re: Birthright citizenship - Library of congress deleted history!

quote:

---

you are interpreting the text with your own biases just as the author was.

---

I am not interpreting the text. I'm relying on the in dept textualist analysis of Wong Kim Ark, which is the current precedent in the matter.

I don't know if you know this, but I was not a Supreme Court Justice in 1898. I'm not a Highlander.

And I'm telling you that "muh textualism" is a red herring. People see what they want to see.

And WKA's parents were here legally. Now frick off.

quote:

---

This ruling is going to be a test to see whether Clarence Thomas rejects his textual roots and adopts the living document method. That is the preferred method of leftists.

---

Why don't we test 'Wise Latina' or 'I'm not a biologist' first, and get rid of the low hanging, rotten fruit who's vote is never upset by 'history', precedence, morals, the constitution, or anything other than Democratic Dogma.

Then we can discuss your test.

quote:

---

however, that is the best that we have that is concrete. We should refuse to engage in the kind of speculation that your view requires.

---

Textualism is not speculation.

It's reading the words and applying the meaning of those words.

quote:

---

The Court should hold firm and take the Legislative History on its face

---

And just ignore the words used and what they mean? Why?

Legislators are often terrible at writing legislation. I've actually argued this at the appellate level before. And our matter was AFTER the legislature re-wrote the statute to overrule a supreme court (state) case that ruled opposed to how the legislative authors wanted the statute to read, and they still fricked up the language. The stated intention of the author in the legislative history cannot cure writing a law that says something opposed to their intention. Text, not intention, matters. No participation trophies should be awarded in statutory analysis.

quote:

---

And I'm telling you that "muh textualism" is a red herring.

---

Only in the Trump era would something like this be uttered by a person who perceived themselves to be a non-Leftist

quote:

---

Call me someone who believes in "living documents", but there was no way anyone could have forseen how that decision is being abused today. Immigration was much different then than it is today.

---

This is why we have amendments.

This living document nonsense works even better with the 2A and guns than with WKA and the 14th.

The authors of the 2nd Amendment only had muskets and various views of what being in a militia mean, today, would lead to bad rulings.

quote:

---

You're flailing

---

naw

quote:

---

naw

---

I'm being generous honestly

quote:

---

This ruling is going to be a test to see whether Clarence Thomas rejects his textual roots and adopts the living document method. That is the preferred method of leftists.

---

Or he could say the textual analysis was incorrect.

You really have a problem with that concept