• aberrate_junior_beatnik@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 days ago

    subject to the jurisdiction thereof

    Personally I think it’s clear but this little clause leaves enough wiggle room for the current supreme court to effectively end it. Again I want to stress that I think it’s ridiculous, but legal reasoning being extremely flimsy hasn’t stopped them yet. Listen to a few five to four podcast episodes and you’ll find flimsier.

    Flood v Kuhn might be the dumbest if not the most egregious decision. Basically professional baseball is immune to antitrust law because … one of the justices really liked it?

    https://shows.acast.com/5-4-premium/episodes/60a43606b9651700192ddc69

    Castle Rock v Gonzalez. Content warning, the circumstances of the case are dark. Basically even if a state law explicitly directs a police officer to protect someone, said officer can just not. No reason required. Because of tradition or some shit

    https://shows.acast.com/5-4-premium/episodes/60a43606b9651700192ddc7d

    To say nothing of cases like Buck v Bell, Plessy v Ferguson, etc.

    • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 days ago

      subject to the jurisdiction thereof

      It will be interesting (and terrifying) to see what kind of legal knots they tie themselves into to argue that immigrants are not subject to the law when it comes to protections but are subject to the law when it comes to enforcement.