- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 1/20/25 at 12:53 pm to Kjnstkmn
Common Sense did not take long?????
Posted on 1/20/25 at 1:17 pm to shinerfan
quote:
It's not original.
It's not textual.
The reasoning in WKA is both
Posted on 1/20/25 at 1:18 pm to LSUROXS
quote:
It served its purpose in the 18th and 19th centuries
Somebody want to tell him?
Posted on 1/20/25 at 1:20 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The reasoning in WKA is both
By definition, reasoning is neither. It may or may not be based on textualism or originalism but in itself it's just an opinion.
This post was edited on 1/20/25 at 1:23 pm
Posted on 1/20/25 at 1:21 pm to Kjnstkmn
Would be amazing if the wise Latina passed and her (Trump appointed) replacement ultimately gives DJT the votes to overturn.
This post was edited on 1/20/25 at 1:22 pm
Posted on 1/20/25 at 1:25 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Also, I would have to look, but this would probably set the record for oldest USSC precedent to be reversed, which would be historic (in the bad way)
When in our history do you think the greatest "abuse" of this was? It took democrats about 200 years to find a way to destroy the good intent of this law.
Posted on 1/20/25 at 1:46 pm to lionward2014
Digging around a bit on the passage of the 14th Amendment, it is clear that it was intended to exclusively address the rights of blacks and former slaves in the post Civil War era. There was no indication that birthright citizenship was intended to be given to anyone who simply snuck into the country and gave birth. That notion looks to be a text-only perversion of the intent of the 14th Amendment's passing.
Posted on 1/20/25 at 1:52 pm to Kjnstkmn
If we actually prevented and stopped illegal immigration this wouldn’t even be an issue.
Posted on 1/20/25 at 1:54 pm to Auburn1968
quote:
That notion looks to be a text-only perversion of the intent of the 14th Amendment's passing.
Which is why I think Thomas and Alito will dissent, but otherwise it will be a 7-2 SCOTUS decision. I expect that Roberts will write the majority decision, and the liberal wing will issue their own concurrence with a bunch of posturing and virtual signaling.
Posted on 1/20/25 at 2:16 pm to Auburn1968
quote:
There was no indication that birthright citizenship was intended to be given to anyone who simply snuck into the country and gave birth.
Read Wong Kim Ark
Posted on 1/20/25 at 2:23 pm to lionward2014
quote:
Clear violation of the 14th Amendment
Well, the guy who wrote the amendment said it was never meant to give citizenship to every baby squeezed out on our soil. I think he knows what is a violation of his own amendment more than you.
Posted on 1/20/25 at 2:25 pm to Kjnstkmn
No more anchor babies but can we made that retroactive?
Posted on 1/20/25 at 2:31 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
in the bad way
To hell with your opinion.
Posted on 1/20/25 at 2:31 pm to TenWheelsForJesus
quote:
I think he knows what is a violation of his own amendment more than you.
He should have written it in the amendment then I guess?
Posted on 1/20/25 at 2:33 pm to Veritas
Posted on 1/20/25 at 2:35 pm to jimmy the leg
quote:
To hell with your opinion.
If you want precedent to mean absolutely nothing, then I hope you didn't celebrate the cases you considered victories because they're going to get reversed really easily the next time the court flips
Posted on 1/20/25 at 2:45 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Yeah this is going to be enjoined immediately and then that will be called "lawfare", even if it's ultimately the correct decision to protect our Constitutional rights.
When Democrats complain, I'll just say "But we started a conversation".
Posted on 1/20/25 at 2:56 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
If you want precedent to mean absolutely nothing
Did you not watch the Dems piss on SCOTUS the last 4 years?
They would wipe their arse with the Constitution of given the chance.
On another note, are you actually stating that precedent is set forever and cannot be challenged?
Posted on 1/20/25 at 3:46 pm to jimmy the leg
quote:
Did you not watch the Dems piss on SCOTUS the last 4 years?
That is irrelevant to the discussion. Political puffery has nothing to do with destroying precedent.
quote:
are you actually stating that precedent is set forever and cannot be challenged?
I clearly did not state that. You should go read again.
Page 7 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News