Jayson Lizardo's Avatar

Jayson Lizardo

@jaysonlizardo.bsky.social

PNW based husband, brother, son and father of two amazing LGBTQIA kids plus a few strays. Family and friends first and above all. A close second is food, drink, music, and the great outdoors. I suffer no fools. Nor should you.

201 Followers  |  275 Following  |  112 Posts  |  Joined: 20.11.2023  |  2.4147

Latest posts by jaysonlizardo.bsky.social on Bluesky

Screenshot readin: 
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, with whom JUSTICE KAGAN and
JUSTICE JACKSON join, dissenting.
Children born in the United States and subject to its laws are United States citizens. That has been the legal rule since the founding, and it was the English rule well before then. This Court once attempted to repudiate it, holding in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 (1857), that the children of enslaved black Americans were not citizens.
To
remedy that grievous error, the States passed in 1866 and Congress ratified in 1868 the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause, which enshrined birthright citizenship in

Screenshot readin: JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, with whom JUSTICE KAGAN and JUSTICE JACKSON join, dissenting. Children born in the United States and subject to its laws are United States citizens. That has been the legal rule since the founding, and it was the English rule well before then. This Court once attempted to repudiate it, holding in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 (1857), that the children of enslaved black Americans were not citizens. To remedy that grievous error, the States passed in 1866 and Congress ratified in 1868 the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause, which enshrined birthright citizenship in

Screenshot reading: 

the Constitution. There it has remained, accepted and respected by Congress, by the Executive, and by this Court.
Until today.
It is now the President who attempts, in an Executive Order (Order or Citizenship Order), to repudiate birthright citizenship. Every court to evaluate the Order has deemed it patently unconstitutional and, for that reason, has enjoined the Federal Government from enforcing it. Unde-terred, the Government now asks this Court to grant emergency relief, insisting it will suffer irreparable harm unless it can deprive at least some children born in the United States of citizenship.
See Protecting the Meaning and
Value of American Citizenship, Exec. Order No. 14160, 90
Fed. Reg. 8849 (2025).
The Government does not ask for complete stays of the injunctions, as it ordinarily does before this Court. Why?
The answer is obvious: To get such relief, the Government would have to show that the Order is likely constitutional, an impossible task in light of the Constitution's text, his-tory, this Court's precedents, federal law, and Executive Branch practice. So the Government instead tries its hand at a different game. It asks this Court to hold that, no matter how illegal a law or policy, courts can never simply tell the Executive to stop enforcing it against anyone. Instead, the Government says, it should be able to apply the Citizenship Order (whose legality it does not defend) to everyone except the plaintiffs who filed this lawsuit.
The gamesmanship in this request is apparent and the Government makes no attempt to hide it. Yet, shamefully, this Court plays along. A majority of this Court decides that these applications, of all cases, provide the appropriate occasion to resolve the question of universal injunctions and end the centuries-old practice once and for all. In its rush to do so the Court disregards basic principles of equity as well as the long history of injunctive relief granted to non-partes
55 of 11

Screenshot reading: the Constitution. There it has remained, accepted and respected by Congress, by the Executive, and by this Court. Until today. It is now the President who attempts, in an Executive Order (Order or Citizenship Order), to repudiate birthright citizenship. Every court to evaluate the Order has deemed it patently unconstitutional and, for that reason, has enjoined the Federal Government from enforcing it. Unde-terred, the Government now asks this Court to grant emergency relief, insisting it will suffer irreparable harm unless it can deprive at least some children born in the United States of citizenship. See Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship, Exec. Order No. 14160, 90 Fed. Reg. 8849 (2025). The Government does not ask for complete stays of the injunctions, as it ordinarily does before this Court. Why? The answer is obvious: To get such relief, the Government would have to show that the Order is likely constitutional, an impossible task in light of the Constitution's text, his-tory, this Court's precedents, federal law, and Executive Branch practice. So the Government instead tries its hand at a different game. It asks this Court to hold that, no matter how illegal a law or policy, courts can never simply tell the Executive to stop enforcing it against anyone. Instead, the Government says, it should be able to apply the Citizenship Order (whose legality it does not defend) to everyone except the plaintiffs who filed this lawsuit. The gamesmanship in this request is apparent and the Government makes no attempt to hide it. Yet, shamefully, this Court plays along. A majority of this Court decides that these applications, of all cases, provide the appropriate occasion to resolve the question of universal injunctions and end the centuries-old practice once and for all. In its rush to do so the Court disregards basic principles of equity as well as the long history of injunctive relief granted to non-partes 55 of 11

Screenshot with highlighted text reading: 

No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates.
Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship. The majority holds that, absent cumbersome class-action litigation, courts cannot completely enjoin even such plainly unlawful policies unless doing so is necessary to afford the formal parties complete relief.
That holding renders constitutional guarantees meaningful in name only for any individuals who are not parties to a lawsuit.
Because I will not be complicit in so grave an at-
tack on our system of law, I dissent.

Screenshot with highlighted text reading: No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates. Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship. The majority holds that, absent cumbersome class-action litigation, courts cannot completely enjoin even such plainly unlawful policies unless doing so is necessary to afford the formal parties complete relief. That holding renders constitutional guarantees meaningful in name only for any individuals who are not parties to a lawsuit. Because I will not be complicit in so grave an at- tack on our system of law, I dissent.

6-3 in favor of Trump in the birthright citizenship caseโ€”

which at this stage was only about about nationwide injunctions.

But Sotomayor brings it back to what this is really aboutโ€”letting Trump get away with lawlessness. Her dissent is another banger which she is reading from the bench:

27.06.2025 14:25 โ€” ๐Ÿ‘ 706    ๐Ÿ” 245    ๐Ÿ’ฌ 17    ๐Ÿ“Œ 13

UNSUBSCRIBE

25.03.2025 05:28 โ€” ๐Ÿ‘ 4    ๐Ÿ” 0    ๐Ÿ’ฌ 0    ๐Ÿ“Œ 0

GFY, coward.

15.03.2025 17:48 โ€” ๐Ÿ‘ 0    ๐Ÿ” 0    ๐Ÿ’ฌ 0    ๐Ÿ“Œ 0

Ah yesโ€ฆa play out of the olโ€™ WMD book. Classic. ๐Ÿคฆ๐Ÿฝโ€โ™‚๏ธ

10.03.2025 17:17 โ€” ๐Ÿ‘ 0    ๐Ÿ” 0    ๐Ÿ’ฌ 0    ๐Ÿ“Œ 0

Trump Slump and Trump Bumps. Are we โ€œgreat againโ€?

10.03.2025 17:10 โ€” ๐Ÿ‘ 0    ๐Ÿ” 0    ๐Ÿ’ฌ 0    ๐Ÿ“Œ 0

Ahhh yesโ€ฆa okay right out of the olโ€™ WMD playbook. Got it.

10.03.2025 14:33 โ€” ๐Ÿ‘ 0    ๐Ÿ” 0    ๐Ÿ’ฌ 0    ๐Ÿ“Œ 0

Iโ€™d like to buy a vowel, please.

23.02.2025 14:54 โ€” ๐Ÿ‘ 3    ๐Ÿ” 0    ๐Ÿ’ฌ 0    ๐Ÿ“Œ 0

Imagine being so enamored by money and fame that youโ€™d let that blob of flesh roll around on top of you. ๐Ÿคข

23.02.2025 06:04 โ€” ๐Ÿ‘ 1    ๐Ÿ” 0    ๐Ÿ’ฌ 1    ๐Ÿ“Œ 0

As they should! What self respecting artist would associate with that asshat? Let Kid Rock, The Nuge and Lee Greenwood play it until the end of time.

22.02.2025 16:45 โ€” ๐Ÿ‘ 3    ๐Ÿ” 0    ๐Ÿ’ฌ 0    ๐Ÿ“Œ 0

Weโ€™re so fucked.

20.02.2025 21:15 โ€” ๐Ÿ‘ 3    ๐Ÿ” 0    ๐Ÿ’ฌ 0    ๐Ÿ“Œ 0

Talk about DEI hireโ€ฆ๐Ÿคฆ๐Ÿฝโ€โ™‚๏ธ.

20.02.2025 21:12 โ€” ๐Ÿ‘ 14    ๐Ÿ” 0    ๐Ÿ’ฌ 0    ๐Ÿ“Œ 0

This is what they want. ๐Ÿคฆ๐Ÿฝโ€โ™‚๏ธ

15.02.2025 05:08 โ€” ๐Ÿ‘ 0    ๐Ÿ” 0    ๐Ÿ’ฌ 0    ๐Ÿ“Œ 0
Preview
Tesla Is About to Get a Nice Big Handout as Musk Takes Over Government โ€” The New Republic Elon Musk is cashing in on Donald Trumpโ€™s presidency.

Youโ€™ve gotta be sh*tting me.

apple.news/AYqgARenPQnW...

12.02.2025 23:37 โ€” ๐Ÿ‘ 1    ๐Ÿ” 0    ๐Ÿ’ฌ 0    ๐Ÿ“Œ 0

*pissed* off

10.02.2025 04:37 โ€” ๐Ÿ‘ 0    ๐Ÿ” 0    ๐Ÿ’ฌ 0    ๐Ÿ“Œ 0

Then I turned the channel. ๐Ÿคท๐Ÿฝโ€โ™‚๏ธ

10.02.2025 04:29 โ€” ๐Ÿ‘ 10    ๐Ÿ” 0    ๐Ÿ’ฌ 1    ๐Ÿ“Œ 0

I hear you. I got irrationally irritated. Maybe rationally. I was just surprised at how oussed off I got at the sight and sound of the orange turd not in a clip chopped up on social media purely to illustrate what a waste of skin he is.

10.02.2025 04:28 โ€” ๐Ÿ‘ 29    ๐Ÿ” 1    ๐Ÿ’ฌ 2    ๐Ÿ“Œ 0

Not so much during. They plopped a softball 10 min interview with him in the pregame. Iโ€™m assuming most of us left the room or switch channels. F that guy.

10.02.2025 04:14 โ€” ๐Ÿ‘ 99    ๐Ÿ” 1    ๐Ÿ’ฌ 4    ๐Ÿ“Œ 0

Why does this mope salute? Heโ€™s not military. Never been of service. What a POS.

10.02.2025 04:10 โ€” ๐Ÿ‘ 17    ๐Ÿ” 1    ๐Ÿ’ฌ 0    ๐Ÿ“Œ 0

Still shaking my head at the silt that tried to engage. Uneducated and ignorant trolls get blocked. Itโ€™s easy. ๐Ÿคท๐Ÿฝโ€โ™‚๏ธ

07.02.2025 02:11 โ€” ๐Ÿ‘ 0    ๐Ÿ” 0    ๐Ÿ’ฌ 0    ๐Ÿ“Œ 0

What makes him different from any other Christian/White Nationalist that are already embedded in this administration? This no name is a pittance of a sacrifice while the rest of them get away with breaking every constitutional law possible.

06.02.2025 22:24 โ€” ๐Ÿ‘ 3    ๐Ÿ” 0    ๐Ÿ’ฌ 2    ๐Ÿ“Œ 0

2nd best news today because obviously Mitch McConnell falling down stairs is 1st.

06.02.2025 05:47 โ€” ๐Ÿ‘ 1    ๐Ÿ” 0    ๐Ÿ’ฌ 0    ๐Ÿ“Œ 0

This is humiliating. Embarrassing. Frightening.

06.02.2025 04:20 โ€” ๐Ÿ‘ 0    ๐Ÿ” 0    ๐Ÿ’ฌ 0    ๐Ÿ“Œ 0

So glad to see some of my favorite accounts from threads starting up here as well as friends and family from FB. The sooner I can extract my data from Meta, the better.

04.02.2025 06:39 โ€” ๐Ÿ‘ 4    ๐Ÿ” 0    ๐Ÿ’ฌ 1    ๐Ÿ“Œ 0

Youโ€™ve gotta be shitting me. Is there no end to this lunacy?

03.02.2025 22:26 โ€” ๐Ÿ‘ 1    ๐Ÿ” 0    ๐Ÿ’ฌ 0    ๐Ÿ“Œ 0

Et tu, @corybooker.com ? I mean- the whole damn list is disappointing. There literally shouldโ€™ve be one D on there. Boy do we suck.

02.02.2025 06:22 โ€” ๐Ÿ‘ 0    ๐Ÿ” 0    ๐Ÿ’ฌ 0    ๐Ÿ“Œ 0
Post image

Good Morning! Buenos Dias!

01.02.2025 19:31 โ€” ๐Ÿ‘ 19320    ๐Ÿ” 2492    ๐Ÿ’ฌ 229    ๐Ÿ“Œ 112
Preview
Opinion | The Dumbest Trade War in History Trump will impose 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico for no good reason.

So the plan to lower housing is to tax the ever loving F out of the building materials coming from our neighbor to the north while simultaneously deporting those that build. We are so Fโ€™d.

www.wsj.com/opinion/dona...

01.02.2025 16:28 โ€” ๐Ÿ‘ 1    ๐Ÿ” 0    ๐Ÿ’ฌ 0    ๐Ÿ“Œ 0

Brilliant.

31.01.2025 23:42 โ€” ๐Ÿ‘ 0    ๐Ÿ” 0    ๐Ÿ’ฌ 0    ๐Ÿ“Œ 0

Thank you for the profile disclaimer. ๐Ÿ˜‚๐Ÿ˜‚

30.01.2025 16:29 โ€” ๐Ÿ‘ 1    ๐Ÿ” 0    ๐Ÿ’ฌ 0    ๐Ÿ“Œ 0
Preview
a pixelated image of a man with a mustache and the words well ALT: a pixelated image of a man with a mustache and the words well

Small minded, land locked, anti-science, mouth breathing, MAGA.

29.01.2025 06:42 โ€” ๐Ÿ‘ 0    ๐Ÿ” 0    ๐Ÿ’ฌ 0    ๐Ÿ“Œ 0

@jaysonlizardo is following 20 prominent accounts