Good. Their loss.
Yeah, we all want to see Meg Rapinoe topless.
And there's simps in the comments arguing that the women deserve the money because they played a few more games than the men in their regular season
The simps are not wrong. Why shouldn't the women get paid for all the losing matches they play against 14-year-old boys?
Professional male soccer players in the USA
FTFY. I'm often surprised at just how stupid our world is, but I doubt any other country is like this.
Elliot Page is the second one, right? Because I heard that he is a REAL man, a stronk man.
The 'human' quoted here:
Dr. Eviane Leidig - My expertise is on online hate movements, gender and violent misogyny, conspiracy theories, mis/disinformation, and the mainstreaming of far-right ideology
In other words, you're a professional useless person and regime goon.
Imagine having your parents hate you so much that they name you after bottled water...
As far as cult leaders go, he was pretty reasonable, saying stuff like stop the dirty war on Syria.
Eh, I don't find it very persuasive but I'm glad 4 justices did...
Clearly, and with argument.
BTW, Europe doesn't have birthright citizenship, so we're clearly doing something right.
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.
Ironically, this is something where the leftist idea of "IT WAS A DIFFERENT TIME, IT DOESN'T COUNT" would actually hold some water. It was a different time, because to go to America, you had to go on a ship with a 10% mortality rate, pay a lot and wait weeks. Now you can just get a plane ticket and have a quick, ultrasafe journey. They probably couldn't even imagine the idea of 'anchor babies', because the thing wasn't even practical at the time.
No one arguing your side of this debate
Wait, do you actually think that I support birthright citizenship? You know that not a single European country has this, right?
Aren't you subject to the jurisdiction by mere fact of being there? If a citizen of Belarus goes to the US, he will be prosecuted, not delivered back to Belarus for jurisdiction.
I remember researching this at the time because this sounded vaguely plausible, but AFAIK this is diplomats and Indian tribes.
To be clear: you think we need to choose between "everyone can pop out a kid on our soil and that kid is automatically a citizen of this country" and "you can't enforce your own laws on your own land if the perpetrator is foreign born".
No, I think birthright citizenship is really stupid, and not just for anchor babies.
But as far as I understand it, that's what "under the jurisdiction of" means.
This?
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.
What exactly am I ignoring?
Me trying to cope: eh, this sounds wild, probably made up. No way it's real.
Me looking at line 2: "A video of the alleged gang-rape also found in one of the accused’s phone"
Because quite clearly, 'under the jurisdiction of' includes illegals. If an illegal commits a crime, where will he be prosecuted? Illegals are not like diplomats or red Indians.
Clerks write opinions, not justices. And I would bet that you will find m-dashes in everyone's opinions and not because they are using AI.
(Jackson is still retarded.)
What seems to be confusing you?
What headline?
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.
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.
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.
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.
So would you say that only blacks are entitled to 'equal protection' and not other races for that reason?
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.
Can you blame them? The Dow is over 50,000 again, so time to shut up about pedos.