Michael O'Connor
3.2K posts
Michael O'Connor
@JDMikeJ
Crypto Lawyer; ex-Kraken; Geek; Penn Stater; Catholic; Husband to an Awesome Wife. Opinions are my own.
Washington, DC เข้าร่วม Mart 2012
140 กำลังติดตาม832 ผู้ติดตาม
We’ll never get 60 Senate votes for repealing birthright citizenship because the birthright citizens are allowed to vote.
And their vote share is only going to grow.
Blake Neff@BlakeSNeff
The most blackpilling part of the birthright citizenship debate at SCOTUS isn't that they might rule the Constitution requires it. It's that, if they do, there isn't a hope in Hell that our Congress would ever pass a new amendment to fix it. It should be the easiest thing in the world to pass a new law clarifying that tourist anchor babies and surrogate children bought by CCP oligarchs don't get lifelong U.S. citizenship. Yet everybody knows Congress will never do this. There aren't enough votes to repeal a policy of obvious long-term national suicide. That should fill us with a lot of dread for the country's future.
English
The most blackpilling part of the birthright citizenship debate at SCOTUS isn't that they might rule the Constitution requires it. It's that, if they do, there isn't a hope in Hell that our Congress would ever pass a new amendment to fix it.
It should be the easiest thing in the world to pass a new law clarifying that tourist anchor babies and surrogate children bought by CCP oligarchs don't get lifelong U.S. citizenship. Yet everybody knows Congress will never do this. There aren't enough votes to repeal a policy of obvious long-term national suicide.
That should fill us with a lot of dread for the country's future.
English
@HlautBolli @MorosKostas I agree. It infuriates me that members of the profession will so casually disregard their ethical responsibilities and others will let them get away with it, all because Trump Bad.
English
@JDMikeJ @MorosKostas Obviously they’ll be cut loose but man, I’d file it anyway. At least some record behind.
The judge will let it slide too.
I realize the futility and am extremely frustrated with affairs.
English
This is interesting. So a bunch of angry former employees who quit because they only wanted the Civil Rights Division to be used as a hammer for leftwing priorities did an amicus brief with Brady in support of dismissing this lawsuit.
DOJ is not happy about how the brief relief on privileged information.
English
@HlautBolli @MorosKostas And how do you expect the DC Bar to handle such a complaint?
English
@MorosKostas This seems like fertile ground for a bar bitch.
English
@neoavatara My proposal
Take a pregnancy test to get your visa. If positive, visa denied
Deal?
English
That's incorrect.
Congress can absolutely limit tourist Visas.
Will Chamberlain@willchamberlain
You misunderstand the stakes. If the Supreme Court rules against the administration, Congress CANNOT prohibit birth tourism, because the children produced by birth tourism would be constitutionally entitled to citizenship. That's how insane the left's interpretation is.
English
That is not precisely true, though I understand your point. I think the most likely result here is that the Court points to the statute and says Congress meant to confer birthright citizenship and that an EO can't override the statute and thus there is no reason to address the constitutional question.
English
You misunderstand the stakes. If the Supreme Court rules against the administration, Congress CANNOT prohibit birth tourism, because the children produced by birth tourism would be constitutionally entitled to citizenship.
That's how insane the left's interpretation is.
Robert W Malone, MD@RWMaloneMD
9% of of all the babies born in the USA getting citizenship, based on either birth tourism - mostly from the CCP - or whose mother smuggled herself into this country illegally, is not ok and no way to secure a healthy future for Americans. If the Supreme Court doesn't restrict birthright citizenship, then Congress must -BEFORE the midterms. This is what the citizens of the United States want and require.
English
@bonchieredstate No, silly. The plan is to leave a half-finished ballroom just until the next Democrat President gets to do whatever they want with it.
English
The East Wing is already gone.
What exactly is the plan here? To just leave a half finished ballroom because some lib group sued out of spite?
The Hill@thehill
#BREAKING: Judge halts White House ballroom construction project thehill.com/regulation/cou…
English
@DavidPaternostr We are supposedly bringing back battleships, though, and those are the best big guns.
English
Alas, I find this out after I was ordained a priest
Also, all my family is Navy, and this would mean joining the Army, so…let’s say I can’t b/c of *two* religious reasons
eigenrobot@eigenrobot
if you're a reasonably competent adult in the US you can go up to someone and say "hey i want to fire artillery professionally" and have a reasonably good shot of being paid to do that within a few months
English
I just finished reading Scott Hahn and I can’t believe I’m saying this, but I’m coming home to Rome.
English
@ASFleischman He was a prosecutor. He has obviously had, at a minimum, the opportunity to observe a large number of defense lawyers.
English
You know, I just can't imagine Justice Alito is the type of guy who'd be friends with a bunch of criminal defense lawyers.
Anyway, CDLs have the least status and authority in the room, and that sometimes means speaking up carries costs. They gotta weigh those costs.
Kelsey Reichmann@KelseyReichmann
Justices play blame game over racial discrimination on Mississippi jury Alito: "This is the most timid and reticent defense counsel that I have encountered. Any competent defense attorney that I knew would have spoken up." courthousenews.com/justices-play-…
English
@politicalsock In some ways I admire it. At least she is open and honest about her goals.
They are, of course, reprehensible goals. But better to have reprehensible goals and be honest about it than reprehensible goals and dishonest about it.
English
You just know Kagan and Sotomayor went and tried to counsel Ketanji Brown Jackson, explaining why this was the wrong fight and how her draft dissent could backfire on progressive causes.
But KBJ just plows ahead. Outcome oriented on every case.
SCOTUSblog@SCOTUSblog
The court's first and only opinion for the day is in Chiles v. Salazar, on whether a Colorado law barring conversion therapy violates free speech. The opinion is from Justice Gorsuch and the vote is 8-1, with Justice Jackson dissenting.
English
@LinkofSunshine These people really expect to have 30 Years of their life fully paid for by the taxpayer ???
English
This is my intuition as well.
"While the text of the statute mirrors the 14th Amendment, we address only the intent of Congress in enacting the statute and leave for another day the intent of the 14th Amendment. It is clear that the intent of Congress in enacting the statute, etc. . . ."
English
I suspect the Conservatives are going to point to the statute and tell the Admin. that it's problem rests there -- implying that the 14th Amendment is not a barrier, but at this point there already exists legislation, and that legislation needs to first be changed.
That gets buy-in from the political branches and reshapes the debate into one about whether a statute passed by Congress is facially invalid in face of the 14th Amendment and its history.
The liberals will scream the 14th trumps all, and I think the middle of the Court will not tip their hand in any way.
This just starts the debate -- it does not end it.
Randy Barnett@RandyEBarnett
My prediction for oral arguments in Trump v Barbara tomorrow: more interest in the merits and less in “off ramps” than Kurt thinks.
English
@neoavatara Depends what it is. Much like Obamacare, once voter ID is in place, it becomes politically difficult for Dems to get rid of it. Not impossible if they have the political will. But they will pay a price for it.
English
Option 2 guarantees that nothing Trump does will survive long though.
Democrats will just reverse it immediately without the filibuster. So what good would that be, other than for show only?
Mike Lee@SenMikeLee
We have two options: 1) Force a Democrat talking filibuster, beat it, & pass SAVE America, full DHS funding, & other priorities. 2) Nuke the filibuster & pass everything. I prefer option 1. But inaction is unacceptable.
English
seriously i know i have 2nd amendment types following me. this is dumb, right?
Dilan Esper@dilanesper
what the hell? who uses their pistol as a flashlight?!?
English
@lilbernadette @emzanotti The list of latae sententiae excommunications is an interesting one. My favorite is laying violent hands on the Pope.
English
@emzanotti The only auto excommunication thing I know about is having an abortion, but there’s no formal process, and your priest doesn’t go. You just excommunicate yourself when you do that.
English
Man, I *wish* excommunications were this easy.
MrCasey@MrCasey62
“Thou shalt not bear false witness.”
English
@emzanotti "Let me string together words that sounds Catholic-y. Excommunication is a good one. Ooh . . . anathema . . . That will really convince them I know what I am talking about."
English
@mls1776 @ilan_wurman Under what theory of constitutional interpretation does Congress play a role in changing the meaning of the Constitution?
English
That’s not a minor difference. As someone who has casually read the arguments in this case, it seems to me that there is a plausible (not necessarily compelling) case for a sojourner exception, but none for an “illegal alien” exception (at least none that survives Wong Kim Ark).
Even if one buys the sojourner exception, though, it seems to me that congressional action is required to change more than a century of practice.
English
Wow! On the eve of oral argument in the birthright case, Fordham Law Professor Tom Lee joins the fray -- and argues that the Trump administration is RIGHT at least regarding temporary visitors. Looking forward to diving in. And to seeing the usual suspects pounce. Link: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…
English
Except they say that "most" settle after the demand letter alone. 40% and > 50% are not the same.
Also, both stats are nonsense. Businesses absolutely do not settle > 40% of cases based on self-drafted no-attorney demand letters. I can't even imagine that many settle based on well-drafted attorney letters.
English
@RobertFreundLaw 40% after the letter but 78% before seeing a courtroom are compatible.
English
A business that will draft and send demand letters and recommend “claim amounts” but claims it does not give legal advice.
Interesting UPL questions there.
Jack Raines@Jack_Raines
Sue your boss in 2026 pettylawsuit.com
English
@zachary_aman Then I have no explanation other than he is too busy / lazy to do it now.
English
