xyzzy

The Nobel committee should maybe not accept nominations from an accused ICC war criminal

It's OK, they won't

Birthright citizenship was not struck down. Universal injunctions were struck down, which means the Constitution will be applied in any cases where a state has a law on the books or a class action suit has been brought and a statewide injunction has been declared. These suits will wind their way through the courts and may possibly be heard by the Supreme Court.

I'd like to predict the USSC would decline to hear the case because there would be no discrepancies in prior rulings and the legal question would be so obvious, but I've given up trying to predict this court. In any event, I do think it's unlikely they would rule against birthright citizenship, since it would be plainly unconstitutional and there's no real wiggle room to reinterpret it differently.

I know you said "almost" too bad, but it would have been irreversible. Everything else they've done can be reversed with enough effort. I'm glad the American public can at least unite around our public lands.

It's really dumb and alarmist to run projections six years from now about annual revenue loss, as if the state will never pass another bill about transportation.

I hope she gets the big seat someday.

That's not how it works in the US.

Edit: In many other countries the most senior justice becomes the chief justice by seniority, and I was saying that's not how it works in the US. But it looks like there have been four times when an associate justice has been "promoted" to chief justice, which I didn't realize. The first being John Rutledge in 1795 and Rehnquist being the most recent in 1986.

It's just a cult, man. It's just as true and based in reality as a UFO transporting their souls to heaven.

No

I kind of agree with the guy. He moved it out of committee despite citing problems with it, but signaled a willingness to continue working through those issues. The bill was a rush job with lots of missteps, and budget numbers came very, very late in the process. When he expressed frustration at this and said it doesn't make sense for public comment before the budget numbers are in, and because of this he was currently a no (but continuing to signal willingness to work to get to yes), the Democratic majority tried to strong arm him by removing him from the committee immediately after as punishment. So he voted no.

Try again next session. Should be easier since they've done all the planning this time. Maybe don't alienate your allies next time.

Still too many

This is an .ml take. There are many, many writings where they opposed specific policies now undertaken by the Trump regime. You can start with the Declaration of Independence if you'd like.

Regardless, they're dead and we're not. Governments are for the living. (That's something they thought too, by the way.)

2 is right, but the reasons aren't for aggrandizement (at least, not mainly). It's for more power and the legitimacy of that power.

But it seems that they don't need to convene a convention if the Supreme Court and Congress can simply allow Trump to ignore laws with impunity.