Writer, teacher, editor, Icelandic horse with a resplendent mane.
Flying Pace
Loading...
I've repeatedly asked legal scholars to answer a simple question: What would constitute an illegal SCOTUS decision? Not just wrong or immoral but illegal? I've never gotten a straight answer, because their field espouses a twist on Nixon: "When the Court does it, that means it is not illegal."
So if SCOTUS kills birthright citizenship (thereby serving the fascists' war against the people and goal of ethnic cleansing), I'd expect these same experts to frown but accept it, while treating people who can't accept it as fringe. And ultimately shrugging as their neighbors are dragged off.
Maybe people are mad enough now that this is changing. I don't know. I know most legal experts, no matter how appalled they claim to be by Roberts and his gang, still functionally treat them as if they're above the law. (As if, in fact, they enjoy the "immunity" they supposedly conferred on POTUS.)
They lost their authority, at the latest, with Trump v. Anderson and Trump v. US. Thing is, if you argue this like you mean it, you're still treated as fringe even on the left. For example, if you say these "rulings" were insurrectionary and the SCOTUS majority should be in prison, people back away.
I said this in replies elsewhere, but I want to say it loudly here.
Anything other than a fullthroated affirmation of birthright citizenship in this country by SCOTUS is an act of treason. It is grounds for immediate impeachment. It is a violation of every oath they have made.
Anything else is a declaration of war against the Constitution.
That is how we should understand the Trump executive order. That is how we should understand the case pending before SCOTUS.
If that "need to be vanquished by any force necessary" quote is accurate and someone's willing to confirm it under oath, I would think Miller could someday face prison time. A civil suit, at least.
