New and experienced climbers over 50 #37

SCOTUS handed down a number of important decisions a short time ago. No matter which side of the aisle you sit on, the number of those decisions that fell sharply along ideological lines should bring great concern. This pattern only heightens the skepticism that has greatly increased in the judicial branch regarding its objectivity. Not hard to understand the claims of many that this is by design- to undermine the rule of law.

Hey Lori and Helen, what's with this feeling superior to "rail thin" models or wanting to teach them a lesson about activities and aging? You have no idea about their private lives or what they do outside of modeling for a living.

wendy weiss wrote:

Hey Lori and Helen, what's with this feeling superior to "rail thin" models or wanting to teach them a lesson about activities and aging? You have no idea about their private lives or what they do outside of modeling for a living.

Oh boy, Wendy... I did not mean it that way AT ALL.  In fact, quite the opposite.  

Confession:  I've been binge watching the Netflix Dallas Cowgirl episodes.  The same series used to be on Cable, same two ladies who do all the managing, choosing and eliminating.  These young ladies have a tall order... they have to be extremely pretty, happy, and dance perfectly.  And until this season they got paid shit wages for giving it their all.

Last night, the new recruits were introduced to all the discount and free services they may avail themselves of:  paste on nails, hair extensions and wigs, tanning sprays, teeth repair and veneers, Botox,  hair color and dyes.  I've never seen so many fake eyelashes and roller brushes... made me recall the days long ago when I did all that.  They are athletes, and they are SO young, trying to juggle outside jobs, college and the demands of the franchise.  

Meanwhile, I have NO nails, my skin has become lizard-like from relentless sun, and I feel like the most un-lovely woman on earth.  DEFINITELY not thin enough, and no makeup ...  But I also feel like an all-natural creature out roaming.  I don't need the spray-on tan, but I could sure use some color, hair extensions and a fancy dress.  It's been a long time since I owned a pair of real shoes.      

Interestingly, this series has just made me smile (this time)... that we have choices, personalities, and can all explore so many facets of life.  Grateful. 

But I was recalling the time I was climbing in the Park, really filthy dirty, old tennis shoes... pretty normal for me.  And a crew came along, with a very young woman in a sorta climbing outfit, but white... photographers telling her to 'act like you're climbing'.  And I did think... she might actually enjoy climbing.  

---

Insidious Crack.  I plan on heading back up to Donner next week, to have some more of this--and more importantly time with my kids and grandkids.  AND WATER. 

Weather has turned nice for a change, but Paula and I seemed to have reversed our roles.  I used to climb outside all the time, with the gym as a last resort.  Today, she is out working on 5.12 number two for the year, and I am resting up for my kilterboard session in the gym tomorrow lol.

apogee wrote:

SCOTUS handed down a number of important decisions a short time ago. No matter which side of the aisle you sit on, the number of those decisions that fell sharply along ideological lines should bring great concern. This pattern only heightens the skepticism that has greatly increased in the judicial branch regarding its objectivity. Not hard to understand the claims of many that this is by design- to undermine the rule of law.

It's much worse than that. The decision in the birthright citizenship case is not just ideological. It's insane. The language of the constitution is clear and unambiguous but rather than slapping down the EO they essentially ruled that it can be enforced differently depending on which state a person is born in.

Emil Briggs wrote:

It's much worse than that. The decision in the birthright citizenship case is not just ideological. It's insane. The language of the constitution is clear and unambiguous but rather than slapping down the EO they essentially ruled that it can be enforced differently depending on which state a person is born in.

Not sure how clear and unambiguous it is exactly.  “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State where they reside.”

The 14th Amendment was passed in 1868, right after the 13th outlawed slavery in 1865.  My understanding is that it was intended to make clear that former slaves were citizens of the United States.  It is the “where they reside” part that makes me think that the way birthright citizenship has been applied is questionable.  

Ward Smith wrote:

Not sure how clear and unambiguous it is exactly.  “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State where they reside.”

The 14th Amendment was passed in 1868, right after the 13th outlawed slavery in 1865.  My understanding is that it was intended to make clear that former slaves were citizens of the United States.  It is the “where they reside” part that makes me think that the way birthright citizenship has been applied is questionable.  

Thanks for showing us who you really are.

The state in which they reside, seems pretty clear to me. I believe you are living in a state of confusion.

Emil Briggs wrote:

Thanks for showing us who you really are.

Thanks for judging me.  I did not make that post with bad intent but an honest question about the language.

Ward Smith wrote:

Thanks for judging me.

Based on your interpretation all the children of immigrants who were born after their parents arrived at Ellis Island, but before they were naturalized, are not citizens. And neither were their children. And so on. You're probably talking about 50 million people or more. So yeah if your judgement is they're not citizens don't be so shocked when they judge you.

Edit to get around the post limit:

Thanks Alan. I was going to point out the definition of jurisdiction but you beat me to it. The US has recognized diplomatic immunity since 1790 so arguments that it wasn't a concept in 1868 are nonsense. The sad reality is that even after the Amendment was passed there was still a long history of efforts to keep non-whites from becoming citizens. And that includes people who were here legally. The last such restrictions ended in 1952.

Emil Briggs wrote:

Based on your interpretation all the children of immigrants who were born after their parents arrived at Ellis Island, but before they were naturalized, are not citizens. And neither were their children. And so on. You're probably talking about 50 million people or more. So yeah if your judgement is they're not citizens don't be so shocked when they judge you.

if you came through Ellis island that was via a legal process through an authorized port of entree....  making everyone mentioned about "subject to the jurisdiction of..."

a woman who is a citizen of country XXX and subject to that jurisdiction comes across the US border illegally has a kid and suddenly said kid is a US citizen.... she's not under the jurisdiction of the US. (i.e. can't vote, be called for jury duty, be drafted, and any number of other tasks a US citizen can legally execute.)

Even if we suspend all logic and go with the fact any baby born to illegal immigrants is a US citizen, that doesn't also mean mom and dad can't be deported.  mom and dad can leave baby with family member that is legally here or take said baby with them back to what ever crappy country they left.  Child is legally able to return upon 18th birthday...

and yes I said it, they left crap countries.... just like most of our ancestors did when they fled Europe for one reason or another (i.e. potato famine, religious persecution, shit economy) because at the time it was crap.  

p.s. and ward is correct the passing of the 14th was to ensure freed slaves were granted full citizenship and could do things like you know...vote......something the democrat party vehemently opposed.   

apogee wrote:

SCOTUS handed down a number of important decisions a short time ago. No matter which side of the aisle you sit on, the number of those decisions that fell sharply along ideological lines should bring great concern. This pattern only heightens the skepticism that has greatly increased in the judicial branch regarding its objectivity. Not hard to understand the claims of many that this is by design- to undermine the rule of law.

“We will not dwell on JUSTICE JACKSON’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this: JUSTICE JACKSON decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary."

I need to smoke a cigarette after reading that....

I am on the road, so can't respond at length, but 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' is not at all the same as the rights entailed in citizenship---such as voting, etc. Simply, it means subject to our laws. Therefore those who are excluded from birthright citizenship under this clause are primarily the children of diplomats or possibly certain other foreign nationals who cannot be prosecuted in our courts.

While the 14th Amendment ( and the 13th and 15th) were part of the aftermath of the Civil War, and was in part intended to address the results of emancipation, it's scope is much broader than that and was effectively a recalibration of the Federal/State relationship as a result of that conflict. This is a circumstance constantly being ignored by the advocates of 'original intent.'

We don't want or need an 'imperial judiciary' nor an 'imperial executive' ( though that is far worse when it ignores the law), but we do need the judiciary to limit the latter, because otherwise, like so many other countries, only the executive authority will remain.

The Democratic Party of the 19th century. 

WF WF51 wrote:

The Democratic Party of the 19th century. 

what was that quote the LBJ said regarding african-americans whilst trying to pass the great society bill?

Of course, Alan is absolutely correct. 

Those with a contrary "opinion" would do well to read the 1898 Supreme Court case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which affirmed that anyone born in the United States, regardless of their parents' citizenship or immigration status, is a U.S. citizen. This ruling, based on the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause, effectively established birthright citizenship.

But, as we have learned, to our sad chagrin, long established legal precedent means little to the majority on current high court.

Jim U wrote:

what was that quote the LBJ said regarding african-americans whilst trying to pass the great society bill?

What did Harry Truman say about African Americans? What did Hispanic Americans say about LBJ? 

Ward Smith wrote:

Not sure how clear and unambiguous it is exactly.  “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State where they reside.”

The 14th Amendment was passed in 1868, right after the 13th outlawed slavery in 1865.  My understanding is that it was intended to make clear that former slaves were citizens of the United States.  It is the “where they reside” part that makes me think that the way birthright citizenship has been applied is questionable.  

Could you expand on that issue? To my mind, "where they reside" seems unambiguous. However, now you're making me wonder.

The one exception I can think of are people like digital nomads who just roam around in a van, in which case it's not really clear what US state you reside in. That might open a can of worms for some? I have wondered about that (not about the 14th Amendment, but how people deal with their "residence" for things like social security or taxes when doing van life). Back when the 14th Amendment was added, I'm sure there were people who were similarly wandering about without a permanent place to live.

Randy wrote:

Of course, Alan is absolutely correct. 

Those with a contrary "opinion" would do well to read the 1898 Supreme Court case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which affirmed that anyone born in the United States, regardless of their parents' citizenship or immigration status, is a U.S. citizen. This ruling, based on the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause, effectively established birthright citizenship.

But, as we have learned, to our sad chagrin, long established legal precedent means little to the majority on current high court.

yah dred scott was a precedent until it wasn't as was roe and chevron defence

WF WF51 wrote:

What did Harry Truman say about African Americans? What did Hispanic Americans say about LBJ? 

The "Byrd Bath" process the BBB is going though was named after senator Robert Byrd who was an "exalted Cyclops" in KKK.