Quote:

---

Most law scholars think this is going to hinge on ACB's opinion

---

Really?

That would mean Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson are in the dissent. Has that ever happened?

I don't see her as the swing vote. She will either be on the losing end of a 5-4 ruling against Trump, or a 6-3 ruling for Trump IMO.


ETA: Though I guess a group of Gorsuch, Barrett, Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson is possible. Gorsuch is a wild card on most issues other than Indians!

All the women will side with the pro-illegals crowd. That includes Roberts.

5-4 leftists win in a best case scenario, but I won't be surprised if one of Kavanaugh or Gorsuch joins them just for optics.

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

Most law scholars think this is going to hinge on ACB's opinion

---

Really?

That would mean Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson are in the dissent. Has that ever happened?

I don't see her as the swing vote. She will either be on the losing end of a 5-4 ruling against Trump, or a 6-3 ruling for Trump IMO.

---

In my view, ACB is more of a follower of C.J. Roberts than an independent voice.

yall are for this? This is nuts, i'm pretty conservative but even for trump, this is insane. I'm a conservative/republican w/e but between trump's craziness and abbott's anti public education, this organization has completely alienated me from them.

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Not going well for Trump admim thus far. Sounds like a 7-2 decision at best.

---

Sounds like wishful thinking.

Why is this nuts?

Almost all First World countries have outlawed birthright citizenship.

It is nuts to think that someone here illegally can have a child and the child is a citizen.

No, no, no.

Flavius Agximus said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Not going well for Trump admim thus far. Sounds like a 7-2 decision at best.

---

Sounds like wishful thinking.

---

Sounds like you don't now much about Who?mikejones!

Are you listening? Only Thomas and Alito sound remotely interested in entertaining the Trump's administration side

Im Gipper said:

---

Flavius Agximus said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Not going well for Trump admim thus far. Sounds like a 7-2 decision at best.

---

Sounds like wishful thinking.

---

Sounds like you don't now much about Who?mikejones!

---

Frankly I don't have a clue, but considered that before I posted, and decided not to bother checking.

Ihatefallscounty said:

---

yall are for this? This is nuts, i'm pretty conservative but even for trump, this is insane. I'm a conservative/republican w/e but between trump's craziness and abbott's anti public education, this organization has completely alienated me from them.

---

Whats nuts is the system we have. The most logical thing would be you are what your parents are.

Ihatefallscounty said:

---

yall are for this? This is nuts, i'm pretty conservative but even for trump, this is insane. I'm a conservative/republican w/e but between trump's craziness and abbott's anti public education, this organization has completely alienated me from them.

---

You're right, our country should just be a giant welfare program to be taken advantage of by 7 billion foreigners.

OldArmy71 said:

---

Why is this nuts?

Almost all First World countries have outlawed birthright citizenship.

It is nuts to think that someone here illegally can have a child and the child is a citizen.

No, no, no.

---

Almost all first world countries outlawed guns. Can we ignore the constitution on that too? Can the president sign an EO banning a particular gun?

I wish people knew how to have a consistent ethos.

If the court reaffirms birthright citizenship, the country will be conquered in fairly short order.

Thats what this case is about. Birthright citizenship has not been addressed this way before. Thats why scotus is hearing it today.

Aggrad08 said:

---

OldArmy71 said:

---

Why is this nuts?

Almost all First World countries have outlawed birthright citizenship.

It is nuts to think that someone here illegally can have a child and the child is a citizen.

No, no, no.

---

Almost all first world countries outlawed guns. Can we ignore the constitution on that too? Can the president sign an EO banning a particular gun?

I wish people knew how to have a consistent ethos.

---

The Constitution would be followed, not ignored. It would not be twisted to something completely unintended.

Aggrad08 said:

---

OldArmy71 said:

---

Why is this nuts?

Almost all First World countries have outlawed birthright citizenship.

It is nuts to think that someone here illegally can have a child and the child is a citizen.

No, no, no.

---

Almost all first world countries outlawed guns. Can we ignore the constitution on that too? Can the president sign an EO banning a particular gun?

I wish people knew how to have a consistent ethos.

---

I wish people had the fortitude to keep the republic instead of making excuses to allow all the things that this country was built upon to be destroyed both from within and outside.

Trump's EO is an attempt to keep the republic, though Congress should have fixed this themselves, yet people make excuses for how we should just throw up our hands and let foreigners take over our country.

UntoldSpirit said:

---

If the court reaffirms birthright citizenship, the country will be conquered in fairly short order.

---

Agreed. The bill will come due for this country and heaven help my kids and grandkids. I'm old and won't live to see it, but they will.

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Are you listening? Only Thomas and Alito sound remotely interested in entertaining the Trump's administration side

---

So what? If they don't entertain Trump's side, then they are truly lost. There is no intellectually honest way to get from a constitutional amendment post Civil War to specifically overrule the Taney court's 1857 decision and ensure freed slaves would be considered citizens to saying it's carte blanche for mass illegal immigration, anchor babies and surrogate factories. Complete intellectual dishonesty. The administration may lose the case but it won't be 7-2.

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Are you listening? Only Thomas and Alito sound remotely interested in entertaining the Trump's administration side

---

I don't expect or want them all to sound interested - they're supposed to be unbiased arbiters, not political hacks.

This is a potentially massive, massive, ruling and deserves weighty consideration on all angles, whether those points align with a preferred political leaning or not. To stand up over the test of time it has to be robustly defensible.

Except the 14th amendment was meant for former slaves and their children, not for Maria or Mohommad to come over here and pop out seven kids on the taxpayer dime.

Tea Party said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

OldArmy71 said:

---

Why is this nuts?

Almost all First World countries have outlawed birthright citizenship.

It is nuts to think that someone here illegally can have a child and the child is a citizen.

No, no, no.

---

Almost all first world countries outlawed guns. Can we ignore the constitution on that too? Can the president sign an EO banning a particular gun?

I wish people knew how to have a consistent ethos.

---

I wish people had the fortitude to keep the republic instead of making excuses to allow all the things that this country was built upon to be destroyed both from within and outside.

Trump's EO is an attempt to keep the republic, though Congress should have fixed this themselves, yet people make excuses for how we should just throw up our hands and let foreigners take over our country.

---

I love how "keeping the republic " and ignoring the constitution of the republic can mean the same thing to a trumper. Call your congressman

Colonel Kurtz said:

---

Except the 14th amendment was meant for former slaves and their children, not for Maria or Mohommad to come over here and pop out seven kids on the taxpayer dime.

---

It wasn't written in such a restrictive way. Sounds like you need an amendment

Aggrad08 said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

OldArmy71 said:

---

Why is this nuts?

Almost all First World countries have outlawed birthright citizenship.

It is nuts to think that someone here illegally can have a child and the child is a citizen.

No, no, no.

---

Almost all first world countries outlawed guns. Can we ignore the constitution on that too? Can the president sign an EO banning a particular gun?

I wish people knew how to have a consistent ethos.

---

I wish people had the fortitude to keep the republic instead of making excuses to allow all the things that this country was built upon to be destroyed both from within and outside.

Trump's EO is an attempt to keep the republic, though Congress should have fixed this themselves, yet people make excuses for how we should just throw up our hands and let foreigners take over our country.

---

I love how "keeping the republic " and ignoring the constitution of the republic can mean the same thing to a trumper. Call your congressman

---

I love how people think they can interpret the constitution in whatever devious way they want rather than how it was originally intended, and somehow think there won't be unintended consequences that founding fathers would shake their head at in disbelief.

"Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?"
- Elizabeth Willing Powel

"A republic, if you can keep it."
-Benjamin Franklin

Ah yes the deviousness of a plain text reading. You are the same as liberals trying to read something else into the second amendment. The words matter or they don't. We all just down the line get to feel what they really meant.

Aggrad08 said:

---

OldArmy71 said:

---

Why is this nuts?

Almost all First World countries have outlawed birthright citizenship.

It is nuts to think that someone here illegally can have a child and the child is a citizen.

No, no, no.

---

Almost all first world countries outlawed guns. Can we ignore the constitution on that too? Can the president sign an EO banning a particular gun?

I wish people knew how to have a consistent ethos.

---

There's the error, though. The application of the statute as written and interpreted by subsequent case law is what's being argued. The 14th includes exceptions as-written. The EO as written states:

Quote:

---

Section 1. Purpose. The privilege of United States citizenship is a priceless and profound gift. The Fourteenth Amendment states: "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 wherein they reside." That provision rightly repudiated the Supreme Court of the United States's shameful decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), which misinterpreted the Constitution as permanently excluding people of African descent from eligibility for United States citizenship solely based on their race.

But the Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Consistent with this understanding, the Congress has further specified through legislation that "a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is a national and citizen of the United States at birth, 8 U.S.C. 1401, generally mirroring the Fourteenth Amendment's text.

---

That is all fact.

The interpretive part of the EO is next, and the subject of the court case which is a modern-day extension of the categories literally defined by Congress as excluded from US birthright citizenship (children of foreign diplomats, children of alien enemies in hostile occupation, Native Americans -- subsequently changed, persons born in American Samoa and Swains Islands -- territories not legally of the same status as the States):

Quote:

---

Among the categories of individuals born in the United States and not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, the privilege of United States citizenship does not automatically extend to persons born in the United States: (1) when that person's mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person's birth, or (2) when that person's mother's presence in the United States at the time of said person's birth was lawful but temporary (such as, but not limited to, visiting the United States under the auspices of the Visa Waiver Program or visiting on a student, work, or tourist visa) and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person's birth.

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Ah yes the deviousness of a plain text reading. You are the same as liberals trying to read something else into the second amendment. The words matter or they don't. We all just down the line get to feel what they really meant.

---

The difference is I read the words and understand their meaning, and context of when they were written.

You are reading the words and are coming up with a completely different meaning, siding with an interpretation that is completely against the original intention of said words.

Essentially *******izing the words and context which ultimately is eroding whatever intent and meaning they had within our republic.

Fitch said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Are you listening? Only Thomas and Alito sound remotely interested in entertaining the Trump's administration side

---

I don't expect or want them all to sound interested - they're supposed to be unbiased arbiters, not political hacks.

This is a potentially massive, massive, ruling and deserves weighty consideration on all angles, whether those points align with a preferred political leaning or not. To stand up over the test of time it has to be robustly defensible.

---

Thats fine and all and inferring things I didn't mean. One can gather quite a bit by the tone, type of questions, follow ups, volume, etc of this hearings.

This is actually a more robust debate than im used to hearing in a scotus hearing. Perhaps I should have just used entertain instead of adding interested.

Aggrad08 said:

---

Colonel Kurtz said:

---

Except the 14th amendment was meant for former slaves and their children, not for Maria or Mohommad to come over here and pop out seven kids on the taxpayer dime.

---

It wasn't written in such a restrictive way. Sounds like you need an amendment

---

Like the left would let that happen. They're shutting down the gov't to try and keep people who are here illegally from being deported. Literally aiding and abetting law breakers in every blue city. You want to force conservatives to abide by specific language in the constitution that doesn't address the current problems while you ignore or impede the enforcement of laws passed by congress.

First impressions:

• the decision will be a ruling on the merits and not punted on a statutory technicality
• General Sauer made a very solid presentation, the ACLU attorney, Wang, was less convincing and made several misstatements
• General Sauer emphasized that Wong Kim Ark can be distinguished as opposed to overruled, although that might occur in practice by the Court's opinion here
• Gorsuch (a fan of Native Americans and their history) is keenly attuned as to how that population was specifically addressed in the original act and then within the 14th amendment because it took another act of Congress in 1924 to clarify their status. That tells me he doesn't consider Wong controlling here as posited by the ACLU attorney
• Kavanaugh is a toss up but think he is leaning towards the government's position
• C.J. Roberts asked few questions. His mind is made up but which way? Can't tell.
• Kagan, Sotomayor and KBJ favor reaffirming Wong as controlling precedent

I'm thinking it'll be 7 votes against the administration, but I think Kavanaugh and/or Barrett will write a concurrence attempting to limit the ruling.

Aggrad08 said:

---

Ah yes the deviousness of a plain text reading. You are the same as liberals trying to read something else into the second amendment. The words matter or they don't. We all just down the line get to feel what they really meant.

---

Why is the phrase "subject to the Jurisdiction thereof" in the amendment? Why was it put there? It's not meaningless.

And please, don't try and mix this with the 2nd Amendment. That's not the issue today.

Tea Party said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Ah yes the deviousness of a plain text reading. You are the same as liberals trying to read something else into the second amendment. The words matter or they don't. We all just down the line get to feel what they really meant.

---

The difference is I read the words and understand their meaning, and context of when they were written.

You are reading the words and are coming up with a completely different meaning, siding with an interpretation that is completely against the original intention of said words.

Essentially *******izing the words and context which ultimately is eroding whatever intent and meaning they had within our republic.

---

If that were true we would have not had the default be birthright citizenship as had been applied in the past

So a pregnant Mexican lady can cross the border, have a baby in a parking lot and go home the next day. The child doesn't step foot in the United States until he turns 35. He has the right to run for president. Elon Musk does not have that right.

aggiehawg said:

---

First impressions:

• the decision will be a ruling on the merits and not punted on a statutory technicality
• General Sauer made a very solid presentation, the ACLU attorney, Wang, was less convincing and made several misstatements
• General Sauer emphasized that Wong Kim Ark can be distinguished as opposed to overruled, although that might occur in practice by the Court's opinion here
• Gorsuch (a fan of Native Americans and their history) is keenly attuned as to how that population was specifically addressed in the original act and then within the 14th amendment because it took another act of Congress in 1924 to clarify their status. That tells me he doesn't consider Wong controlling here as posited by the ACLU attorney
• Kavanaugh is a toss up but think he is leaning towards the government's position
• C.J. Roberts asked few questions. His mind is made up but which way? Can't tell.
• Kagan, Sotomayor and KBJ favor reaffirming Wong as controlling precedent

---

If the ruling goes in favor of the administration by whatever vote, the reporting will be "a closely divided court ruled that ____." If against the admin, even if by 5-4, it will be "the supreme court decisively ruled against Donald Trump's baseless EO."

Government never makes a mistake?
Supreme Court justices are infallible?
It is impossible to overturn past rulings?

If that really is the defense you are going with then I think we have reached a stalemate in the discussion and will just have to agree to disagree because I don't see any common ground on this topic based on your opinions and enthusiasm so far, and you are entitled to those opinions.