This is, in no uncertain terms, a rout.
The New York Times published an unfortunate op-ed trying to legally justify Trump administration's #Birthright citizenship order.
Here, five leading scholars show, with analytic precision, how that op-ed was "fundamentally flawed and irresponsible."⬇️
The New York Times published an unfortunate op-ed trying to legally justify Trump administration's #Birthright citizenship order.
Here, five leading scholars show, with analytic precision, how that op-ed was "fundamentally flawed and irresponsible."⬇️
Comments
"fundamentally flawed and irresponsible."
Anybody who advocates for this view is a bigot and xenophobe.
My mother was 1st generation, 100% Polish descent. Would she have been sent to Poland due to being born in America and having parents born in Poland?
My father was 1st generation French, German and Scottish descent.
Therefore, am I not an American?
If an “affirmative pledge or agreement” determines allegiance, then the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance takes on serious legal implications with regard to citizenship.
They have published numerous op-eds whitewashing trump, including the vapid fool Peter Baker.
I have no idea how they ever built the reputation they have had
Now they’re flushing that reputation down the toilet!
The NYT is banned in my orbit. They’ve become utter trash.
I pledge allegiance to the CONSTITUTION
of the United States of America
and to the Republic
(NOT A MONARCHY OR DICTATORSHIP!)
for which it stands,
one nation under RULE OF LAW, indivisible
with liberty and justice for all (YES, All!)
We don't do kings, we have a PRESIDENT.
the MVBs frequently approach me and say, in the sweetest of tones "WHY HAVEN'T YOU REFILLED THE FEEDER, MONKEY BOY? YOU ARE MY SOCK PUPPET, YOU ARE MY BITCH."
Fork U NYT leadership!
https://bsky.app/profile/asiegel.bsky.social/post/3likysnc5bc2z
https://bsky.app/profile/asiegel.bsky.social/post/3lihjedxh6c2k
https://bsky.app/profile/asiegel.bsky.social/post/3lihqdjfk522p
https://bsky.app/profile/asiegel.bsky.social/post/3liflrjx2ik2l
In HS chemistry it was "Look up the answer in the Rubber Book. Then draw your curve. Then plot your data points. Then if time permits, make observations."
Appellate counsel seems to be onto this.
Legal limits on PSYOPs
PSYOPs cannot be directed against civilians or military personnel who are not actively fighting, to cause harm, spread fear, or incite violence. cannot be used to threaten violence to spread terror among civilians
https://www.newarab.com/news/israel-drops-leaflets-threatening-gazans-leave-or-die
But did you read the second-year law student tearing down the position of Barnett and Wurman (in Volokh iirc)?
That was the crispest rebuke of the many convincing rebukes
2. The Supreme Court said so in ... 1898.
This is silly. It does not require any special expertise to see that.
“By design, these arguments and voices often contrast with or challenge those of our newsroom and our own Opinion columnists and editorials. “
“We will work to verify the facts in your article, but as the writer, you bear the ultimate responsibility for the accuracy of your work.”
Probationary employees.
around the time I started using it for bird cage liner
have to admit tho, it took me another 3 years to end my relationship entirely.
The only thing he's managed to do is completely ruin the reputation of Minnesota law.
He probably thinks if he sucks you to Trump he will get a federal appointment or something.
could this be a loophole?
All they need is a few straws to grasp, a legal theory to embrace, and they're off.
It still seems, to me, like all these blatantly illegal things are just pretexts for challenges to change the rules.