OlDawg

Yes. People are too lazy to read the actual opinions. That’s part of our problems. They eat what the press opinions feed them. The press wants to simplify, and the liberal press wants to make it seem like it was a slam dunk decision. It was far from a slam dunk decision. It was—in essence—4/4/1, with the 1 going with the majority for different reasons than the EO being unconstitutional. Kavanaugh said straight up the EO didn’t violate the 14th. It violated a previous statute by Congress.

I was thinking more along the lines of 'Manchurian Candidates.' Terrorists don't have to be citizens. Although, it could be argued that some members of our current government are already terrorists.

It was basically 5-4 on the Birthright Citizenship via the 14th. Kavanaugh said birthright citizenship didn't come from the 14th, but from a previous Law passed by Congress, and that made the EO illegal. So, he was in the minority opinion (4) along with Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas on that issue. He left an avenue in his split decision that would have allowed Congress to pass another Law defining citizenship without needing an Amendment because--in his view--the 14th didn't grant automatic birthright citizenship.

Wouldn’t find me betting against you.

Incidentally, this is the second very major decision Roberts has been a disappointment on IMHO. First, he twisted like a contortionist to make sure Obamacare was considered legal, and allowed to be implemented. Now, he fails to see the functional flaws in this decision. Two decisions that have the greatest impact on every single person on U.S. soil or territory--legal, transient, illegal or not--he has shown himself to be anything BUT a conservative. They are probably the two biggest decisions from the SCOTUS during his tenure. The only one comparable would be Roe v Wade overturned.

Yep. I'd enjoy hearing some insight after listening to the BU coach interview with Stepp. He seemed like he has the temperament to really help the program over there.

What happened to your "The Constitution is a living document, and changes with the times" argument? (That was one of the funniest things to me. Liberal/Progressives--who typically argue the Constitution is a living document--wanted to maintain an originalist stance, and vice versa for the originalist/textualists. The typical stances were almost flipped.) This was never going to fly as an EO, and it shouldn't be handled in that manner. Too important a question, and it should require a high bar to change. The arguments were fascinating. I think they opened a lot of people's eyes to issues they hadn't thought about. I don't agree with the interpretation. But, the--basically 5 to 4--decision shows it was a question that needed to be addressed. The Administration made a mistake in trying to push it through an EO. If they'd passed something through Congress, it may have been a different outcome. By going the EO route, they basically sealed the outcome from the start. Now, the SCOTUS ruling has made it all but impossible to change. Immigration, Visa, and entry laws can be addressed, but, they--and the enforcement--will change with Admins. It will be a similar issue to if it was addressed via an EO. The Administration DID receive a win for immigration control by being able to deny entry asylum unless on our soil. But, it will just mean illegal entry will try to pick up again. They also won on the issue of Temporary Protected Status actually being 'Temporary.' Maybe there can be a way to limit certain benefits going to underage citizens of illegal immigrants/students/temporary visitors that wouldn't rely on the citizenship question of the minor, since that's a major way illegal immigrants are receiving benefits they aren't due, and is the main draw for illegal immigration.

Well spoken young man.

Got my mag in the mail today in La Porte.

Are these the same advisors who listened to the Gulf States, and other world leaders (who haven't been directly threatened with 'Death to America' chants for the last 47 years) that warned of a global recession because their countries/States were in a crunch and don't know the full capabilities of America's military? Or, were they the political advisors that warned him about losing an election--and going through another ridiculous and wasteful impeachment process--because of high gas prices, and an unpopular war that he didn't get full buy-in from the public before beginning? I'm not a war hawk in general. But, I am as it concerns the Iranian regime. If it was important enough to go in, it's important enough to finish. Just because you eliminate some senior leadership of a group that has never honored an agreement in their history doesn't mean their acolytes will honor an agreement any differently. That's a fool's errand. Sorry. I've always been hopeful this current blockade method along with military action would work. But, I just don't see it. Many others with direct experience share my view. I daresay, it's about 50/50, with more of the former military and intel personnel with experience agreeing with me. The politicos probably do not agree as they're concerned about different things. Without regime change, you'll never confirm there's no nuclear threat as you'll never receive total access, and THAT was the primary driver.

Never said it was. I said it was based on first-hand experience. What have you got? While you’re at it, tell me where I’ve been wrong so far. My posts on this issue have been consistent from the very beginning. They remain so.

Your point?

No. I don't. He's trying to deal on a secular level with a group that operates on a different premise. Of course, as a combat vet who has had direct dealings with the Iranian regime, and our IC, what would I know? I'll defer to the rest of y'all who obviously have much more experience than I.

He’s not the one who said “Trump don’t play.”

No more delusional than you believing this would only take 2 weeks. Just sayin'.