That's not how country caps work - the total number of visas aren't rising. Rather, the whole global total of visas issued could now theoretically be issued to people from just one country, rather than a max number placed on certain countries.
This means our visas can be provided more meritocratically and without affirmative action to bring in more "underrepresented" people
But the trucks are still plugging up the interstate, particularly east of the Skyway
This version crops out his trolling - there's a picture of President Truman above their heads
Lol, Charlie Kirk is on the list
This will drastically shift representation away from blue areas into red areas - this will make the house and electoral college more red and dilute the effect of illegal immigration on our politics. Stop dooming, this is a great ruling.
No, he is an Episcopal/Church of England congregant - he was raised in a Catholic school K-8 and a Catholic Jesuit high school
This just sounds like eugenics with extra steps
Every justice is either Catholic or Jewish - save for Gorsuch who was raised Catholic
Read... A lot
The US operated with no such doctrine until 1920. We have too much in the way of empirics for a naked appeal to "common sense". This is no argument.
Kipling is one of the best poets for pedes looking to explore the genre
That's potentially a fair point, although there are legal scholars that would disagree:
https://lawliberty.org/originalism-and-judicial-review-part-ii-the-textual-arguments/
But if we presume that judicial review has no originalist basis, what effect does that have on my statement? I do not defend judicial review as a valid or positive doctrine (nor do I intend to engage in that question without a lot more research); this is merely a red herring to my point about standing.
This is the right move.
First, that is distinct from "the court was not provided for in the constitution".
Second, even so, this in no way refutes my point - it merely adds to it. You have yet to point to some inaccuracy with an originalist rejection of standing as a doctrine.
Essentially, yes!
You just said the court wasn't provided for in the constitution - that is false. Marbury v. Madison established judicial review, not the court itself. Who do you think heard the case??
Standing is not something the court has, but that the parties may or may not have for a particular controversy. It depends largely on whether the party asserting the claim faces "an injury in fact" in regard to the claim.
By contrast, jurisdiction is held by a court, rather than the parties. Jurisdiction is two-fold - subject matter and personal. SCotUS/federal courts has subject matter jurisdiction if a federal question is at issue and a bevy of other situations. Personal jurisdiction is what limits the territorial jurisdiction of the court.
Distinct legal doctrine from standing
Article 3 Section 1 - you are wrong
You're misreading my point - standing is not a valid constitutional doctrine under a strictly originalist view - it is purely judge-made with no textual basis in the constitution.
The amendments are proper because they went through the ratification process. Judges cannot unilaterally exercise that process.
Attorney here, this isn't the case. Standing is not explicitly in the constitution - it wasn't formed as a doctrine until the 1920s or so. We need to stop treating standing as a proper constitutional doctrine.
Constitution vests original and exclusive jurisdiction in SCotUS for State v. State matters, but it doesn't address standing.
Standing is a bullshit excuse to not hear a case - it is loosely derived from the "case and controversy" requirement. If I recall correctly, the first use was to avoid a valid challenge to the ratification of the 19th amendment - basically, SCotUS didn't want to be seen as "taking the vote away from women" so they (I want to say Justice Brandeis) invented standing as an excuse not to hear the case.
Massive Ovaries!
Resist strongly at the cultural level but I don't think prohibition is the role of the state here.
It's very bad, but giving the state the power to "make it go away" (wholly ineffectually, I might add) is worse.
He must avenge his father!
Did I say anything about any of that? No.... But you're spreading fake news.
The GOP did not vote for "unlimited cheap labor from India" and you shouldn't be spreading that false narrative.
I agree that we need to reform our immigration policy but if you are going to tell people that removing country caps has that effect, you're no better than CNN.