Rob Bonta

um he has done that many times um i think focusing on that attempt to violate the constitution and infringe upon a co-equal branch of government's authority is something to keep an eye on he's also gone after rights and freedoms including on day one january 20th you know hours after he raised his hand and swore to uphold the u.s constitution he went and violated it by issuing an executive order that

sought to strike down and revoke birthright citizenship, a right that is right there in black and white in the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, the Citizenship Clause. If you're born on American soil, your US citizen period, full stop, doesn't matter what the immigration status or citizenship status is of your of your parents.

sought to strike down and revoke birthright citizenship, a right that is right there in black and white in the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, the Citizenship Clause. If you're born on American soil, your US citizen period, full stop, doesn't matter what the immigration status or citizenship status is of your of your parents.

sought to strike down and revoke birthright citizenship, a right that is right there in black and white in the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, the Citizenship Clause. If you're born on American soil, your US citizen period, full stop, doesn't matter what the immigration status or citizenship status is of your of your parents.

So all of these cases, 19 is a lot, but they really break down into two major categories. Either the president is trying to strip away someone's constitutional or other legally protected rights, or he's trying to withhold critical federal funding, in California's case, to the tune of over $168 billion that he tried to revoke and withhold that we, through our actions, have continued to make flow.

So all of these cases, 19 is a lot, but they really break down into two major categories. Either the president is trying to strip away someone's constitutional or other legally protected rights, or he's trying to withhold critical federal funding, in California's case, to the tune of over $168 billion that he tried to revoke and withhold that we, through our actions, have continued to make flow.

So all of these cases, 19 is a lot, but they really break down into two major categories. Either the president is trying to strip away someone's constitutional or other legally protected rights, or he's trying to withhold critical federal funding, in California's case, to the tune of over $168 billion that he tried to revoke and withhold that we, through our actions, have continued to make flow.

Yeah, I will say I am not arguing this case because I wanna win this case. And so so we have the New Jersey solicitor general who is outstanding and we have the most confidence in. It's the person in the New Jersey attorney general's office whose specialty is appellate advocacy, who writes incredible appellate briefs for the U.S.

Yeah, I will say I am not arguing this case because I wanna win this case. And so so we have the New Jersey solicitor general who is outstanding and we have the most confidence in. It's the person in the New Jersey attorney general's office whose specialty is appellate advocacy, who writes incredible appellate briefs for the U.S.

Yeah, I will say I am not arguing this case because I wanna win this case. And so so we have the New Jersey solicitor general who is outstanding and we have the most confidence in. It's the person in the New Jersey attorney general's office whose specialty is appellate advocacy, who writes incredible appellate briefs for the U.S.

Supreme Court and the circuit courts and other appellate courts and also can argue. with great persuasion and skill. So we're confident in our advocate. We're confident in our case. The case is about the issue of a related and critical issue in the case, but not the actual substance of the constitutional right of birthright citizenship. It's about national injunctions and whether

Supreme Court and the circuit courts and other appellate courts and also can argue. with great persuasion and skill. So we're confident in our advocate. We're confident in our case. The case is about the issue of a related and critical issue in the case, but not the actual substance of the constitutional right of birthright citizenship. It's about national injunctions and whether

Supreme Court and the circuit courts and other appellate courts and also can argue. with great persuasion and skill. So we're confident in our advocate. We're confident in our case. The case is about the issue of a related and critical issue in the case, but not the actual substance of the constitutional right of birthright citizenship. It's about national injunctions and whether

group of states who go to a court can get a an order from the court and injunction that applies throughout the whole nation as opposed to in their in their states and This is a great case for us to be in front of the US Supreme Court on because this is about a US constitutional right and constitutional rights belong to all In the United States, they either apply to all of us or they apply to none of us.

group of states who go to a court can get a an order from the court and injunction that applies throughout the whole nation as opposed to in their in their states and This is a great case for us to be in front of the US Supreme Court on because this is about a US constitutional right and constitutional rights belong to all In the United States, they either apply to all of us or they apply to none of us.

group of states who go to a court can get a an order from the court and injunction that applies throughout the whole nation as opposed to in their in their states and This is a great case for us to be in front of the US Supreme Court on because this is about a US constitutional right and constitutional rights belong to all In the United States, they either apply to all of us or they apply to none of us.

They don't apply to to the people in blue states, but not the people in red states. So we think a national injunction is very appropriate in this case. And we're looking forward to the argument and being able to make a compelling and persuasive case to the US Supreme Court.

They don't apply to to the people in blue states, but not the people in red states. So we think a national injunction is very appropriate in this case. And we're looking forward to the argument and being able to make a compelling and persuasive case to the US Supreme Court.

They don't apply to to the people in blue states, but not the people in red states. So we think a national injunction is very appropriate in this case. And we're looking forward to the argument and being able to make a compelling and persuasive case to the US Supreme Court.

I'm honored and hopefully not the last. I'm grateful to have the opportunity to join you and talk to your amazing followers and audience.