CNN: Trump Dealt A Huge Blow on Issue He's Been Fixated on For Years

[senseandsensibility]

Erin Burnett is going through his years of being "obsessed" with the issue.

So now, faced with that "rebuke" according to CNN, he is telling Congress to end birthright citizenship. He wants to "work around" the SC decision. The guy is such an infant.

Basically, wahhh.....I didn't get my way! Mike Johnson, fix it for me!

I choose to laugh at him because really, it is absolutely nutso and I don't want to ever lose sight of that. In spite of the sanewashing, even CNN is presenting him tonight as loony-tunes. And that's progress.

[BlueKota]

1. Unfortunately the progess will be undone when

Paramount Plus takes over CNN

[senseandsensibility]

2. When is that official?

I was thinking that it already happened.

[BlueKota]

6. According to Google it is supposed to happen either at the end of this year or

early next year. While the sycophants in the Justice Department gave the merger the go ahead, some state's Attorney Generals are suing because they are concerned about lack of competition causing higher fees for consumers. The British Government also have several regulatory agencies, who have announced they would like to hold hearings fearing lack of media diversity especially where CNN is concerned.

It seems most experts think it's still likely to be given the go ahead, but will just be delayed. I am still hoping someone finds away to stop it. Keeping my fingers crossed it will get delayed to the point where it's too costly, and both sides will back out of the deal.

[Amaryllis]

7. Do the Brits have any regulatory ability over US media????

[BlueKota]

10. They don't have any control of US Television, but

In order to receive permission to stream in Britain though, they will need the regulators agreement . If they were to continue to drag the process out, and the cost of delays become too expensive, the thought is Paramount may get frustrated and drop their bid entirely.

[bucolic_frolic]

3. He has complete immunity. He'll just ignore the ruling.

[Baitball Blogger]

4. I wonder if Clarence Thomas went to Mike Johnson to give him legal advice on how to get what he wants.

At this point, when you have such a compromised Court, they can describe the legal points in a case that will fast-track a case to the Court. And the Republicans can make it happen by creating a case for the lower courts to rule on.

I bet that John Grisham would pay for the tip. Anyone know Grisham's number?

[Wiz Imp]

8. Um, why would Clarence Thomas be able to advise anyone on this case?

His side lost. A majority upheld the Constitution. They said ending birthright citizenship was unconstiutional. Any legislation would be struck down by that same 5 person majority. As long as those 5 Justices remain on the court, Birthright citizenship is 100% safe.

[Baitball Blogger]

9. Nope, nope. Let me try to explain.

The topic he's coming to converse with Mike Johnson might be something all together different than the citizenship issue. I was just thinking how, generally, there are cases that come up on their own where lawyers take an interest in representing pro bono because the results will favor another client of their or even themselves.

For example, and this is a true story, there was a local property rights lawyer who tried to assemble a group of us mutts so we could help him in changing the local and state laws. He gave us three examples. One of them involved helping ordinary people who just want to develop their lands but they can't do it because of the wetland laws. What he wanted us to do is scour newspapers to come up with homeowners who were having these problems, then he would sweep in and help them with a pro bono case.

Never went back after that because I could see right through him. See, the guy was also a commercial developer who happened to butt heads with the SJWMD (Water district) because he didn't believe that government should interfere with a private property owner's right to develop land. What he had to gain was obvious. If he could protect the rights of an ordinary homeowner, then whatever gain he made in changing the law, would also apply to him.

Because of that experience I am bitter about the Dem activists in our community, because they are no where as focused and committed in fighting back through the courts. (Well, until now, of course since it's the only option left). Before, what they did was get involved after that fact, when it really is too late to do anything about the situation. They always seem to wait for the perfect case, fearing that a bad case will just set a precedent that will be harder to overturn later. Probably true, but they should try anyways.

Now, what does this have to do with Clarence Thomas? Imagine a Supreme Court justice sharing information so someone could willfully create a case that has all the legal prongs that would make it possible to convince the other conservatives on the court? It only takes one good case to set precedent.

[malaise]

5. The perf3ct 250th anniversary present

for a woman-hating racist fascist scumbag