Robert’s and Barrett did as expected
(twitter.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (81)
sorted by:
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.
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.