I hope one of the justices questions the implications of suggesting that such people aren’t subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Are they therefore immune from speeding tickets? What about arrest and prosecution for misdemeanor or felony crimes? How can you deport them on the one hand while claiming they’re not subject to your jurisdiction with the other? I am not a lawyer but this seems contradictory.
As a matter of policy, I think children born here, to undocumented residents, should remain citizens.
But people here who have diplomatic immunity, and thus clearly are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, can nevertheless be expelled AKA deported. So if being expellable makes you subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S., everyone is subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. And that goes against precedent
Taking the 14th amendment hyperliterally, and ignoring precedent, you can play around with the words and make them mean what you want.
I believe that people with diplomatic immunity are not actually “expelled” - they are declared to be “Persona non grata” meaning that the host country will no longer accept them as diplomats, and that they need to leave within a defined time or they will cease to have diplomatic immunity and WILL be subject to the jurisdiction of that country.
In an extraordinary display of conflict between the executive and judiciary branches, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts rejected calls for impeaching federal judges shortly after President Donald Trump demanded the removal of a judge who ruled against his deportation plans.
“For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,” Roberts said in a rare statement. “The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”
Yeah, good luck with that, John-boy!
If the MAGA House decides to impeach a judge they have the slimmest of margins to allow them to do it. However, they will never be able to remove them as they lack the votes in the Senate to convict.
That’s true.
But Donald Trump is just as free as I believe I am to exercise his first amendment right to say that a judge should be impeached.
Next time there is a Democratic president and senate, Roberts should be impeached and removed for:
- Swearing in, as president, someone disqualified for the office (14th amendment Section 3).
- Trying to intimidate a citizen — Donald Trump — into giving up their first amendment right to call for a judicial impeachment.
False premise - Trump is not constitutionally ineligible, and it’s not the Chief Justice’s prerogative to decide that.
Trump’s response to Roberts was to essentially repeat the impeachment call:
Does anyone have a plausible idea of where Roberts is coming from here? He can’t be so ill-informed to think he can muzzle Donald Trump. Right?
And would Roberts have said this without getting some sort of verbal OK from at least four other justices?
Last year, when I wrote that SCOTUS should disqualify Trump from running, one objection I remember was that the SCOTUS does not directly act to support and defend the Constitution, but rather only rules on cases. Roberts’ political bomb today seems to argue against that.
As the head of the Judicial Conference of the United States, Roberts may very well feel some responsibility to reduce the likelihood that any of his colleagues are murdered by an unhinged MAGA spurred on by Trump and Musk:
I think it is just BS posturing. With a soupcon of being out of touch. Thinking the Supremes are as “above it all” as in times past. Aiming for a fig leaf, while his corrupt court enables Trump’s worst.
For being so into “history and tradition” they should realize that the Supreme Court hasn’t been above it all since John Marshall.
Hopefully the Court will reject it.
I was surprised that this decision was unanimous:
“. . .To end this crisis, the FDA must deny marketing applications for flavored e-cigarettes and step up enforcement efforts to clear the market of illegal products…”
(Snipped from article)
There’s marketing?
Anyway, I thought flavored vapes were already outlawed? So said the proprietor of my local head shop several weeks ago. I bought some online from a company in S. Carolina. There was a message “we cannot sell flavored vapes in the State of California” , yet they shipped them.
That message suggests that flavored vapes were outlawed in the state of California, while the Supreme Court ruling allows for a national ban.
Makes sense; thanks.
Doesn’t that conflict with the fed’s exclusive right to regulate interstate commerce? That was why the 21st amendment had to make an explicit exception to allow a state to remain dry or to regulate the sale of liquor within its boundaries.
The decision was 5-4.
Let me take a wild guess who the 5 were in this wonderfully impartial, non-political, and totally rational Supreme Court! 