historian said:

---

That did not stop the fascists in 2020 and no doubt they tried again in 2024. I suspect they have been using illegals for their voting fraud schemes for many years. The difference is we are learning more about it now.

It's probably why they were so shocked by the 2016 results: they knew the gif was in and for not realize real voters would outpace their fraud. The 2020 fraud was a much greater effort which is why it succeeded and also why it came to light: more obvious, more evidence, fewer people believing the lies.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

The president is most definitely following the law, especially the constitution. It's the rogue judges who are violating the law and the constitution in a coup attempt. According to the constitution, the "Supreme Law of the land", one could reasonably argue that what they are doing is treason.

---

He's violating the Constitution in particular by refusing to recognize birthright citizenship.

---

Uh, no, counsellor. Wrong again.

We were NOT taught that in the class about citizenship. US Dept of State official position (Reagan/Bush era) was that the Constitution was unclear on that question and that law was being enforced under expansive bureaucratic discretion = better to err on the side of extending citizenship to someone who might not be entitled to it than to risk denying it to anyone who was.

Trump is merely choosing to end that (longstanding bipartisan) discretion and force SCOTUS to rule on the question.

I anticipate possibly 4-5 votes against him. Conceivably even a sixth.


I think he is right on the law itself but center-conservatives will be leery of going along with him, more respectful of tradition and worrying about opening a can of endless denaturalization processes.

---

The Supreme Court is the authority, not the State Department, and SCOTUS has long since ruled on the issue. If Trump brings it to them again, he'll be asking for a change to settled law.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

gtownbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

The president is most definitely following the law, especially the constitution. It's the rogue judges who are violating the law and the constitution in a coup attempt. According to the constitution, the "Supreme Law of the land", one could reasonably argue that what they are doing is treason.

---

He's violating the Constitution in particular by refusing to recognize birthright citizenship.

---

I don't think he has deported anyone under Birthright Citizenship according to Reuters. So he hasn't violated the Constitution if this is accurate. https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/trump-lawyer-says-no-immediate-deportations-under-birthright-citizenship-order-2025-06-30/

---

That's beside the point. Denying citizenship violates the Constitution whether or not the person is deported.

---

That's just silly Sam. If no one has been deported, he hasn't violated the Constitution. Your words, not mine
"He's violating the Constitution in particular by refusing to recognize birthright citizenship."

---

So if the president signs an order taking away your citizenship, that is constitutional as far as you're concerned?

---

He knows it will go before the Supreme Court. They will interpret the Constitution, not you. Your record is not good on it.

---

If you're talking about birthright citizenship, the Court decided that issue a long time ago. But that's not what I asked you. Are you saying the president could take away your citizenship and it would be constitutional as long as you weren't deported?

---

I'm replying that until it actually happens, it's moot. He hasn't deported anyone under that rule. Your fanatical liberal buddy judges have seen to that, which I'm pretty sure he expected. Trump wanted this to go to SCOTUS. They've already ruled that the Federal Judges cant touch this. The rule was put in place for slaves after the Civil War, not for use for Anchor Babies. Your boys have misused it for too long

---

What about losing your right to vote? Still no problem?

---

The 14th Amendment was passed to give citizenship to emancipated slaves after the Civil War. It certainly was not for pregnant women at the end of their term to plan trips to the U.S. so they could have their baby in our country and thus become a citizen. Or for illegals breaking into the country to do the same. This amendment was not meant for the purpose it is used for now.

Is The Founders Intent For Birthright Citizenship Misunderstood? U.S. Constitution.net

---

Tell it to SCOTUS. They've disagreed for over a century, but maybe with the Trump Court things will change.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

historian said:

---

Sam's definition of birthright citizenship is not definitive. It's not even sound. It's very debatable. One thing that is certain: those who drafted the 14th amendment did NOT write it to help foreign criminals evade our laws & steal from Americans.

---

I think Trump is bringing it up now so that we can send the ILLEGAL aliens home and not use the kids as anchor babies. If that happens, then I think he will relent, let them stay. Once their parents are gone, the liberals will give up the fight as their plans have been foiled. Then, they will not give a damn about birthright citizenship anymore

---

But unlike their parents, the kids will have the right to vote. Once they're separated from their families, who's going to raise them and make sure they learn to vote the right way?

---

Hey, your guys screwed this up. You find a fix.

---

This is your idea we're talking about. The parents can already be sent home if they're here illegally, so what exactly are you trying to achieve?

---

The term "anchor child," and later "anchor baby," was used to describe Vietnamese immigrants who arrived in the US as children, with the understanding that they would eventually be able to sponsor their families for citizenship. The idea became misused with the connection to the 14th Amendment by Democrats with the influx of illegal aliens under George Soros direction during this century. You broke it, you guys fix it.

---

I don't know why you keep saying we broke it. You're the one who's been known to vote Democrat, not me.

The fact remains that anchor babies don't keep their parents from being deported. So is Trump trashing the Constitution just for the fun of it, or is there some part of his master plan that you haven't explained yet?

---

First of all, I've never been the one supporting far left Democrat ideas, have I? Look in the mirror...

Second, the idea that anchor babies keep their parents from getting deported is a liberal concept and hope. Their next step is to make those criminal illegals voters, much like they want current prisoners to vote. Under that hope, you know what will happen. The next head count gives the Left, your Left, massive numerical increases in the House and changes US politics for the next half century. Why do you insist on that? happening?

---

Even if they're not deported, how are criminal illegals going to become voters? You have to be a citizen to vote in federal or state elections.

---

As I said, that is "Their next step is to make those criminal illegals voters, much like they want current prisoners to vote."

---

That's much easier said than done. Without a complete overhaul of existing law at the federal, state, and local levels, you haven't shown any pressing need to disregard the Constitution, much less any justification for doing so.

---

So what you are saying, the Liberal Democrats can have a plan in place and Conservative Republicans can't?

---

Sure, the Republicans can have a plan. The Democratic plan you're describing would require major legislative initiatives, working within the system, to effect change at all levels, with the support of the public. You're free and encouraged to work in the same way for the policies you believe in and to fight your opponents by all legitimate means. You just don't get to ignore the Constitution.

---

Biden consistently ignored the Constitution by transporting millions of illegals throughout the United States.

You didn't seem to worry much about it.

---

He deported them in record numbers, and unlike Trump he actually focused on dangerous criminals instead of workers, parents, and college students.

---

Liar….Biden's NET was a record number of illegals.

Biden's invited millions of illegals with the promise of 'free' food, medical care , and housing. A message anyone with the least amount of common sense immediately realized would thrill the underemployed throngs in Central America and South America.

Millions were not only allowed to enter the country unvetted; but Biden provided transportation.

Biden's actions were an unprecedented attack on the vary country he was sworn to defend.

---

There were more people fleeing Central and South America for various reasons. They would probably disagree that Biden invited them or that they were simply "allowed" to enter the country.

In any case, the Constitution says nothing about how many immigrants may or may not be admitted.

---

Liar

Biden publicly announced his intention to not only 'allow' illegals into to US…..in direct violation of federal immigration laws …..


He announced that 'free' food, healthcare and housing would be provided.


The response of millions was easily predictable.

---

Well, maybe you're right and I just didn't see the announcement. Hopefully you won't mind providing it.

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

gtownbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

The president is most definitely following the law, especially the constitution. It's the rogue judges who are violating the law and the constitution in a coup attempt. According to the constitution, the "Supreme Law of the land", one could reasonably argue that what they are doing is treason.

---

He's violating the Constitution in particular by refusing to recognize birthright citizenship.

---

I don't think he has deported anyone under Birthright Citizenship according to Reuters. So he hasn't violated the Constitution if this is accurate. https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/trump-lawyer-says-no-immediate-deportations-under-birthright-citizenship-order-2025-06-30/

---

That's beside the point. Denying citizenship violates the Constitution whether or not the person is deported.

---

That's just silly Sam. If no one has been deported, he hasn't violated the Constitution. Your words, not mine
"He's violating the Constitution in particular by refusing to recognize birthright citizenship."

---

So if the president signs an order taking away your citizenship, that is constitutional as far as you're concerned?

---

He knows it will go before the Supreme Court. They will interpret the Constitution, not you. Your record is not good on it.

---

If you're talking about birthright citizenship, the Court decided that issue a long time ago. But that's not what I asked you. Are you saying the president could take away your citizenship and it would be constitutional as long as you weren't deported?

---

I'm replying that until it actually happens, it's moot. He hasn't deported anyone under that rule. Your fanatical liberal buddy judges have seen to that, which I'm pretty sure he expected. Trump wanted this to go to SCOTUS. They've already ruled that the Federal Judges cant touch this. The rule was put in place for slaves after the Civil War, not for use for Anchor Babies. Your boys have misused it for too long

---

What about losing your right to vote? Still no problem?

---

The 14th Amendment was passed to give citizenship to emancipated slaves after the Civil War. It certainly was not for pregnant women at the end of their term to plan trips to the U.S. so they could have their baby in our country and thus become a citizen. Or for illegals breaking into the country to do the same. This amendment was not meant for the purpose it is used for now.

Is The Founders Intent For Birthright Citizenship Misunderstood? U.S. Constitution.net

---

Tell it to SCOTUS. They've disagreed for over a century, but maybe with the Trump Court things will change.

---

Wrong. SCOTUS has never ruled on the status of US-born children of ILLEGAL aliens.

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

historian said:

---

Sam's definition of birthright citizenship is not definitive. It's not even sound. It's very debatable. One thing that is certain: those who drafted the 14th amendment did NOT write it to help foreign criminals evade our laws & steal from Americans.

---

I think Trump is bringing it up now so that we can send the ILLEGAL aliens home and not use the kids as anchor babies. If that happens, then I think he will relent, let them stay. Once their parents are gone, the liberals will give up the fight as their plans have been foiled. Then, they will not give a damn about birthright citizenship anymore

---

But unlike their parents, the kids will have the right to vote. Once they're separated from their families, who's going to raise them and make sure they learn to vote the right way?

---

Hey, your guys screwed this up. You find a fix.

---

This is your idea we're talking about. The parents can already be sent home if they're here illegally, so what exactly are you trying to achieve?

---

The term "anchor child," and later "anchor baby," was used to describe Vietnamese immigrants who arrived in the US as children, with the understanding that they would eventually be able to sponsor their families for citizenship. The idea became misused with the connection to the 14th Amendment by Democrats with the influx of illegal aliens under George Soros direction during this century. You broke it, you guys fix it.

---

I don't know why you keep saying we broke it. You're the one who's been known to vote Democrat, not me.

The fact remains that anchor babies don't keep their parents from being deported. So is Trump trashing the Constitution just for the fun of it, or is there some part of his master plan that you haven't explained yet?

---

First of all, I've never been the one supporting far left Democrat ideas, have I? Look in the mirror...

Second, the idea that anchor babies keep their parents from getting deported is a liberal concept and hope. Their next step is to make those criminal illegals voters, much like they want current prisoners to vote. Under that hope, you know what will happen. The next head count gives the Left, your Left, massive numerical increases in the House and changes US politics for the next half century. Why do you insist on that? happening?

---

Even if they're not deported, how are criminal illegals going to become voters? You have to be a citizen to vote in federal or state elections.

---

As I said, that is "Their next step is to make those criminal illegals voters, much like they want current prisoners to vote."

---

That's much easier said than done. Without a complete overhaul of existing law at the federal, state, and local levels, you haven't shown any pressing need to disregard the Constitution, much less any justification for doing so.

---

So what you are saying, the Liberal Democrats can have a plan in place and Conservative Republicans can't?

---

Sure, the Republicans can have a plan. The Democratic plan you're describing would require major legislative initiatives, working within the system, to effect change at all levels, with the support of the public. You're free and encouraged to work in the same way for the policies you believe in and to fight your opponents by all legitimate means. You just don't get to ignore the Constitution.

---

Biden consistently ignored the Constitution by transporting millions of illegals throughout the United States.

You didn't seem to worry much about it.

---

He deported them in record numbers, and unlike Trump he actually focused on dangerous criminals instead of workers, parents, and college students.

---

Liar….Biden's NET was a record number of illegals.

Biden's invited millions of illegals with the promise of 'free' food, medical care , and housing. A message anyone with the least amount of common sense immediately realized would thrill the underemployed throngs in Central America and South America.

Millions were not only allowed to enter the country unvetted; but Biden provided transportation.

Biden's actions were an unprecedented attack on the vary country he was sworn to defend.

---

There were more people fleeing Central and South America for various reasons. They would probably disagree that Biden invited them or that they were simply "allowed" to enter the country.

In any case, the Constitution says nothing about how many immigrants may or may not be admitted.

---

Liar

Biden publicly announced his intention to not only 'allow' illegals into to US…..in direct violation of federal immigration laws …..


He announced that 'free' food, healthcare and housing would be provided.


The response of millions was easily predictable.

---

Well, maybe you're right and I just didn't see the announcement. Hopefully you won't mind providing it.

---

Look it up yourself .

He made several comments reflecting his position.

All in violation of federal immigration laws.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

As I said, that is "Their next step is to make those criminal illegals voters, much like they want current prisoners to vote."

---

That's much easier said than done. Without a complete overhaul of existing law at the federal, state, and local levels, you haven't shown any pressing need to disregard the Constitution, much less any justification for doing so.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

historian said:

---

Sam's definition of birthright citizenship is not definitive. It's not even sound. It's very debatable. One thing that is certain: those who drafted the 14th amendment did NOT write it to help foreign criminals evade our laws & steal from Americans.

---

I think Trump is bringing it up now so that we can send the ILLEGAL aliens home and not use the kids as anchor babies. If that happens, then I think he will relent, let them stay. Once their parents are gone, the liberals will give up the fight as their plans have been foiled. Then, they will not give a damn about birthright citizenship anymore

---

But unlike their parents, the kids will have the right to vote. Once they're separated from their families, who's going to raise them and make sure they learn to vote the right way?

---

Hey, your guys screwed this up. You find a fix.

---

This is your idea we're talking about. The parents can already be sent home if they're here illegally, so what exactly are you trying to achieve?

---

The term "anchor child," and later "anchor baby," was used to describe Vietnamese immigrants who arrived in the US as children, with the understanding that they would eventually be able to sponsor their families for citizenship. The idea became misused with the connection to the 14th Amendment by Democrats with the influx of illegal aliens under George Soros direction during this century. You broke it, you guys fix it.

---

I don't know why you keep saying we broke it. You're the one who's been known to vote Democrat, not me.

The fact remains that anchor babies don't keep their parents from being deported. So is Trump trashing the Constitution just for the fun of it, or is there some part of his master plan that you haven't explained yet?

---

First of all, I've never been the one supporting far left Democrat ideas, have I? Look in the mirror...

Second, the idea that anchor babies keep their parents from getting deported is a liberal concept and hope. Their next step is to make those criminal illegals voters, much like they want current prisoners to vote. Under that hope, you know what will happen. The next head count gives the Left, your Left, massive numerical increases in the House and changes US politics for the next half century. Why do you insist on that? happening?

---

Even if they're not deported, how are criminal illegals going to become voters? You have to be a citizen to vote in federal or state elections.

---

As I said, that is "Their next step is to make those criminal illegals voters, much like they want current prisoners to vote."

---

That's much easier said than done. Without a complete overhaul of existing law at the federal, state, and local levels, you haven't shown any pressing need to disregard the Constitution, much less any justification for doing so.

---

So what you are saying, the Liberal Democrats can have a plan in place and Conservative Republicans can't?

---

Sure, the Republicans can have a plan. The Democratic plan you're describing would require major legislative initiatives, working within the system, to effect change at all levels, with the support of the public. You're free and encouraged to work in the same way for the policies you believe in and to fight your opponents by all legitimate means. You just don't get to ignore the Constitution.

---

Biden consistently ignored the Constitution by transporting millions of illegals throughout the United States.

You didn't seem to worry much about it.

---

He deported them in record numbers, and unlike Trump he actually focused on dangerous criminals instead of workers, parents, and college students.

---

Liar….Biden's NET was a record number of illegals.

Biden's invited millions of illegals with the promise of 'free' food, medical care , and housing. A message anyone with the least amount of common sense immediately realized would thrill the underemployed throngs in Central America and South America.

Millions were not only allowed to enter the country unvetted; but Biden provided transportation.

Biden's actions were an unprecedented attack on the vary country he was sworn to defend.

---

There were more people fleeing Central and South America for various reasons. They would probably disagree that Biden invited them or that they were simply "allowed" to enter the country.

In any case, the Constitution says nothing about how many immigrants may or may not be admitted.

---

Liar

Biden publicly announced his intention to not only 'allow' illegals into to US…..in direct violation of federal immigration laws …..


He announced that 'free' food, healthcare and housing would be provided.


The response of millions was easily predictable.

---

Well, maybe you're right and I just didn't see the announcement. Hopefully you won't mind providing it.

---

Look it up yourself .

He made several comments reflecting his position.

All in violation of federal immigration laws.

---

I guess you couldn't find it either.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

historian said:

---

Sam's definition of birthright citizenship is not definitive. It's not even sound. It's very debatable. One thing that is certain: those who drafted the 14th amendment did NOT write it to help foreign criminals evade our laws & steal from Americans.

---

I think Trump is bringing it up now so that we can send the ILLEGAL aliens home and not use the kids as anchor babies. If that happens, then I think he will relent, let them stay. Once their parents are gone, the liberals will give up the fight as their plans have been foiled. Then, they will not give a damn about birthright citizenship anymore

---

But unlike their parents, the kids will have the right to vote. Once they're separated from their families, who's going to raise them and make sure they learn to vote the right way?

---

Hey, your guys screwed this up. You find a fix.

---

This is your idea we're talking about. The parents can already be sent home if they're here illegally, so what exactly are you trying to achieve?

---

The term "anchor child," and later "anchor baby," was used to describe Vietnamese immigrants who arrived in the US as children, with the understanding that they would eventually be able to sponsor their families for citizenship. The idea became misused with the connection to the 14th Amendment by Democrats with the influx of illegal aliens under George Soros direction during this century. You broke it, you guys fix it.

---

I don't know why you keep saying we broke it. You're the one who's been known to vote Democrat, not me.

The fact remains that anchor babies don't keep their parents from being deported. So is Trump trashing the Constitution just for the fun of it, or is there some part of his master plan that you haven't explained yet?

---

First of all, I've never been the one supporting far left Democrat ideas, have I? Look in the mirror...

Second, the idea that anchor babies keep their parents from getting deported is a liberal concept and hope. Their next step is to make those criminal illegals voters, much like they want current prisoners to vote. Under that hope, you know what will happen. The next head count gives the Left, your Left, massive numerical increases in the House and changes US politics for the next half century. Why do you insist on that? happening?

---

Even if they're not deported, how are criminal illegals going to become voters? You have to be a citizen to vote in federal or state elections.

---

As I said, that is "Their next step is to make those criminal illegals voters, much like they want current prisoners to vote."

---

That's much easier said than done. Without a complete overhaul of existing law at the federal, state, and local levels, you haven't shown any pressing need to disregard the Constitution, much less any justification for doing so.

---

So what you are saying, the Liberal Democrats can have a plan in place and Conservative Republicans can't?

---

Sure, the Republicans can have a plan. The Democratic plan you're describing would require major legislative initiatives, working within the system, to effect change at all levels, with the support of the public. You're free and encouraged to work in the same way for the policies you believe in and to fight your opponents by all legitimate means. You just don't get to ignore the Constitution.

---

Biden consistently ignored the Constitution by transporting millions of illegals throughout the United States.

You didn't seem to worry much about it.

---

He deported them in record numbers, and unlike Trump he actually focused on dangerous criminals instead of workers, parents, and college students.

---

Liar….Biden's NET was a record number of illegals.

Biden's invited millions of illegals with the promise of 'free' food, medical care , and housing. A message anyone with the least amount of common sense immediately realized would thrill the underemployed throngs in Central America and South America.

Millions were not only allowed to enter the country unvetted; but Biden provided transportation.

Biden's actions were an unprecedented attack on the vary country he was sworn to defend.

---

There were more people fleeing Central and South America for various reasons. They would probably disagree that Biden invited them or that they were simply "allowed" to enter the country.

In any case, the Constitution says nothing about how many immigrants may or may not be admitted.

---

Liar

Biden publicly announced his intention to not only 'allow' illegals into to US…..in direct violation of federal immigration laws …..


He announced that 'free' food, healthcare and housing would be provided.


The response of millions was easily predictable.

---

Well, maybe you're right and I just didn't see the announcement. Hopefully you won't mind providing it.

---

Look it up yourself .

He made several comments reflecting his position.

All in violation of federal immigration laws.

---

I guess you couldn't find it either.

---

BREAKING: We are with hundreds of federal agents and military as a massive federal immigration enforcement operation is underway in the MacArthur Park area of the sanctuary city of Los Angeles, an area with heavy MS-13 influence. Mayor Bass has demanded raids stop, Feds respond… pic.twitter.com/g4osPOL6mr

— Bill Melugin (@BillMelugin_) July 7, 2025

🚨 JUST NOW: Federal Judge Indira Talwani blocks the Big Beautiful Law's defunding of Planned Parenthood under Medicaid. pic.twitter.com/cd0PMhNxgL

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) July 7, 2025

Assassin said:

---

BREAKING: We are with hundreds of federal agents and military as a massive federal immigration enforcement operation is underway in the MacArthur Park area of the sanctuary city of Los Angeles, an area with heavy MS-13 influence. Mayor Bass has demanded raids stop, Feds respond… pic.twitter.com/g4osPOL6mr

— Bill Melugin (@BillMelugin_) July 7, 2025

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

🚨 JUST NOW: Federal Judge Indira Talwani blocks the Big Beautiful Law's defunding of Planned Parenthood under Medicaid. pic.twitter.com/cd0PMhNxgL

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) July 7, 2025

---

Assassin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

🚨 JUST NOW: Federal Judge Indira Talwani blocks the Big Beautiful Law's defunding of Planned Parenthood under Medicaid. pic.twitter.com/cd0PMhNxgL

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) July 7, 2025

---

That won't take long to overcome. And the Supreme Court is getting more and more pissed off at all this crap

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

🚨 JUST NOW: Federal Judge Indira Talwani blocks the Big Beautiful Law's defunding of Planned Parenthood under Medicaid. pic.twitter.com/cd0PMhNxgL

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) July 7, 2025

---

That won't take long to overcome. And the Supreme Court is getting more and more pissed off at all this crap

---

Can SCOTUS charge a district judge with contempt of court?

---

Assassin said:

---

BREAKING: We are with hundreds of federal agents and military as a massive federal immigration enforcement operation is underway in the MacArthur Park area of the sanctuary city of Los Angeles, an area with heavy MS-13 influence. Mayor Bass has demanded raids stop, Feds respond… pic.twitter.com/g4osPOL6mr

— Bill Melugin (@BillMelugin_) July 7, 2025

---

gtownbear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

BREAKING: We are with hundreds of federal agents and military as a massive federal immigration enforcement operation is underway in the MacArthur Park area of the sanctuary city of Los Angeles, an area with heavy MS-13 influence. Mayor Bass has demanded raids stop, Feds respond… pic.twitter.com/g4osPOL6mr

— Bill Melugin (@BillMelugin_) July 7, 2025

---

What Biden and his radicals did to this country is so much worse than I thought. The good lives that will have to be sacrificed to salvage this country will unfortunately be many. I now believe the invasion was over 20,000,000.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

🚨 JUST NOW: Federal Judge Indira Talwani blocks the Big Beautiful Law's defunding of Planned Parenthood under Medicaid. pic.twitter.com/cd0PMhNxgL

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) July 7, 2025

---

That won't take long to overcome. And the Supreme Court is getting more and more pissed off at all this crap

---

Can SCOTUS charge a district judge with contempt of court?

---

Assassin said:

---

gtownbear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

BREAKING: We are with hundreds of federal agents and military as a massive federal immigration enforcement operation is underway in the MacArthur Park area of the sanctuary city of Los Angeles, an area with heavy MS-13 influence. Mayor Bass has demanded raids stop, Feds respond… pic.twitter.com/g4osPOL6mr

— Bill Melugin (@BillMelugin_) July 7, 2025

---

What Biden and his radicals did to this country is so much worse than I thought. The good lives that will have to be sacrificed to salvage this country will unfortunately be many. I now believe the invasion was over 20,000,000.

---

And total illegals in the USA is closer to 50 million

---

🚨LA Mayor Karen Bass is trying to stop a federal immigration raid: "THEY NEED TO IMMEDIATELY LEAVE, NOW"

pic.twitter.com/JvU1NigVqA

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) July 7, 2025

NEW: I just spoke to Border Patrol Chief Gregory Bovino @USBPChiefELC, who was the official on the phone with LA Mayor Karen Bass at MacArthur Park today. I asked him for his message to her, as she demands raids end?

“I don’t work for Karen Bass. Better get used to us now, cause…

— Bill Melugin (@BillMelugin_) July 7, 2025

Assassin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

🚨 JUST NOW: Federal Judge Indira Talwani blocks the Big Beautiful Law's defunding of Planned Parenthood under Medicaid. pic.twitter.com/cd0PMhNxgL

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) July 7, 2025

---

That won't take long to overcome. And the Supreme Court is getting more and more pissed off at all this crap

---

KaiBear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

🚨 JUST NOW: Federal Judge Indira Talwani blocks the Big Beautiful Law's defunding of Planned Parenthood under Medicaid. pic.twitter.com/cd0PMhNxgL

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) July 7, 2025

---

That won't take long to overcome. And the Supreme Court is getting more and more pissed off at all this crap

---

Born overseas; graduated from Berkeley, apponted to the bench by Obama.

Anyone surprised by her efforts ?

---

Assassin said:

---

NEW: I just spoke to Border Patrol Chief Gregory Bovino @USBPChiefELC, who was the official on the phone with LA Mayor Karen Bass at MacArthur Park today. I asked him for his message to her, as she demands raids end?

“I don’t work for Karen Bass. Better get used to us now, cause…

— Bill Melugin (@BillMelugin_) July 7, 2025

---

Assassin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

🚨 JUST NOW: Federal Judge Indira Talwani blocks the Big Beautiful Law's defunding of Planned Parenthood under Medicaid. pic.twitter.com/cd0PMhNxgL

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) July 7, 2025

---

That won't take long to overcome. And the Supreme Court is getting more and more pissed off at all this crap

---

Born overseas; graduated from Berkeley, apponted to the bench by Obama.

Anyone surprised by her efforts ?

---

Surprised by another overstepping the bounds of their jurisdiction after the door slamming of the last Supreme Court decision. At some point it either has to stop or their might be a judicial uprising of some sort

---

Assassin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

🚨 JUST NOW: Federal Judge Indira Talwani blocks the Big Beautiful Law's defunding of Planned Parenthood under Medicaid. pic.twitter.com/cd0PMhNxgL

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) July 7, 2025

---

That won't take long to overcome. And the Supreme Court is getting more and more pissed off at all this crap

---

Born overseas; graduated from Berkeley, apponted to the bench by Obama.

Anyone surprised by her efforts ?

---

Surprised by another overstepping the bounds of their jurisdiction after the door slamming of the last Supreme Court decision. At some point it either has to stop or their might be a judicial uprising of some sort

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

🚨 JUST NOW: Federal Judge Indira Talwani blocks the Big Beautiful Law's defunding of Planned Parenthood under Medicaid. pic.twitter.com/cd0PMhNxgL

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) July 7, 2025

---

That won't take long to overcome. And the Supreme Court is getting more and more pissed off at all this crap

---

Born overseas; graduated from Berkeley, apponted to the bench by Obama.

Anyone surprised by her efforts ?

---

Surprised by another overstepping the bounds of their jurisdiction after the door slamming of the last Supreme Court decision. At some point it either has to stop or their might be a judicial uprising of some sort

---

What overstepping? The Supreme Court didn't say there could be no injunctions.

---

gtownbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

🚨 JUST NOW: Federal Judge Indira Talwani blocks the Big Beautiful Law's defunding of Planned Parenthood under Medicaid. pic.twitter.com/cd0PMhNxgL

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) July 7, 2025

---

That won't take long to overcome. And the Supreme Court is getting more and more pissed off at all this crap

---

Born overseas; graduated from Berkeley, apponted to the bench by Obama.

Anyone surprised by her efforts ?

---

Surprised by another overstepping the bounds of their jurisdiction after the door slamming of the last Supreme Court decision. At some point it either has to stop or their might be a judicial uprising of some sort

---

What overstepping? The Supreme Court didn't say there could be no injunctions.

---

Sam,

How can you continue to defend the indefensible? The Supreme Court has indicated that they are issuing injunctions in areas reserved to the Executive and Legislative Branches of Government. This is not their function as judges. They are to make these rulings in cases where either Executive actions or Legislative actions take away freedoms granted by our Constitution. But these radical judges are issuing injunctions on basic policy decisions that the Executive Branch and Legislative Branch are entitled to make. The voters then decide whether these decisions are correct or not at the ballot box.

So these judges are completely off base in issuing these injunctions and the Supreme Court has told them so, but in my opinion not strongly enough. They should come down harder on these judges that are placing the respect for the entire judiciary at risk. If not, the legislature should come in and eliminate these abusers to set the system straight.

---

gtownbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

🚨 JUST NOW: Federal Judge Indira Talwani blocks the Big Beautiful Law's defunding of Planned Parenthood under Medicaid. pic.twitter.com/cd0PMhNxgL

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) July 7, 2025

---

That won't take long to overcome. And the Supreme Court is getting more and more pissed off at all this crap

---

Born overseas; graduated from Berkeley, apponted to the bench by Obama.

Anyone surprised by her efforts ?

---

Surprised by another overstepping the bounds of their jurisdiction after the door slamming of the last Supreme Court decision. At some point it either has to stop or their might be a judicial uprising of some sort

---

What overstepping? The Supreme Court didn't say there could be no injunctions.

---

Sam,

How can you continue to defend the indefensible? The Supreme Court has indicated that they are issuing injunctions in areas reserved to the Executive and Legislative Branches of Government. This is not their function as judges. They are to make these rulings in cases where either Executive actions or Legislative actions take away freedoms granted by our Constitution. But these radical judges are issuing injunctions on basic policy decisions that the Executive Branch and Legislative Branch are entitled to make. The voters then decide whether these decisions are correct or not at the ballot box.

So these judges are completely off base in issuing these injunctions and the Supreme Court has told them so, but in my opinion not strongly enough. They should come down harder on these judges that are placing the respect for the entire judiciary at risk. If not, the legislature should come in and eliminate these abusers to set the system straight.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

gtownbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

🚨 JUST NOW: Federal Judge Indira Talwani blocks the Big Beautiful Law's defunding of Planned Parenthood under Medicaid. pic.twitter.com/cd0PMhNxgL

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) July 7, 2025

---

That won't take long to overcome. And the Supreme Court is getting more and more pissed off at all this crap

---

Born overseas; graduated from Berkeley, apponted to the bench by Obama.

Anyone surprised by her efforts ?

---

Surprised by another overstepping the bounds of their jurisdiction after the door slamming of the last Supreme Court decision. At some point it either has to stop or their might be a judicial uprising of some sort

---

What overstepping? The Supreme Court didn't say there could be no injunctions.

---

Sam,

How can you continue to defend the indefensible? The Supreme Court has indicated that they are issuing injunctions in areas reserved to the Executive and Legislative Branches of Government. This is not their function as judges. They are to make these rulings in cases where either Executive actions or Legislative actions take away freedoms granted by our Constitution. But these radical judges are issuing injunctions on basic policy decisions that the Executive Branch and Legislative Branch are entitled to make. The voters then decide whether these decisions are correct or not at the ballot box.

So these judges are completely off base in issuing these injunctions and the Supreme Court has told them so, but in my opinion not strongly enough. They should come down harder on these judges that are placing the respect for the entire judiciary at risk. If not, the legislature should come in and eliminate these abusers to set the system straight.

---

All I can tell you is that none of that happened. I assume it's a narrative that's going around social media. The Court simply rejected so-called universal injunctions.

---

Assassin said:

---

gtownbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

🚨 JUST NOW: Federal Judge Indira Talwani blocks the Big Beautiful Law's defunding of Planned Parenthood under Medicaid. pic.twitter.com/cd0PMhNxgL

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) July 7, 2025

---

That won't take long to overcome. And the Supreme Court is getting more and more pissed off at all this crap

---

Born overseas; graduated from Berkeley, apponted to the bench by Obama.

Anyone surprised by her efforts ?

---

Surprised by another overstepping the bounds of their jurisdiction after the door slamming of the last Supreme Court decision. At some point it either has to stop or their might be a judicial uprising of some sort

---

What overstepping? The Supreme Court didn't say there could be no injunctions.

---

Sam,

How can you continue to defend the indefensible? The Supreme Court has indicated that they are issuing injunctions in areas reserved to the Executive and Legislative Branches of Government. This is not their function as judges. They are to make these rulings in cases where either Executive actions or Legislative actions take away freedoms granted by our Constitution. But these radical judges are issuing injunctions on basic policy decisions that the Executive Branch and Legislative Branch are entitled to make. The voters then decide whether these decisions are correct or not at the ballot box.

So these judges are completely off base in issuing these injunctions and the Supreme Court has told them so, but in my opinion not strongly enough. They should come down harder on these judges that are placing the respect for the entire judiciary at risk. If not, the legislature should come in and eliminate these abusers to set the system straight.

---

They are truly overstepping their powers, trying to slow Trump down to the midterms, then pray that the House changes hands and try to limit him from there

---

canoso said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

gtownbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

🚨 JUST NOW: Federal Judge Indira Talwani blocks the Big Beautiful Law's defunding of Planned Parenthood under Medicaid. pic.twitter.com/cd0PMhNxgL

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) July 7, 2025

---

That won't take long to overcome. And the Supreme Court is getting more and more pissed off at all this crap

---

Born overseas; graduated from Berkeley, apponted to the bench by Obama.

Anyone surprised by her efforts ?

---

Surprised by another overstepping the bounds of their jurisdiction after the door slamming of the last Supreme Court decision. At some point it either has to stop or their might be a judicial uprising of some sort

---

What overstepping? The Supreme Court didn't say there could be no injunctions.

---

Sam,

How can you continue to defend the indefensible? The Supreme Court has indicated that they are issuing injunctions in areas reserved to the Executive and Legislative Branches of Government. This is not their function as judges. They are to make these rulings in cases where either Executive actions or Legislative actions take away freedoms granted by our Constitution. But these radical judges are issuing injunctions on basic policy decisions that the Executive Branch and Legislative Branch are entitled to make. The voters then decide whether these decisions are correct or not at the ballot box.

So these judges are completely off base in issuing these injunctions and the Supreme Court has told them so, but in my opinion not strongly enough. They should come down harder on these judges that are placing the respect for the entire judiciary at risk. If not, the legislature should come in and eliminate these abusers to set the system straight.

---

All I can tell you is that none of that happened. I assume it's a narrative that's going around social media. The Court simply rejected so-called universal injunctions.

---

Which is what most, if not all, of the ones issued since the SC ruling clearly are. They are thus null and void anywhere outside the district in which they were issued.

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mass deportations will save trillions in Medicare alone.

Have you and Rand Paul never been to an emergency room? Illegals use it as free healthcare.

Republicans would have 40 more seats if illegals weren’t counted in the census.

Mass deportations now! https://t.co/HGKIuogJbI

— Cernovich (@Cernovich) June 9, 2025

---

canoso said:

---

Assassin said:

---

gtownbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

🚨 JUST NOW: Federal Judge Indira Talwani blocks the Big Beautiful Law's defunding of Planned Parenthood under Medicaid. pic.twitter.com/cd0PMhNxgL

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) July 7, 2025

---

That won't take long to overcome. And the Supreme Court is getting more and more pissed off at all this crap

---

Born overseas; graduated from Berkeley, apponted to the bench by Obama.

Anyone surprised by her efforts ?

---

Surprised by another overstepping the bounds of their jurisdiction after the door slamming of the last Supreme Court decision. At some point it either has to stop or their might be a judicial uprising of some sort

---

What overstepping? The Supreme Court didn't say there could be no injunctions.

---

Sam,

How can you continue to defend the indefensible? The Supreme Court has indicated that they are issuing injunctions in areas reserved to the Executive and Legislative Branches of Government. This is not their function as judges. They are to make these rulings in cases where either Executive actions or Legislative actions take away freedoms granted by our Constitution. But these radical judges are issuing injunctions on basic policy decisions that the Executive Branch and Legislative Branch are entitled to make. The voters then decide whether these decisions are correct or not at the ballot box.

So these judges are completely off base in issuing these injunctions and the Supreme Court has told them so, but in my opinion not strongly enough. They should come down harder on these judges that are placing the respect for the entire judiciary at risk. If not, the legislature should come in and eliminate these abusers to set the system straight.

---

They are truly overstepping their powers, trying to slow Trump down to the midterms, then pray that the House changes hands and try to limit him from there

---

What they're accomplishing is a Republican supermajority in both houses of Congress in 2026.

---