charonn0

A ruling that the court could dictate foreign policy would be bigger and more ridiculous.

The law is not being violated; it's being followed. The law delegates the power to declare foreign states terrorist supporters to the executive branch. The executive branch has declined to do so, and now Congress has declined to force the issue. The courts must defer to the executive's judgement here--even if that judgement is wrong.

Congress has weighed in.

https://theintercept.com/2024/01/16/senate-israel-human-rights-condition-aid/

So this lawsuit is even deader now than it was yesterday.

• The right to make medical decisions on behalf of the other
• The right to visit the other in the hospital
• The right to make funeral arrangements for the other
• The right to survivor's benefits (veteran's benefits, Social Security, private pension, etc.)
• Income tax breaks and credits
• Tax breaks on inheritance and estate taxes
• Tax breaks on money and property transfers between spouses
• Immigration and naturalization rights
• Can't be forced to testify against the other (usually)
• Communications between married partners are privileged from discovery in civil and criminal cases (usually)
• Joint adoption rights
• Bereavement leave
• Joint bankruptcy protection
• Automatic recognition of the relationship by every state, nation, etc.

Etc. There's something like 1,000 rights, privileges, and responsibilities that attach through marriage only.

sigh I don't know what else to say and I'm done wasting my time. Your political belief is that Israel ought to be declared a terrorist state? Fine. But that doesn't change my legal analysis that this lawsuit is DOA.

They have also declined to do so many times on the grounds I've pointed out.

Not every law-related complaint is justiciable, not just anyone can have standing, and there are some things that are the exclusive powers of the other two branches. The court can no more force the President to declare Israel a terrorist state than it can force Congress to declare war.

Except what they ask for is beyond the power of the courts to grant.

It's enforceable by Congress through their oversight and impeachment powers.

I don't think that works. You'd still have a situation where the plaintiffs are asking the court to decide US foreign and defense policy.

Which US laws are you talking about?

I'm referring to the lawsuit itself. It may be "very real", but it's also complete nonsense.

US courts don't rule on political questions, nor do they decide US foreign policy, nor do they provide advisory opinions. This lawsuit fails to state a cognizable claim and seeks relief that is beyond the power of the judiciary to grant.

Even in 2016 it was obvious what kind of person he was. His "good" supporters claimed that being President would change him for the better. We all knew then that they were wrong. We all know now that they were lying.