Will “mass deportation” actually happen (2 Viewers)

[superchuck500]

It’s so repulsive to see people cheering for what is basically 80% the same thing as the Holocaust - different end result but otherwise very similar.

Economists have said it would tank the economy and cause inflation - notwithstanding the cost.

Is it going to actually happen or is this Build The Wall 2.0?

 

[MT15]

Well, we shall see. I think it’s as least as likely that they overturn it as that they affirm it. And when I mean overturn it - I mean upholding the restrictions the Trump EO made to it. The majority are a product of the same system that produced Project 2025, and they want to over turn it.

Also:

 

[MT15]

This is just obscene. They are imprisoning - in gulag-like conditions - people who are only guilty of a misdemeanor. Without due process in many cases.

 

[MT15]

Sendai - SCOTUS could have stopped this. They chose not to, and they prevented lower courts from stopping it. Trump DHS says it will start deporting babies born in the US on July 27 of this year.

Trump lawyer says no immediate deportations under birthright citizenship order, as judges to decide on challenges — Reuters

President Donald Trump's administration will not deport children deemed ineligible for U.S. citizenship until his executive order curtailing birthright citizenship takes effect on July 27, a government lawyer said on Monday after being pressed by two federal judges.

apple.news

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

It’s a list of Supreme Court rulings that overturn previous Supreme Court rulings and those previous Supreme Court rulings are precedent.

WRONG!

The Supreme Court can over rule a previous decision because they find that the plaintiff had did not have proper legal standing are that there was no harm. That doesn't over turn precedent, which is defined below.

Check this out, the Supreme Court can also overrule a previous decision because they find it misapplied or ignored long established precedent. In that case, it's reaffirming precedent which is the opposite of overturning it.

"Precedent refers to a court decision that is considered an authority for deciding subsequent cases involving identical or similar facts , or similar legal issues."​

​

precedent

www.law.cornell.edu

And for the record Gorsuch, Alito and Kavanaugh believe the insane position that constitutional precedent is less important than "legal" precedent. It's irrational and illogical agenda justification. The Constitution is the legal foundation for our entire legal system. They've been laying the foundation to assault the constitution since 2017. They've been planning this for some time.

"In 2020, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh in Ramos v. Louisiana went out of their way to explain and justify their views on when constitutional precedent may be overturned. They echoed Justice Samuel Alito's discussion in 2018 in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees Council Number 31. All three justices said constitutional precedent is merely a matter of court policy or discretion, more easily overturned than a precedent about a law."​

The Supreme Court has overturned precedent dozens of times in the past 60 years

David Schultz, Hamline University It is a central principle of law: Courts are supposed to follow earlier decisions – precedent – to resolve current disputes. But it's inevitable that sometimes, the precedent has to go, and a court has to overrule another court, or even its own decision from an...

www.alternet.org

​

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

Workers living in fear of ICE raids in Los Angeles are hiding ‘like Anne Frank’

Immigration officials inspiring climate of ‘insanity and fear’ in California city leaving many too scared to leave their homes or go to work, locals say

www.independent.co.uk

My next door neighbor with two autistic children is very careful about where they go, because they fit the profile and being a legal born citizen is not an assurance of protection.

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

They won’t overturn birthright citizenship. And if they do I won’t defend it under any circumstances. The amendment is clear.

Quoted for future reference.

 

[brandon]

Quoted for future reference.

You’ll find “under any circumstances” to be surprisingly flexible.

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

You’ll find “under any circumstances” to be surprisingly flexible.

But I have an easy to find and original record of what they said for future reference.

 

[Sendai]

WRONG!

The Supreme Court can over rule a previous decision because they find that the plaintiff had did not have proper legal standing are that there was no harm. That doesn't over turn precedent, which is defined below.

Check this out, the Supreme Court can also overrule a previous decision because they find it misapplied or ignored long established precedent. In that case, it's reaffirming precedent which is the opposite of overturning it.

"Precedent refers to a court decision that is considered an authority for deciding subsequent cases involving identical or similar facts , or similar legal issues."​

​

precedent

www.law.cornell.edu

And for the record Gorsuch, Alito and Kavanaugh believe the insane position that constitutional precedent is less important than "legal" precedent. It's irrational and illogical agenda justification. The Constitution is the legal foundation for our entire legal system. They've been laying the foundation to assault the constitution since 2017. They've been planning this for some time.

"In 2020, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh in Ramos v. Louisiana went out of their way to explain and justify their views on when constitutional precedent may be overturned. They echoed Justice Samuel Alito's discussion in 2018 in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees Council Number 31. All three justices said constitutional precedent is merely a matter of court policy or discretion, more easily overturned than a precedent about a law."​

The Supreme Court has overturned precedent dozens of times in the past 60 years

David Schultz, Hamline University It is a central principle of law: Courts are supposed to follow earlier decisions – precedent – to resolve current disputes. But it's inevitable that sometimes, the precedent has to go, and a court has to overrule another court, or even its own decision from an...

www.alternet.org

​

In every one of the cases in the column on the left the opinion explicitly identifies the case on the right as being overruled. It is no longer precedent.

 

[Sendai]

You’ll find “under any circumstances” to be surprisingly flexible.

Not really.

 

[brandon]

Not really.

Not really flexible, or not really surprising?

 

[Sendai]

Sendai - SCOTUS could have stopped this. They chose not to, and they prevented lower courts from stopping it. Trump DHS says it will start deporting babies born in the US on July 27 of this year.

Trump lawyer says no immediate deportations under birthright citizenship order, as judges to decide on challenges — Reuters

President Donald Trump's administration will not deport children deemed ineligible for U.S. citizenship until his executive order curtailing birthright citizenship takes effect on July 27, a government lawyer said on Monday after being pressed by two federal judges.

apple.news

They can still stop it. Kavanaugh’s concurrence is a direct invitation to the parties involved to seek Supreme Court action while the issues works its way through the judicial process. There will be a stay put on the EO.

 

[Sendai]

Not really flexible, or not really surprising?

For me, not flexible.

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

...the case on the right as being overruled. It is no longer precedent.

A case being overruled does not mean that legal precedent being over turned. I clearly explained that to you already. I'll try to dumb it down for you.

• If the Supreme Court over rules a previous decision because the plaintiffs didn't have standing, that has nothing to do with legal precedent. Decisions have been overturned for that reason.
• If the Supreme Court over rules a previous decision because there was no harm to the plaintiffs, that has nothing to do with overturning legal precedent. Decisions have been overturned for those reasons.
• If the Supreme Court over rules a decision for not following legal precedent, then that is an confirmation of legal precedent, it's not an overturning of precedent. That has happened before as well.

If you just repeat your false claim yet again, then you're either being dishonest or you're not very bright.

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

They can still stop it. Kavanaugh’s concurrence is a direct invitation to the parties involved to seek Supreme Court action while the issues works its way through the judicial process. There will be a stay put on the EO.

Quoted for future quick reference.

 

[Sendai]

A case being overruled does not mean that legal precedent being over turned. I clearly explained that to you already. I'll try to dumb it down for you.

• If the Supreme Court over rules a previous decision because the plaintiffs didn't have standing, that has nothing to do with legal precedent. Decisions have been overturned for that reason.
• If the Supreme Court over rules a previous decision because there was no harm to the plaintiffs, that has nothing to do with overturning legal precedent. Decisions have been overturned for those reasons.
• If the Supreme Court over rules a decision for not following legal precedent, then that is an confirmation of legal precedent, it's not an overturning of precedent. That has happened before as well.

If you just repeat your false claim yet again, then you're either being dishonest or you're not very bright.

The list of cases in the link, compiled by Congress, specifically overruled the case on the right which held precedence on the law before the court. It’s the reason the list was put together.

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

The list of cases in the link, compiled by Congress, specifically overruled the case on the right...

The part I quoted is factually accurate. The rest of you post is factually inaccurate.

You're not responding to what I said that refutes what you are saying. You just keep repeating the same thing over and over.

In my opinion, that's trolling. That's not discussing. The constant repeating of factually inaccurate information is in alignment with the anti-democratic and heinous things that Trump and his Republicans are doing. It's my opinion that it's a dangerous form of trolling. It's a lot easier and less violent to draw a line here, instead of waiting to draw a line in the streets.

 

[Sendai]

The part I quoted is factually accurate. The rest of you post is factually inaccurate.

You're not responding to what I said that refutes what you are saying. You just keep repeating the same thing over and over.

In my opinion, that's trolling. That's not discussing. The constant repeating of factually inaccurate information is in alignment with the anti-democratic and heinous things that Trump and his Republicans are doing. It's my opinion that it's a dangerous form of trolling. It's a lot easier and less violent to draw a line here, instead of waiting to draw a line in the streets.

“Appx.1.2 Methodology for the Table of Supreme Court Decisions Overruled by Subsequent Decisions
The Table of Supreme Court Decisions Overruled by Subsequent Decisions1 lists Supreme Court decisions regarding an interpretation of constitutional law, which the Supreme Court subsequently overruled. In accordance with the underlying purposes of the Constitution Annotated, this list is intended to provide a consistent, objective assessment of changes in Court precedent. While Justices2 and commentators3 frequently assert in legal debates that a given decision has overruled a prior decision, such assertions may be speculative or reflect subjective interpretations, resulting in diverse opinions on whether a given case has, in fact, been overruled.4 Oftentimes, knowledge of the Court’s subsequent actions is necessary to determine whether and the extent to which a particular case can be said to have overturned precedent.5
In order to ensure that cases are identified as overruled in a consistent and objective manner, the Constitution Annotatedadopted fixed criteria. Specifically, for a decision to be listed as overruled, a majority of the Court must have explicitly stated, in a subsequent decision, that the case has been overruled6 or used language that is functionally equivalent.7 While this approach may result in a list that is narrower than similar lists in other sources, it provides consistent and objective treatment, adhering to the Court’s repeated statements that only the High Court has the prerogative of overruling its own decisions.8
The table also includes decisions that the Court has only partially overruled or otherwise qualified. For example, in United States v. Hatter, the Court overruled Evans v. Goreinsofar as [Evans] holds that the Compensation Clause forbids Congress to apply a generally applicable, nondiscriminatory tax to the salaries of federal judges, whether or not they were appointed before enactment of the tax.9 Similarly, in Fulton Corp. v. Faulkner, the Court distinguished an earlier decision’s treatment of the Equal Protection and Commerce Clauses, stating: To the extent that Darnell evaluated a discriminatory state tax under the Equal Protection Clause, time simply has passed it by . . . . [W]hile cases like Kidd and Darnell may still be authorities under the Equal Protection Clause, they are no longer good law under the Commerce Clause.10
This approach necessarily excludes certain cases that other sources may list as overruled. For example, the table does not include cases that the Court distinguished or limited11 or cases identified by concurring or dissenting Justices or commentators as overruled,12 unless such cases have also been expressly overruled by a majority of the Court. Similarly, cases that the Court treats as discredited, but has not expressly overruled, are not included in the table.13 In addition, in order to avoid imputing findings to the Court with respect to particular cases, the table does not include cases that, arguably, rely on overruled precedent, unless the Court has also expressly identified such cases as overruled.
The table does not include cases where the Court issued a ruling on the merits after having split evenly on the issue previously,14 or where the Court reversed an earlier procedural ruling (e.g., lifting a previously issued stay).15 While some sources list such cases,16 the Constitution Annotated does not. The table also does not address subsequent developments, such as the enactment of statutory or constitutional amendments, which may functionally reverse the Court’s decisions.17 In other words, the table focuses on the Supreme Court’s actions and, in particular, the frequency and manner in which the Court has reversed itself. As such, the table does not necessarily reflect the current state of the law on a given issue.
For purposes of this table, decisions are identified as overruling when the High Court characterizes them as such. While it is not uncommon for the Court to note that an earlier decision has been eroded by . . . subsequent decisions,18 or cannot be reconciled with later decisions of th[e] Court,19cases that the Court may consider to have effectuated such erosion or legal change are not included in the table unless the Court expressly found such cases to overrule precedent.
Similarly, with overruled decisions, the table includes only decisions the Court has expressly identified as overruled. While the Court often refers to a decision by name when overruling it—stating, for example, Haddock v. Haddock is overruled . . . ,20 or We now expressly overrule Spaziano and Hildwin . . .21—in some cases, the Court may identify several decisions related to a particular legal doctrine and then state that the doctrine is overruled.22 In such circumstances, cases that the Court expressly identifies in the overruling decision are listed, insofar as the overruling decision evidences that the Court contemplated such cases when deeming the doctrine overruled. Decisions that may rely on an overruled doctrine, but are not identified by the Court as such, are not listed in order to avoid imputing findings to the Court that it did not intend.
The table was compiled by searching the LEXIS database for all Supreme Court decisions that use the word overrule in the headnotes, syllabus, or text of the Court’s opinion.23 The results were then reviewed to ascertain the Court’s exact meaning with respect to its earlier decisions. Decisions supported by a majority of the Court that expressly overruled an earlier decision or used functionally equivalent language were listed in the table. These findings were also cross-checked with other sources to ensure that the search had captured any relevant results.24
The table is arranged in chronological order by the date of the overruling decision. For each overruling decision listed, the table gives (1) the name of the overruling decision; (2) the date of the overruling decision; (3) the name of the overruled decision; and (4) the date of the overruled decision.”