 3:50 PM Author: cocky crackhouse ratface writing sounds kind of cool. maybe i could teach? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47507841) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 4:00 PM Author: Gold twinkling uncleanness space LOL (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47507863) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 3:46 PM Author: high-end temple cuck go inhouse and do wage and hour shit or jump to hr side and immediately by default become the most competent hr professional that ever lived (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47507827) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 3:50 PM Author: cocky crackhouse ratface i only do traditional labor (NLRA shit), so would be pretty useless at wage-hour stuff. if i did wage-hour, i'd honestly probably just switch sides at this point for variety.
HR sounds not too bad, although my knowledge is concentrated in labor relations. i know a SHIT TON about this, but the tradeoff is i don't know a whole lot about employment law. |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 3:53 PM Author: high-end temple cuck neither do any of the people inhouse, that’s why l&e firms exist sell em on ur ability to plan and create organizational strategy to manage risk and then align operations, and how that’s extensible to any area of law w expert support, which you’d need anyway bc no attorney knows all the gay little details of every state and any entity big enough to have a l&e attorney is going to be a multi-state employer anyway |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 5:23 PM Author: drab talented plaza A literal AIDS fag and former biglaw (or “biglaw”) partner would be promoted to CHRO in any Fortune 100 company within five years of starting as an individual contributor. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47508137) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 8:14 PM Author: high-end temple cuck ladies gentlemen and everything in between, give it up for YOUR new chief people officer and leader of the rainbow alliance/love wins (tie between the names and both were so good they couldn’t choose - “so nice they named it twice!”) employee affinity group, zurichisstained! tee! peeeeeeee! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47508621) |
|
Date: March 25th, 2024 2:08 PM Author: Concupiscible internal respiration sanctuary wtf it is a 90 yo law and they are *just now noticing* that's it's unconstitutional
Seems like bullshit |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 3:35 PM Author: floppy dun heaven By "beyond simple unlawful entry," would you accept mass unlawful entry of military-aged males with no vetting or background checks (some of whom have turned out to have confirmed ties to terrorist organizations), in quantities sufficient to constitute, literally, a medium-sized state? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47507792) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 3:40 PM Author: razzle field degenerate no probably not unless they are actively engaging in hostilities against the state. sounds like an issue of enforcement of immigration policy, which is the province of the federal government.
|
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 3:48 PM Author: high-end temple cuck *russia finally cracks ukraine, bypasses all defenses by waiting ten mississippis after crossing border to attack* (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47507834) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 4:01 PM Author: spruce adventurous corner telephone i sympathize with texas enforcing lawful immigration policy but this is tcr. just like we can't have 50 states deciding ballot access rules, we can't have 50 states deciding immigration policy. if texas can enforce immigration law and deport people, what stops a hawaii judge from deciding that a migrant is here legally and texas needing to give full faith and credit to that decision?
(btw libs, this is called not being a retard creating an unworkable system to get to a single outcome i'd prefer. i would absolutely love for texas to send illegals back across the rio grande via canon)
although i do hope that scotus allows texas to continuing to deport illegals to other states. which is 180 as fuck. i love to see shitlib state officials talk about how immigration is our strength and *immediately* reverse course once they are bearing the cost of their policies. |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 4:07 PM Author: hideous home I think Texas only has the right to stop illegal immigration. I would doubt they can interfere with normal lawful immigration. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47507895) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 4:14 PM Author: spruce adventurous corner telephone asylum is a form normal lawful immigration* and the law allows texas to deport them regardless of ongoing federal proceedings.
*i am not defending the current regime on it's merits. only that, by your very own argument, this law would fail. i agree that the current regime is fucked and needs to be changed. |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 4:24 PM Author: Exciting center You do realize that aslyum could proceed just fine without Texas being invaded every second of the day? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47507969) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 5:13 PM Author: hideous home *Japanese kamikaze invokes asylum laws upon apprehension* (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47508118) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 5:15 PM Author: spruce adventurous corner telephone pithy responses are good when you don't have a legal arg (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47508119) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 4:18 PM Author: Exciting center How is this relevant to Hawaii (unless migrants are showing up there in masses and the federal government refuses to act, or actually enables them)?
I don't see why your analysis even goes past the invasion angle, unless you just concluded there is no question of fact as to whether Texas is being invaded by foreigners. |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 4:33 PM Author: spruce adventurous corner telephone new poaster, first day? not aware of the hawaii judge meme? this has nothing actually to do with hawaii, only that the would allow rogue partisan judges and states to reek havoc. i seem to recall california sharing a border with mexico btw.
you sound ***EXACTLY*** like shitlibs saying the colorado ballot thing was ok because ***INSURRECTION*** was self-executing. it's mind blowing.
this isn't about illegals crossing into texas borders. it's about them already here and going through the federal procedures. a state can't unilaterally determine they are being invaded and they nullify federal law. this is not a serious conlaw law argument. it's even easier argument to debunk than the insurrection shit because you can just point to the supremacy clause.
immigration law is wholly federal law. regardless of whether you think immigration law is shitty and poorly enforced (i agree) and as much as you sympathize with texas wanting to expel migrants because of that (i agree) you can't have 50 states deciding whether an invasion is happening and using that as a hook to nullify federal law.
but i am glad when shit like this happens because it serves as a nice reminder that my fellows cons can be just as unprincipled, retarded, and outcome-determinative as shitlibs. |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 4:38 PM Author: demanding trip school calm down faggot (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47508024) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 4:27 PM Author: floppy dun heaven So if 10 million chinamen massed on the southern border and then all came across at once, it would be an "immigration policy" issue until they did something hostile? How many people and how hostile do they have to be before an invasion occurs? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47507981) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 4:45 PM Author: spruce adventurous corner telephone before i engage with you i need you to answer these threshold questions regarding the invasion clause. this is what the invasion clause states:
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion..."
1) if a state determines it is being invaded, can it deport invaders regardless of whether the invader is currently being adjudicated by the federal system?
2) being that immigration law is federal law and enforced by the federal government, are states able to unilaterally determine that the federal law and enforcement is insufficient, an invasion has occurred, and because an invasion has occurred nullify federal law and enforcement with it's own policy?
3) if federal law is created that holds an invasion has not occurred, and being that federal law is supreme according to the supremacy cause, does the invasion clause permit states to supersede the supremacy clause by unilaterally holding an invasion is occurring? |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 4:55 PM Author: exhilarant alcoholic stage ladyboy I agree with most of what you're saying that is probably the most accurate argument. However, just consider hypothetically that a roaming gang of foreign barbarians are wreaking havoc in Texas and the federal government declines to call it an invasion. Let's say they're on tanks and knocking down buildings and terrorizing citizens. Still, no response from Washington.
Does the supremacy clause kick in and the state just has to shrug and go, well, our hands are tied because Washington has made the call? I don't think this was in the vein of what the Framers intended. Surely, states have *some* right to defend themselves. Obviously states can arrest illegals for state crimes without federal authority. An illegal who shoots someone can still get arrested for murder. So, why can't they get arrested for being here illegally? Maybe if they have some sort of federal documentation saying they have the right to be in the United States. But if there's no record of it, they're violating state law as they would any other state law.
I believe the supremacy clause only kicks in if an immigrant has federal documentation stating that they have the right to be in the United States. Less this, states should be free to arrest them for breaking state laws. The Constitution doesn't say anywhere that people can come into the country illegally and are not subject to state law.
If they come here, they are violating federal law, period. They are in violation whether or not the federal government apprehends and deports them. At that point they are fugitive aliens who don't have any right to be here, again, irrespective of Washington's actions. |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 4:59 PM Author: spruce adventurous corner telephone must answer threshold qs for engagement. don't answer questions with questions! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47508081) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 5:00 PM Author: exhilarant alcoholic stage ladyboy brutal, but earnest (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47508088) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 5:04 PM Author: spruce adventurous corner telephone i see you edited that stuff in but it doesn't directly answer the threshold questions. but if you choose to answer i'd like to point out that:
>If they come here, they are violating federal law, period. They are in violation whether or not the federal government apprehends and deports them. At that point they are fugitive aliens who don't have any right to be here, again, irrespective of Washington's actions.
is absolutely circular reasoning. you're saying "they are breaking federal law regardless of what the federal law says."
if federal law and enforcement (washington) holds they aren't breaking federal law... they aren't breaking federal law. federal law isn't just what you wish it to be. |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 5:06 PM Author: exhilarant alcoholic stage ladyboy Woah woah woah so you're saying that if the fed doesn't enforce something it's not a violation? How is that going for marijuana smokers? It's still a federal crime despite very few people ever being arrested for it. The law on the books is the law. The federal government is the "democratically" elected (ljl) enforcement arm. They have considerable power to wield the law. But they don't have the power to change what the law says without Congressional action. If Congress passes a law criminalizing something, it is a crime regardless of whether anyone is arrested for it. Period. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47508109) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 5:09 PM Author: spruce adventurous corner telephone (not answered)
can't have a debate about the law if you don't tell me what you think the law means. answering Qs with Qs with Qs isn't productive. |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 5:34 PM Author: exhilarant alcoholic stage ladyboy They do this in France. They have a (real) hypothetical high court court that rules on imaginary cases. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47508178) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 5:34 PM Author: floppy dun heaven
1) I don't know what it means to "adjudicate" an invader. What is the question being adjudicated?
2) (a) the president/administrative state act unlawfully when they violate the take care clause and they cannot decline to enforce the laws congress passes, which is the root cause of this issue. ample caselaw on all of this that you clearly haven't read; (b) the state law is not "nullifying" federal law, it is interfering with an illegal decision *not* to enforce federal law. what federal law is the administration being prevented from enforcing?
3) Maybe you should try reading the part of the supremacy clause where it says that the CONSTITUTION is supreme. also might want to read the 10th amendment, champ. federal laws passed by congress do not trump rights directly enumerated to the states by the constitution
I do not think your arguments are good, and what you describe as the "invasion" clause is incomplete. Article I Section 10 is also important. There are textual arguments stemming from the vague and limited wording of these clauses that are much stronger than where you are heading. Article I Section 8 in particular calls into question the scope of whatever power those other clauses intended to grant the states: "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions" |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 5:37 PM Author: exhilarant alcoholic stage ladyboy (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47508182) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 5:58 PM Author: spruce adventurous corner telephone 1) whether the "invader" is legally permitted to be in the united states.
2 & 3) absolute non-answers.
and i get why you've done that because there is no way to answer my questions plainly while both a) getting to the answer you want and b) interpreting the constitution reasonably. |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 6:50 PM Author: floppy dun heaven Pointing out that your dumbfuck questions require different legal analysis than the actual case we are discussing is not a "non-answer." (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47508332) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 6:57 PM Author: spruce adventurous corner telephone you don't have to answer "yes or no." you can qualify your answer. but you won't, because there is no way to do this with a rational interpretation of the law while getting to the result you'd like.
http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506342&mc=1&forum_id=2
just put your money where your mouth is. |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 9:26 PM Author: floppy dun heaven You mean stake my poasting career on whether Compromised John and Birdbrain Amy vote with me? That isn't a fair bet and aligning your legal reasoning with theirs isn't something to be proud of. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47508804) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 9:36 PM Author: spruce adventurous corner telephone "the constitution would be interpreted differently if the members of the body that interpreted the constitution aligned with me."
oh, ok. |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 9:44 PM Author: floppy dun heaven So you agree Roe was correctly decided until it wasn't? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47508846) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 9:58 PM Author: spruce adventurous corner telephone we're talking about today. right now. if there were nine AOCs on the court anything is possible. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47508881) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 5:39 PM Author: hideous home The supremacy clause doesn't apply to Article 1 Section 10 Clause 3 that Texas relied on. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47508189) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 5:54 PM Author: spruce adventurous corner telephone it strains credulity you are a lawyer (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47508209) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 6:25 PM Author: hideous home I guess I will take 7 SCOTUS justices agreeing with me over a TTT grad. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47508257) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 6:58 PM Author: spruce adventurous corner telephone put your money where your mouth is.
http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506342&mc=1&forum_id=2 |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 4:21 PM Author: internet-worthy territorial whorehouse striped hyena (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47507958) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 2:59 PM Author: Aqua fat ankles it's similar to calling this "immigration" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47507697) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 4:05 PM Author: hideous home Reasonable minds can disagree but it can be reasonably labeled an invasion. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47507889) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 11:56 PM Author: slimy chapel clown But you need to check in with SCOTUS to confirm? What if they say it's not an invasion? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47509134) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 11:53 PM Author: slimy chapel clown Invasion clause shit would almost certainly be treated as a political question. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47509127) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 3:54 PM Author: spruce adventurous corner telephone it's just vacating a stay. we'll see what happens with the circuit court and inevitable appeal. kagan mentioned it "shouldn't matter whether it's an admin stay or stay pending appeal." it seems to me like this all might be about procedure.
knowing roberts et al i doubt this scotus is going to sign up for a state removing people from the country. i wouldn't jump to conclusions about a conservative roe until scotus reaches the merits.
also, there should be some sort of appeal to scotus where they just decide the merits right away in cases that are almost surely going to reach them anyway. all of this procedure is retarded, a waste of time, and leaves things in limbo for far too long. |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 11:28 PM Author: Insecure yarmulke (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47509078) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 2:41 PM Author: Hairraiser coral pit mad-dog skullcap Cool. I'm skeptical Texas has the ability to deport illegals without Mexico's consent, but hopefully they manage to do so. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47507621) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 2:48 PM Author: Vivacious Love Of Her Life Goal In Life Just toss them across the river with a trebuchet (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47507649) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 2:54 PM Author: haunting address incel no one says they have to go to mexico, they just have to get out of texas. let them toob to the gulf. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47507679) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 2:54 PM Author: internet-worthy territorial whorehouse striped hyena (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47507682) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 2:53 PM Author: titillating gay gaming laptop friendly grandma “sow chaos”
===
lol. kinsey gaffe? |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 3:29 PM Author: cocky crackhouse ratface explain the gaffe? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47507773) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 4:22 PM Author: titillating gay gaming laptop friendly grandma flame? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47507966) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 4:03 PM Author: sooty milk brethren rook! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47507876) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 2:54 PM Author: internet-worthy territorial whorehouse striped hyena Dis veddy veddy baaad, chaos baaad (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47507684) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 2:55 PM Author: Frum zombie-like principal's office fanboi lol fucking kagan (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47507686) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 4:25 PM Author: frisky soggy factory reset button “OUT! OUT! Take Sonia with you!” (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47507971) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 3:04 PM Author: Lemon Electric Travel Guidebook LONG LIVE TEXAS (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47507710) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 3:12 PM Author: Flirting Skinny Woman So is this still good for Trump like it was yesterday or nah? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47507734) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 3:15 PM Author: Hateful laughsome depressive location what happened yesterday? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47507741) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 3:16 PM Author: elite cowardly stage get a fucking life already you mentally retarded jewish pedophile (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47507749) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 4:30 PM Author: Cerise Juggernaut (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47507998) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 3:47 PM Author: Fighting Well-lubricated Range Yeah this is actually good for Trump, I changed my mind. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47507833) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 3:16 PM Author: diverse deer antler property (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47507747) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 3:22 PM Author: Flirting Skinny Woman I’m getting flashbacks of 2012 when cons claimed SCOTUS would rule against Obamacare which would make Obama look weak thereby dooming him in 2012, but also if SCOTUS ruled for Obamacare that would just energize Romney supporters and similarly doom Obama. You guys are making the same arguments now about Trump and immigration, i.e., that it’s good for Trump either way. You can’t have it both ways cons and anyway Trump is going to lose regardless. There’s no getting around running a shit candidate. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47507760) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 3:37 PM Author: elite cowardly stage what the fuck are you talking about you TDS deranged mentally retarded jewish psycho? seriously go get some fucking fresh air for a change. this is not healthy how you are living your life. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47507799) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 3:41 PM Author: spruce adventurous corner telephone you were literally arguing that the fani willis stuff was bad for trump. libs are the kings of "heads we win, tails you lose" thinking. although cons aren't immune to it. but you seem to be pointing to one "side" instead of individuals.
quote someone here saying scotus ruling for texas would be a bad thing? even if it is bad for trumps election chances (it's not) most of us would still want this to happen. it's like when you fags were screeching about what a massive self-pwn overturning roe was because of the mid-terms. you guys don't get it -- we actually want this shit to happen. we want illegals out and aren't going to worry about how that might affect the future of elections. the purpose of politics is the affect policy, not to elect certain people (who, i guess, would do nothing?)
you guys don't seem to get that, which is why you never fucking do anything. which, in the grandest of ironies, is a big reason why biden is going to lose. turns out doing nothing is worse than doing something even if there are consequences for that. |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 3:44 PM Author: cocky crackhouse ratface my HIV numbers are looking up bro (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47507821) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 3:54 PM Author: spruce adventurous corner telephone oh man i'm sorry to hear that, don't you want them to go down? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47507849) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 4:00 PM Author: cocky crackhouse ratface :( (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47507867) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 4:03 PM Author: Gold twinkling uncleanness space You couldn't energize a Romney "supporter" with a fucking cattle prod (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47507878) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 3:28 PM Author: Lascivious tanning salon Lol at soto and Jackson dissenting what a fucking joke (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47507772) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 3:36 PM Author: fragrant medicated abode DEI hires fuming! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47507795) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 3:31 PM Author: tan station SCOTUS majority averts civil war-- federalism wins (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47507781) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 4:38 PM Author: titillating gay gaming laptop friendly grandma 50 laboratories for democracy!
|
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 4:59 PM Author: vibrant bronze party of the first part JEWS WIN AGAIN! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47508086) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 5:06 PM Author: tan station states have rights, which the Federal Govt must acknowledge to balance shared power in our system https://twitter.com/TheCalvinCooli1/status/1750625064079311008
|
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 9:39 PM Author: Hateful laughsome depressive location what if they don't acknowledge? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47508831) |
|
Date: March 20th, 2024 11:48 AM Author: tan station if the Federal Government fails to secure the border and preserve law and order within a sovereign state, does Texas have the right to enforce its own immigration and criminal laws to that end? stay tuned (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47510056) |
|
Date: March 20th, 2024 11:53 AM Author: slimy chapel clown Shitcons confused, demanding libs explain. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47510077) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 9:45 PM Author: Razzle-dazzle Menage Isn't this fake news?
The Supreme Court seems to be doing what it always does - hiding behind procedure and saying they're not going to rule on it until every single court below them rules on it and does their homework for them.
|
|
Date: March 20th, 2024 11:54 AM Author: slimy chapel clown (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47510079) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 11:23 PM Author: ivory indirect expression lol at spics (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47509070) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 11:50 PM Author: Federal sex offender feces ljl "there will be chaos if we have borders" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47509120) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 11:55 PM Author: sooty milk brethren order creates chaos iirc (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47509131) |
|
Date: March 20th, 2024 11:32 AM Author: spruce adventurous corner telephone any of the conlaw scholars itt that predicted a texas victory here want to weigh in on this with the 5th cir reinstating the stay within hours of this opinion? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47510039) |
|
Date: March 20th, 2024 7:58 PM Author: Razzle-dazzle Menage Dumb post.
I don't think a single person did any analysis on this.
Libs who were like "omg the supreme court is so corrupt" are the ones who were owned.. |