Robert’s and Barrett did as expected
(twitter.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (85)
sorted by:
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.
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.
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.