deuce-ish

deuce-ish
[ deuce-ish ]

SCOTUS strikes down “conversion therapy” bans 8-1

Posted by Potomac <iframe src='https://members.boardhost.com/onedeuce/info/user=Potomac' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on March 31, 2026, 10:16:00

Not a particularly difficult case legally, IMO. Jackson with a dissent. She believes states can restrict what therapists can say.

my God

Posted by AceFrehley <iframe src='https://members.boardhost.com/onedeuce/info/user=AceFrehley' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on April 2, 2026, 19:18:12, in reply to "SCOTUS strikes down “conversion therapy” bans 8-1"

How did the birthright citizenship hearing go? Upon reflection if “subject to the jurisdiction

Posted by groupguy <iframe src='https://members.boardhost.com/onedeuce/info/user=groupguy' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on April 1, 2026, 14:58:22, in reply to "SCOTUS strikes down “conversion therapy” bans 8-1"

thereof” just means you’re under our rules because you’re in our country, it’s redundant because duh you were born here so of course you’re in the country. So why add it unless citizens of other countries aren’t subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Are they? Or can they just move out or ask to be deported?

Previous Message

Not a particularly difficult case legally, IMO. Jackson with a dissent. She believes states can restrict what therapists can say.

I think future Court might allow expanded rules for LOSING your citizenship

Posted by Potomac <iframe src='https://members.boardhost.com/onedeuce/info/user=Potomac' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on April 3, 2026, 6:13:26, in reply to "How did the birthright citizenship hearing go? Upon reflection if “subject to the jurisdiction "

OK, you get your birthright citizenship according to current rules, whether good policy or bad. Fine. Congress can still take action.

Perhaps this: if neither parent was a legal resident at the time of your birth in the US, one of them must become a legal resident or citizen of the US within X years or you lose your birthright citizenship. Or you must live within the US for Y years by the time you are 18.

The above would eventually cost the "tourism" citizens born to brief visitors their birthright citizenship.

So, I don't know the specifics, make up some rules that would withstand legal scrutiny. I think my tourism example would be legal if done by Congress. The POTUS has zero authority.

Kinda this. If nothing else, Trump has started the conversation.

Posted by osklister <iframe src='https://members.boardhost.com/onedeuce/info/user=osklister' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on April 3, 2026, 8:42:16, in reply to "I think future Court might allow expanded rules for LOSING your citizenship"

Nothing might happen for the next 10-20 years, but the scenario above might start the proverbial "slippery slope".

Because there are already ways to lose your citizenship, the concept exists

Posted by Potomac <iframe src='https://members.boardhost.com/onedeuce/info/user=Potomac' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on April 3, 2026, 8:57:49, in reply to "Kinda this. If nothing else, Trump has started the conversation. "

Federal statutes describe ways to lose it. Congress can always add more and no doubt some of them would be challenged. I think Congress has considerable leeway here, as long as due process is involved and there is no risk to people born here to American citizens and have lived here the entire time without some crime that involved foreign loyalty (treason is already a way to lose citizenship).

Explained to someone why Barron Trump is not a beneficiary of birthright citizenship

Posted by Potomac <iframe src='https://members.boardhost.com/onedeuce/info/user=Potomac' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on April 2, 2026, 19:08:01, in reply to "How did the birthright citizenship hearing go? Upon reflection if “subject to the jurisdiction "

The target was a smart person who should have known better. Too much Trump hating always assuming the worst. The fact that his mother was not a US citizen when he was born is completely irrelevant. Apparently this has been a social media meme for a long time.

Correct. Even though everyone knows that Barry Soweto was likely born in Kenya, he is still a

Posted by fratstud <iframe src='https://members.boardhost.com/onedeuce/info/user=fratstud' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on April 2, 2026, 19:28:59, in reply to "Explained to someone why Barron Trump is not a beneficiary of birthright citizenship "
Go Zags!

citizen by virtue of his mother being a US citizen.

Previous Message

"Iowa women were better than Illini men" - Potomac

Court could decide to invalidate Trump's EO and duck the main issue

Posted by Potomac <iframe src='https://members.boardhost.com/onedeuce/info/user=Potomac' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on April 2, 2026, 6:59:12, in reply to "How did the birthright citizenship hearing go? Upon reflection if “subject to the jurisdiction "

Trump clearly does not have the authority to change citizenship rules. That would require statutory action. The Court code stop that and leave the questions about the 14th Amendment for another time. That is, not decide whether CONGRESS can change the rules.

Trump gets 2 votes at most is my prediction*

Posted by Potomac <iframe src='https://members.boardhost.com/onedeuce/info/user=Potomac' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on April 1, 2026, 17:57:59, in reply to "How did the birthright citizenship hearing go? Upon reflection if “subject to the jurisdiction "

Previous Message

Not a particularly difficult case legally, IMO. Jackson with a dissent. She believes states can restrict what therapists can say.

As I was looking up the names just yesterday: "per curiam". Unsigned.

Posted by osklister <iframe src='https://members.boardhost.com/onedeuce/info/user=osklister' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on April 2, 2026, 8:53:09, in reply to "Trump gets 2 votes at most is my prediction*"

From AI:

Visibility of Votes: While the author is hidden, the votes of the justices (who dissented or concurred) are often still listed, notes Florida Courts.

Often signed, but maybe this time they leave them off??

Strictly MHO, but I simply can't see them overturning this. Some fun arguments, etc. but at the end of the day nothing will change re: the underlying substance.

dots

Posted by Lexillini <iframe src='https://members.boardhost.com/onedeuce/info/user=Lexillini' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on April 1, 2026, 16:21:57, in reply to "How did the birthright citizenship hearing go? Upon reflection if “subject to the jurisdiction "
weiner sleeve

https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=1512347263783587&set=a.501955888156068

Guns. Have them.

The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants.

Socialism is the gospel of envy.

Advisory Opinions already has a podcast on the oral arguments*

Posted by Potomac <iframe src='https://members.boardhost.com/onedeuce/info/user=Potomac' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on April 1, 2026, 15:50:31, in reply to "How did the birthright citizenship hearing go? Upon reflection if “subject to the jurisdiction "

Previous Message

Not a particularly difficult case legally, IMO. Jackson with a dissent. She believes states can restrict what therapists can say.

the constitutional argument for changing it is not strong; this is not a policy question

Posted by Potomac <iframe src='https://members.boardhost.com/onedeuce/info/user=Potomac' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on April 1, 2026, 15:48:09, in reply to "How did the birthright citizenship hearing go? Upon reflection if “subject to the jurisdiction "

We would be dumb to have this policy if starting from scratch. But we aren't.

it doesn't apply to people here randomly; it's about their offspring

Posted by Potomac <iframe src='https://members.boardhost.com/onedeuce/info/user=Potomac' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on April 1, 2026, 15:16:48, in reply to "How did the birthright citizenship hearing go? Upon reflection if “subject to the jurisdiction "

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

We treat such offspring as capable of being arrested, going to jail, fined, and all that.

Some specific exceptions were written, such as offspring of diplomats and foreign troops, and Indians who were non-citizens and had their own rules at the time. At the time we were killing off so many Indians, they were not considered citizens.

So you're saying that we can't divest Nazis of citizenship if they became naturalized? I didn't

Posted by fratstud <iframe src='https://members.boardhost.com/onedeuce/info/user=fratstud' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on April 1, 2026, 16:28:32, in reply to "it doesn't apply to people here randomly; it's about their offspring"
Go Zags!

realize you were pro Nazi.

Previous Message

"Iowa women were better than Illini men" - Potomac

Uh, that's not a question before the court. But if Nazis had invaded during WW II, no birthright

Posted by Potomac <iframe src='https://members.boardhost.com/onedeuce/info/user=Potomac' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on April 1, 2026, 17:59:41, in reply to "So you're saying that we can't divest Nazis of citizenship if they became naturalized? I didn't "

Foreign invaders in wartime are already explicitly excluded.

How to revoke citizenship, as in the Demjanjuk case years ago, is not relevant.

Merely establishing that strict construction is not the standard with the clause you posted*

Posted by fratstud <iframe src='https://members.boardhost.com/onedeuce/info/user=fratstud' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on April 1, 2026, 18:07:36, in reply to "Uh, that's not a question before the court. But if Nazis had invaded during WW II, no birthright"
Go Zags!

Previous Message

Foreign invaders in wartime are already explicitly excluded.

How to revoke citizenship, as in the Demjanjuk case years ago, is not relevant.

"Iowa women were better than Illini men" - Potomac

Other two liberals in concurrence (quote)

Posted by Potomac <iframe src='https://members.boardhost.com/onedeuce/info/user=Potomac' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on March 31, 2026, 20:45:44, in reply to "SCOTUS strikes down “conversion therapy” bans 8-1"

From WSJ editorial:

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the lone dissenter, frames Colorado’s law as prohibiting merely “a dangerous therapy modality that, incidentally, involves provider speech.” This is deeply unconvincing, and don’t take our word for it: Justice Kagan, in a concurrence joined by Justice Sotomayor, writes that Colorado’s viewpoint discrimination here is so clear that “the case is textbook.”

I said the case was easy enough.

Here’s an example of overreach by Colorado’s law

Posted by Potomac <iframe src='https://members.boardhost.com/onedeuce/info/user=Potomac' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on March 31, 2026, 10:26:10, in reply to "SCOTUS strikes down “conversion therapy” bans 8-1"

Explicitly banned therapeutic sessions where the client wanted help reducing unwanted attraction to another sex. Imagine you are a husband and find yourself with some attraction to a man. You want that to go away or want help keeping your relationship with your wife where you want it.

No dice in this law.

Previous Message

Not a particularly difficult case legally, IMO. Jackson with a dissent. She believes states can restrict what therapists can say.

As soon as I saw it was an 8-1 decision, I knew who the lone dissenter was.

Posted by Lexillini <iframe src='https://members.boardhost.com/onedeuce/info/user=Lexillini' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on March 31, 2026, 10:21:00, in reply to "SCOTUS strikes down “conversion therapy” bans 8-1"

Such a nitwit. She believes that states can restrict what therapists can recommend? Cool. Now do physicians. Discussing abortion with their patients.

Guns. Have them.

The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants.

Socialism is the gospel of envy.

she has a very low iq.*

Posted by arthurkirkland <iframe src='https://members.boardhost.com/onedeuce/info/user=arthurkirkland' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on April 1, 2026, 15:15:17, in reply to "As soon as I saw it was an 8-1 decision, I knew who the lone dissenter was."

Previous Message

Such a nitwit. She believes that states can restrict what therapists can recommend? Cool. Now do physicians. Discussing abortion with their patients.

negative even *

Posted by Giant Dong <iframe src='https://members.boardhost.com/onedeuce/info/user=Giant+Dong' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on April 1, 2026, 16:43:23, in reply to "she has a very low iq.*"
the full 1 cm

Previous Message

Such a nitwit. She believes that states can restrict what therapists can recommend? Cool. Now do physicians. Discussing abortion with their patients.

Ruinis inminentibus musculi praemigrant

how did such a complete dipshit make their way onto the supreme court?

Posted by Giant Dong <iframe src='https://members.boardhost.com/onedeuce/info/user=Giant+Dong' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on March 31, 2026, 19:24:10, in reply to "As soon as I saw it was an 8-1 decision, I knew who the lone dissenter was."
the full 1 cm

oh....

wait...

Ruinis inminentibus musculi praemigrant

It starts with being nominated by a complete dipshit.*

Posted by Lexillini <iframe src='https://members.boardhost.com/onedeuce/info/user=Lexillini' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on April 1, 2026, 11:29:39, in reply to "how did such a complete dipshit make their way onto the supreme court?"
weiner sleeve

Previous Message

oh....

wait...

Guns. Have them.

The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants.

Socialism is the gospel of envy.

I still wonder who was behind the scenes.

Posted by osklister <iframe src='https://members.boardhost.com/onedeuce/info/user=osklister' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on April 1, 2026, 11:41:49, in reply to "It starts with being nominated by a complete dipshit.*"

So many names were mentioned; nobody has ever been ID'd.

Someone named Ron K(?) was a significant candidate, plus various Obama admin vets.

Eh. Their loss on various book deals.

Obama made the call. Like everything else Biden did*

Posted by AceFrehley <iframe src='https://members.boardhost.com/onedeuce/info/user=AceFrehley' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on April 1, 2026, 12:04:59, in reply to "I still wonder who was behind the scenes."

Previous Message

So many names were mentioned; nobody has ever been ID'd.

Someone named Ron K(?) was a significant candidate, plus various Obama admin vets.

Eh. Their loss on various book deals.

Starting point: Poopy Pants pledged to get a black female.

Posted by osklister <iframe src='https://members.boardhost.com/onedeuce/info/user=osklister' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on April 1, 2026, 8:46:07, in reply to "how did such a complete dipshit make their way onto the supreme court?"

Some advisors got to him and told him to go as young as possible, for a lengthy tenure.

Start out with so liberal they squeak, then put all that thru the filters of "who's available" and viola!! Out pops this utter imbecile.

Edit: forgot my main point: is there any way she was on the list of finalists put together by the press, even given the immutable characteristics of black/female/age?

Next time anyone suggests a GOP Pres is packing the court, I have a three-word reply.

Posted by osklister <iframe src='https://members.boardhost.com/onedeuce/info/user=osklister' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on March 31, 2026, 11:45:57, in reply to "As soon as I saw it was an 8-1 decision, I knew who the lone dissenter was."

Ketanji.
Brown.
Shitehead.

COMPLETELY chosen for skin color, sex and young age. And I guarantee she really, really, really thinks the other eight are wrong.

The old curse "may you live in interesting times"??? This era will go down in history (assuming the USA endures, that is).

No. She’s just set to n destroying the country. This is what leftists do*

Posted by AceFrehley <iframe src='https://members.boardhost.com/onedeuce/info/user=AceFrehley' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on March 31, 2026, 11:54:44, in reply to "Next time anyone suggests a GOP Pres is packing the court, I have a three-word reply. "

Previous Message

Ketanji.
Brown.
Shitehead.

COMPLETELY chosen for skin color, sex and young age. And I guarantee she really, really, really thinks the other eight are wrong.

The old curse " may you live in interesting times "??? This era will go down in history (assuming the USA endures, that is).

I'd like to see some research on the U.S. Supreme Court justice who . . .

Posted by Lexillini <iframe src='https://members.boardhost.com/onedeuce/info/user=Lexillini' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on March 31, 2026, 11:49:24, in reply to "Next time anyone suggests a GOP Pres is packing the court, I have a three-word reply. "
weiner sleeve

. . . found himself / herself on the wrong side of 8-1 decisions most often. It's almost certainly not Brown. Yet.

Guns. Have them.

The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants.

Socialism is the gospel of envy.

Just gonna say that it's not her this time, the oddballs are Wise Latina & Kagan.

Posted by osklister <iframe src='https://members.boardhost.com/onedeuce/info/user=osklister' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on March 31, 2026, 12:01:03, in reply to "I'd like to see some research on the U.S. Supreme Court justice who . . ."

When he senses an opportunity to make history, I'd say Roberts will go Crazy Ivan on whatever he writes.

I'd like to see how often the newest imbecile bucks Kagan/Sotomoyer.

Thomas is 30+ over his career*

Posted by Potomac <iframe src='https://members.boardhost.com/onedeuce/info/user=Potomac' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on March 31, 2026, 12:37:07, in reply to "Just gonna say that it's not her this time, the oddballs are Wise Latina & Kagan."

Previous Message

When he senses an opportunity to make history, I'd say Roberts will go Crazy Ivan on whatever he writes.

I'd like to see how often the newest imbecile bucks Kagan/Sotomoyer.

So just to make sure I understand: Thomas has been the "one" on 30+ decisions?

Posted by osklister <iframe src='https://members.boardhost.com/onedeuce/info/user=osklister' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on March 31, 2026, 13:13:47, in reply to "Thomas is 30+ over his career*"

I'd also like to know how often an 8-1 decision is handed down.

Google says around 10% of decisions, and further:

An 8–1 decision usually occurs when the Court agrees on the final result, but one justice disagrees on the legal reasoning or the outcome itself. Although often overlooked for more divisive cases, these decisions are a testament to the court's tendency to build consensus on issues that may not be ideologically charged.

So, whatever.

8-1 in dissent on votes, not separate opinions, which he often does*

Posted by Potomac <iframe src='https://members.boardhost.com/onedeuce/info/user=Potomac' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on March 31, 2026, 15:09:15, in reply to "So just to make sure I understand: Thomas has been the "one" on 30+ decisions?"

Previous Message

That's where I was on 8-1. Gotta be a vote total, not a concurrence. *

Posted by osklister <iframe src='https://members.boardhost.com/onedeuce/info/user=osklister' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on March 31, 2026, 15:19:46, in reply to "8-1 in dissent on votes, not separate opinions, which he often does*"

Not that I'm a legal beagle, mind you...

I've never even been to the Regal Beagle for that matter. ;-)

Did not find anything definitive but FWIW, AI did identify Brown as the current justice . . .

Posted by Lexillini <iframe src='https://members.boardhost.com/onedeuce/info/user=Lexillini' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on March 31, 2026, 12:12:09, in reply to "Just gonna say that it's not her this time, the oddballs are Wise Latina & Kagan."
weiner sleeve

. . . most likely to the lone dissenter.

Historically, it might be John Marshall Harlan.

Guns. Have them.

The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants.

Socialism is the gospel of envy.

« Back to index

171

[ deuce-ish ]