Want to ban nationwide injunctions against student debt relief? Sure, I can agree with that. Want to ban nationwide injunctions against ACA enforcement or some other similar type thing? I have no problem either way.
Banning a nationwide injunction against birthright citizenship is inherently different. It’s a fundamental constitutional right we are talking about. Banning birthright citizenship should not be allowed to be enforced until SCOTIS decides the matter.
And they are wrong to do so. Right now a child born in one district in the U.S. will have birthright citizenship while children in every other district won’t. This is an inherently stupid state of affairs.
What was issued was a temporary restriction from implementing the executive order until the matter is decided. No one issued an order declaring the executive order illegal.
According to Justice Barrett a child born tomorrow in one district in the United States will not have U.S. citizenship but a child born in another one will. Will ICE deport the “noncitizens” born in one district while being prevented from doing so in districts that happen to have a judge that issues an injunction?
This ruling is idiotic even if you are generally opposed to nationwide injunctions. Birthright citizenship is a fundamental and clear cut right. Any attempts to overturn that must meet a high burden of justification. Temporarily suspending such attempts until the matter can firmly be decided causes the least amount of harm and should be allowed.
An injunction is not a judgment. It is temporary. A new rule or law is passed. It might be unconstitutional or otherwise not enforceable. Until this can be sorted out sometimes the law/rule is blocked until it is sorted out. Since the law/rule was not in place before the suit it is sometimes ok to temporarily block the rule until it’s legality can be determined. One goes by the principle of causing least harm.
It causes the least harm to block the birthright executive order until it’s legality can be determined. Therefore it should be blocked nationwide.
That there are other things that are possibly harmful to the environment does not negate the author’s points. You sound overly defensive. Given the number of rescue cats and dogs I think it’s safe to assume that there are a lot of irresponsible pet owners.
I’ve been on HN since the beginning. I’m on my 12th or so username. Like you I don’t have a Reddit, Facebook, etc. account. Social Media is a plague on society.
Martyrdom? I’m not important enough or self centered enough to have any feelings of martyrdom with regard to this site. I was just letting you know that I don’t agree with you and I’m not going to stop. As such the only option is for me to be banned. Pointing out this fact does not qualify as martyrdom.
In general I agree. But not in this case. In the “polite” approach what happens is that obviously bad assertions are made and one politely engages but the starting point is such that you are engaged in an attempt to just get to a reasonable place. It’s sort like how combatting a lie is much more effort than spreading one.
My comment above was not for the person who made. I don’t engage with such people. It was for the people who stumbled upon it. I want them to know that there are people who think the comment is ridiculously bad.
Israelis have a right to live peacefully. Unfortunately they are not peaceful toward Palestinians. They continually encroach and annex Palestinian land in the West Bank oppress Palestinians. Palestinians fight back but it’s a hopeless cause for them.
From my understanding Israel tried to make peace by exchanging land for peace treaties. Only the Egyptians took them up on that. I think Israel is done seeking a moral solution and are now slowly annexing all of the West Bank and now Gaza. Palestinians should be given land somewhere and/or forced to emigrate. They’ve clung to what was once theirs but the reality is they are never getting it back.
But Israel is being immoral and their treatment of Palestinians is deplorable.
When a person writes something that is obviously nonsensical it should be called out as such. This is especially so when the topic is about ongoing acts of war.
Banning a nationwide injunction against birthright citizenship is inherently different. It’s a fundamental constitutional right we are talking about. Banning birthright citizenship should not be allowed to be enforced until SCOTIS decides the matter.