- 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
re: Fitting that John Roberts puts a bullet into the head of the USA on its 250th birthday
Posted on 6/30/26 at 2:34 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 6/30/26 at 2:34 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Scalia is in Heaven smiling that they did reject it
No. He's not. He would have voted against birthright citizenship along with Thomas etc.
0
Posted on 6/30/26 at 3:07 pm to prplhze2000
quote:
Take it up with the language of the amendment. We all know what it meant when it was written but it still says what it says. Knew this was going to happen when this all first started.
This doesn't make sense.
We all know what it means, but you want us to be upset at the people who wrote what it means instead of the people on the SC saying it doesn't mean what we all know it means even though the people who wrote it said it means exactly what we all know it means.
Such twisted logic to shift the blame.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 3:07 pm to BTROleMisser
quote:
It was never conceptualized and intended for every third world savage to come here illegally and shite out a bunch of children to game the system and force American tax payers to pay for the hostile invasion and destruction of their country.
Then change the text and word it better so that we don’t have to keep relying on people two centuries later to read between the lines.
Again—Congress. Congress should have defined “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” either in the amendment, or the enabling legislation, OR through amending that legislation at any point up until now.
They could still do it, right now—without even needing a constitutional amendment. That’s the fix. Not oscillating judicial interpretations.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 3:09 pm to ClientNumber9
quote:
Amendment. Pass an amendment.
Lmao this senate can’t get 60 votes to pass the SAVE act, you think it’ll get 67 to amend the constitution???
Posted on 6/30/26 at 3:11 pm to TenWheelsForJesus
quote:
We all know what it means, but you want us to be upset at the people who wrote what it means instead of the people on the SC saying it doesn't mean what we all know it means even though the people who wrote it said it means exactly what we all know it means.
If the plain language requires knowledge of its meaning beyond what is right there on the page, it’s poorly written.
And it may not have been poorly written when it was drafted. Which is why Congress needs to amend its enabling/enacting/enforcing legislation as applicable to define what a couple of those phrases mean in 2026 going forward.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 3:12 pm to WeeWee
quote:
So a ruling that confirms the status quo of something we have been doing for the past 160 years or so is the bullet in the head of the USA? Give me a break.
If you had analytical skills, you could understand the problem this causes increases exponentially each year.
Saying it didn't cause a problem 100 years ago, so therefore it can't be a problem now is pitiful logic.
quote:
Everyone and their mother knew that this was how SCOTUS was going to rule. Trump's EO was always a long shot. You people freaking out are just downright stupid.
Yes, the people upset that America is losing its culture are the stupid ones, not the ones defending it with the impressive logic of "it was expected."
Posted on 6/30/26 at 3:14 pm to Indefatigable
quote:This SCOTUS ruling put the kibosh on that.
Which is why Congress needs to amend its enabling/enacting/enforcing legislation as applicable to define what a couple of those phrases mean in 2026 going forward.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 3:21 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Nah. Scalia is in Heaven giving a side-eye to the six members of Fuller's Court who didn't reject it.
Scalia is in Heaven smiling that they did reject it
Posted on 6/30/26 at 3:23 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
This SCOTUS ruling put the kibosh on that.
I haven’t been able to sit down and read the full opinion yet. Does it expressly preclude legislatively defining it?
If it doesn’t, I’d do it and make them say it has to be an amendment.
This post was edited on 6/30/26 at 3:25 pm
Posted on 6/30/26 at 3:30 pm to udtiger
Just a bit hyperbolic, we have had this birthright stuff for decades. just pass an amendment, as simple as that....
Posted on 6/30/26 at 3:57 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Scalia is in Heaven smiling that they did reject it
A lot of people are now arguing with you that Scalia woke up in heaven and gave up textualism and embraced intentionalism.
Birthright citizenship is bad for the US, but unless and until there is a shift in SCOTUS, we are stuck with it unless there is an amendment.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 4:59 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
quote:
It was never conceptualized and intended for every third world savage to come here illegally and shite out a bunch of children to game the system and force American tax payers to pay for the hostile invasion and destruction of their country.
Then change the text and word it better so that we don’t have to keep relying on people two centuries later to read between the lines.
There was NO need to change the text. The legislative intent of the 14th Amendment, as one of three "Civil War Amendments" was pretty clear. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon or Congressional historian to know they didn't mean for birthright citizenship to allow millions of illegals to shite babies out in the U.S.to subvert the more formal immigration process to the complete detriment and threat to the survival of our nation.
Anyone who doesn't realize that is a fricking retard... including Roberts and ACB.
This post was edited on 6/30/26 at 5:02 pm
Posted on 6/30/26 at 5:07 pm to WeeWee
quote:
So a ruling that confirms the status quo of something we have been doing for the past 160 years or so is the bullet in the head of the USA? Give me a break.
When in the last 160 years did we have tens of millions of third world illegals pour into our wide open southern border (thanks to a Democrat President) from 2021 to 2025 and start shitting multiple babies out to subvert the traditional, honest immigration process.... and when in the last 160 years did we have "birth tourism," being employed by our biggest international enemy states that produces tens of thousands of anchor babies per year?
When did Congress legislate with the intent to do that?
Posted on 6/30/26 at 5:16 pm to udtiger
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.quote:
When it is time to deliver the baby, the relative Ubers to one of the most expensive hospitals in the world, e.g., Beth Israel. She gives birth, says the magic words to avoid ever receiving a bill ("I'm undocumented"), and, after a few weeks, heads back to Honduras with baby, birth certificate, and U.S. passport.
This one family has likely cost taxpayers at least $300,000 in payments to the hospital for "uncompensated care" and more than 10 U.S. citizens have been minted. When the kids are adults they have an automatic right to sponsor their parents for green cards, so eventually this one family will be responsible for perhaps 40 or 50 legal immigrants from Honduras to the U.S.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 5:17 pm to Ailsa
Infuriating
Posted on 6/30/26 at 5:21 pm to udtiger
Not voting our way out of this
Posted on 6/30/26 at 5:23 pm to Taxing Authority
The post is an indictment of roberts, completely justified!
Posted on 6/30/26 at 5:34 pm to udtiger
quote:
As expected, Roberts and Amy lead the charge!
I don't know what Trump saw in that bitch (Amy). She's a coward and thinks she's the smartest person in the world.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 6:08 pm to BTROleMisser
quote:
The legislative intent of the 14th Amendment, as one of three "Civil War Amendments" was pretty clear. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon or Congressional historian to know they didn't mean for birthright citizenship to allow millions of illegals to shite babies out in the U.S.to subvert the more formal immigration process to the complete detriment and threat to the survival of our nation.
All based on context and inference. I don’t disagree with you, but if context and inference is needed—so is clarification. It’s inherent that if we’re arguing about interpretation, meaning isn’t plain.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 6:14 pm to udtiger
Roberts is a low IQ Wanker. You have to be stupid to open up citizenship to the babies of 4.1 billion women around the world with the only criteria is can they get here for the birth…
Roberts seems compromised……he can’t be that stupid……
There are already 1.1 million Chinese with USA citizenship that are growing up in Communist China
Anyone that can read knows that the constitutions clearly says you must be under the jurisdiction of the USA,
How can sc judges be so stupid that they can’t read the text of the Constitution
Roberts seems compromised……he can’t be that stupid……
There are already 1.1 million Chinese with USA citizenship that are growing up in Communist China
Anyone that can read knows that the constitutions clearly says you must be under the jurisdiction of the USA,
How can sc judges be so stupid that they can’t read the text of the Constitution
Page 12 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News