Robert’s and Barrett did as expected
(twitter.com)
Comments (78)
sorted by:
US Citizenship will always be capped at the price of an economy class ticket
*to Guam
Since they've now ruled "under the jurisdiction" means just being physically present and the territories are officially part of the geographic United States they now have 14th-Amendment birthright citizen instead of being naturalized at birth by law.
The judiciary are traitors. One and all.
The 3 Dem ones are traitors, every single time!
Notice how there is NEVER any doubt that all 3 will rule in unison? Although a couple of times now Jackson's verdicts are SO stupid even the other 2 cannot stomach them.
The 2 "purists" were the best answer at the time, but there's always a risk with those types :/
Well, except for Thomas and Alito
Alito just retired.
Fake news. NPR deleted that report.
I'm glad to hear that, it was all over the TV in the train station today.
What horrifying circumstances forced you to take a train?
As opposed to flying?
It's cheaper than flying and I have enough self esteem to not enjoy being molested by the TSA and put my life at risk from vaxxed pilots.
So it's official. America is not a nation. It's just an economic zone.
It's just in writing now.
Judges speed running the destruction of the country. If I ever get a sliver of power I’m ignoring everything they say to me. Also screw democracy this trash is overrated.
AMEN!
We were supposed to be a REPUBLIC.
I'd take a monarchy at this point. Shit, I wish for the alternate timeline where the Axis won WW2 like you can't believe.
But we'd be speaking German and Japanese!
Awwww sheeeeeeeit frfr?
Why wait? Most of the people that tell judges to get fucked have no power at all.
Literally ignore the ruling. Throw the judges in prison.
Basically yeah. Either we stop pretending might doesn't make right now, or we have no choice as Whites are overrun by foreign hordes.
Great Supreme Court pick trump
She's a Christian woman what could go wrong?!?
right lmao
With numerous adopted nigger children, I'll never forget people coping about because she's a Christian woman. Fucking boomers man...
Nows the time Trump. Fuck the judges. Become the dictator the left says you are and just do it anyway
Tracing your lineage back over 300 years through wars and famines to the founding of this nation means nothing. Speaking the language means nothing. Your children gain no entitlement or authority from you and your ancestors building this nation for them. Paying taxes gives them no benefit. The only thing that matters is making it over the finish line and popping out a kid. Just like the founding fathers intended, of course.
Go fucking figure….i heard about this on the news a bit ago, they justified it because they believe America was meant for any human if they were born here based on the nigger citizen mandate. What a fucking joke, as if the very first immigration act wasn’t clear about their idea of a citizen, “a free White many of good character”, and like there aren’t several examples of the founders basically saying this country is meant for THEIR posterity, meaning the descendants of White men. Free White men of good character suggests they never wanted women or any sort shitskin to have voting rights, or influence over government policy. Oh well, just keep in mind every Jew policy that has been forced on us against our will, will be negated by the White men who take this country back from the Jew cunts who have control now, jews who have bastardized so much of what America was supposed to stand for with their disgustingly warped culture they pushed and their blatantly unconstitutional policies that grow worse every year, policies that remain in place because Jews rigged the courts (Supreme Court especially) with their Jew-puppets to legitimize policies that never should’ve been legitimized.
Doesn't this open a different door though?
As I swear it was birthright citizenship has to go otherwise a DIFFERENT measure can be taken, like they can't block both ways to remove people?
They voted 6-3 to invalidate the order, 5-4 (Roberts+Barrett) that it violated the 14th amendment, and Kavanaugh concurred that it violated some normal law.
Best case scenario would have been to invalidate the order but say that Congress can change it. Not possible now until Roberts or one of the liberals resigns.
The SCotUS only revisits one ruling every 10 years. It will be centuries before this one is revisited.
The United States won't live that long.
With this ruling, it's done
On average.
Technically citizenship could be removed by deporting somebody if they are no longer "subject to the jurisdiction".
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.
Present tense. Supremes presumably said that at birth they were subject so they have citizenship for life, but that's not what it actually says. All of us, anchor babies and real Americans, only have citizenship while subject to the jurisdiction.
Historically, in saner times, you only stop being "subject to the jurisdiction" when you renounced your country because jurisdiction meant your country, your allegiance; move to Russia, become Russian citizen, renounce American citizenship, you're no longer a subject.
But if the Supremes (haven't read it yet) say it's geographical then it can be taken away geographically. So we could have a law that says if an anchor baby is deported with their parents they're no longer citizens -- just have to make sure they never step foot on American soil again.
So what happens now. More gooning and vidya as society collapses?
Was it Jackson that said "let them enforce it"
Yes, in response to Worcester v. Georgia where the Supreme Court ruled the Cherokee Nation was a sovereign territory and exempt from Georgia laws. Trump would never be that ballsy, much less Republicans, they're scared of their own shadows and proud of it.
Roberts is a compromised fag and Barret has nigger kids.
Tell me how conservative either of them are so I can laugh in your face.
Duh. It was a far-fetched legal argument. You should be happy that you're 90% of the way there with 4 votes.
Surely you can't be serious? As if we have time to take some weird solace in some meaningless moral victory that accomplishes actually nothing?
Sir, please don't engage with the troll. Seriously, you're talking to an instigative moron.
Nah, Tony's not a troll he's just a dumb foreigner.
Maybe your expectations were too high if you thought that a far-fetched constitutional theory would win outright.
Imagine if the anti-abortion lobby said "oh, well, we lost 7-2, and then we lost again 6-3, and again". And their arguments were far more straightforward than this counterintuitive reading (btw, I find birthright citizenship to be incredibly stupid).
Far-fetched? It would be the normal understanding when the amendment was written.
Obviously, it wasn't meant to be applied to illegals, but the way it's written seems pretty straightforward.
If you're disappointed, you should really look at the initial reaction to Trump's order. It sure didn't sound like they thought this would get 4 votes. Rather, they were saying that it would be laughed out of court. It wasn't.
it didn't even apply to the indians, of course they didn't apply it to squatemalans and chinese tourists
now that fucking turk gets to gloat
Again, if you asked the guys who wrote it originally, they would laugh at the idea it gave citizenship to illegals. Don't change the subject.
According to Scalia, originalism means the public meaning of the words at the time of their writing. So what you write down matters, not just the thoughts that are going about in your head.
If you go by the public meaning of these words at the time of the writing, would they support birthright citizenship? Obviously, yes.
Given that there were 4 votes for the contrary proposition, maybe there is a good case to be made, but I haven't yet read it.
Why would you think that "under the jurisdiction of" included illegals in the 19th century?
The guy who wrote the amendment clearly stipulated "this won't apply to illegals" but did not include it in the text. So either the amendment was written by an idiot or they viewed it as so self evident they didn't need to mention it. Kind of like how the founders would never in a million years extend freedom of religion to non Christians.
I mean, clearly we've been operating under birthright for a long time, it would be a massive change to throw it out now. It's just insane how the court decides to become strict textualists when it's something that helps the left. Meanwhile when clear and plain language the left dislikes is brought up we have to hear about "emanations and penumbras." E.g. segregation.
Original intent is far fetched? We still have written records of the debates around the reconstruction amendments, the 14th was clearly for freed slaves and native tribes only.
So would you say that only blacks are entitled to 'equal protection' and not other races for that reason?
Irrelevant, the purpose of that part of the amendment was to extend citizenship to the recently freed and the tribes living on US soil only.
It's very relevant. If you say that what the 'purpose' was, limits the amendment, then that means that only blacks are entitled to equal protection - if only they are entitled to citizenship by birth.
No, because the sentence fragment you're hyper-focusing is part of a sentence that clearly specifies 'citizens' in the part of the sentence you're ignoring. Meanwhile, a totally different sentence adresses the anchor babies question. You're twisting things like a lawyer here.
This?
What exactly am I ignoring?
The part where men creating a nation never thought things would get so retarded that they would have to painstakingly detail basic concepts like nation and citizen. No one arguing your side of this debate legitimately thinks that any author of the constitution would ever condone birthright citizenship. It's a disingenuous debate hinging upon tortured semantics, and it is doubly infuriating coming from people who flout the constitution itself at every turn. Why are we even entertaining traitors who declare whole cities to be sanctuaries from the very laws they abuse?
Subject to the jurisdiction thereof. This excluded citizens of other nations, who were subject to those jurisdictions. By the understanding of the time, it was a means to avoid having a bunch of stateless residents.
LOL what? Cathy Newman is that you?
I didn't claim that this was what he WAS saying. I claimed that this was the logical conclusion from his argument.
If original, subjective intent limits the application of law, and the 14th amendment was designed to only protect blacks, isn't that obvious?
BTW, in case it's not obvious, I think birthright citizenship is possibly the dumbest idea known to man. But it does seem to be what it says.
In a court of 9, 4 votes is 0% the way there...
It means 1 more good appointment will sway it.
I thought this would be 7-2 at best. And even Roe was 7-2 and eventually got overturned.
So nice that we have 5 democrats justices and 4 republicans
Tried and true for tens of thousands of years.
No fedposting
Indeed.
Never, ever post a threat on the internet.