h/t bitt
related:
LISTEN LIVE: Supreme Court hears arguments over Biden enforcement of Trump-era border policy
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4112607/posts
Roberts dissembling like Bill Clinton, I see.
Is doesn’t mean is,
Shall doesn’t mean shall.
And Roberts is the guy who in his confirmation said his job was only to call the Balls and Strikes, not to rewrite the rules.
Expect Roberts to vote with his fellow democrats.
Well, seems like there’s some discretionary money in the budget, how about we start with the retirement plans of congress? That should at least provide 300,000 beds.
Shall does mean shall, and especially when intentionally written in law. If “shall” gets used against us, then it should also get used against the fed.
“Shall not be infringed” doesn’t mean what it says ? We’re screwed.
So, WaPo says the court appeared ‘conflicted’, based on CJJR not being able to understand the word ‘shall’?
That should mean the court is clearly leaning to the conservative position...
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wondered what the court should do if it decides “shall means shall.” Maybe send them back to their home country to follow the proper immigration procedures.
The SCOTUS will do what Deep State tells it to do.
Roberts still creates shit out of thin air - Clinton asked what “the meaning of ‘is’ is” and Roberts questions if “Shall” actually means “Shall”.
They go out of their way to create nonexistent “Noble Cause” clauses in the Constitution and in Law.
I’m pretty sure the word “shall” has been adjudicated. Can’t remember the case, and I’m probably paraphrasing badly, but the line I recall is “must” means “may”, and “shall” means “shall”. (i.e., it is required)