- 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: Hintopoulos v Shaughnessy and its relevance to birthright citizenship
Posted on 4/2/26 at 8:05 am to Ingeniero
Posted on 4/2/26 at 8:05 am to Ingeniero
Personally, I think one of the parents must be a legal citizen for the baby to have citizenship. You know, like most of the world does. The fact that someone on vacation can come here have a baby and that kid becomes a US citizen is idiotic.
0
Posted on 4/2/26 at 8:05 am to lowhound
quote:
So you're saying that one set of Justice's opinions on a case can't ever be looked at again,
The Trump admin is not arguing to overturn WKA, FYI.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 8:21 am to Ingeniero
Was the question of whether the child was or was not a citizen before the court?
Seems like those were just comments made, not decisions.
Seems like those were just comments made, not decisions.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 8:34 am to Ingeniero
The phrase from the opinion you’ve latched onto is clearly dicta. I’m not sure where you get your Supreme Court or legal news—I’m guessing Reddit—but you should really stick to Mexican engineering.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 8:37 am to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:
Was the question of whether the child was or was not a citizen before the court?
Seems like those were just comments made, not decisions.
It's not as much an argument about precedent as how the argument the admin is relying on lacks historical support and is a creation of the 21st century, really.
This case is an example of how the principles at issue weren't contested historically. Everyone agreed that BRC, even to illegals, existed.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 8:40 am to Riverside
quote:
The phrase from the opinion you’ve latched onto is clearly dicta. I
Nobody is arguing it is precedent.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 8:58 am to WHS
quote:This makes no difference. It's not SCOTUS job to create laws or changes to laws we need.
1951 America did not have the same issues that we have today.
It's been quite the s*it show watching some of y'all begging for legislation from the bench.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 8:59 am to deuceiswild
quote:Just remember neither do Leftists when they want to take away your 1A and 2A rights.
You see, personally I don't care to argue or debate what the amendment says, or how it's being interpreted.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 9:01 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:EXACTLY! The constution is a "living document". It's interpertation shild be flexible over time, and should be read however best fits the current agenda. <-- what Democrats have said for decades.
That’s been the interpretation forever. That doesn’t make it correct.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 9:03 am to TenWheelsForJesus
quote:Or, we could... you know.... vote congress memebers out.
Yes, let's let our country be ruined and our children raped and murdered by illegals because the pieces of shite in congress are being paid to destroy our way of life.
Throwing out the Constitution because we're unhappy with Congress is silly.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 9:07 am to Taxing Authority
But you see, when Democrats want SCOTUS to legislate from the bench it's bad, because leftists are bad. When I want them to do it, it's good, because my idea is the correct one.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 9:10 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:And I'd argue that people illegally coming here aren't trying to evade US jurisdiction, but are rather, seeking to be under US jurisdiction.
There is no standard or precedent regarding "slipping US Jurisdiction". There is theoretically an argument about status, which is binary (are they here legally or illegally). There is nothing to justify creating a sub-class of the "illegal" portion of that binary decision and segregating them into "slipping US jurisdiction or not slipping US jurisdiction" (whatever that even means).
The logical pretzle requried to claim that illegals are not subject to US jurisdiction to make the 14A unapplicable is ... impressive. For a moment pretend the Aministrations position is affirmed. About 6 hours later some illegal is going to file suit that the US cannot remove them because they are not subject to US law.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 9:10 am to Ingeniero
Are you arguing that all “legislation from the bench” has the same moral or ethical value?
Or are you just yelling “hypocrite?”
Or are you just yelling “hypocrite?”
Posted on 4/2/26 at 9:11 am to Ingeniero
Don't forget how the same people will try to argue that they're promoting logic over emotions. Who will then argue that if you don't adopt their policy position here, literally your children will be raped by brown people.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 9:12 am to the808bass
quote:
Are you arguing that all “legislation from the bench” has the same moral or ethical value?
I don't think he is because that's not really relevant to his argument or the Constitutional argument being had by others?.
quote:
Or are you just yelling “hypocrite?”
That
ETA: I think a better way to describe it other than hypocrisy is that these people don't have sincere policy positions and they are just NPCs who repeat talking points and don't actually understand what they're talking about
This post was edited on 4/2/26 at 9:14 am
Posted on 4/2/26 at 9:13 am to the808bass
quote:
Are you arguing that all “legislation from the bench” has the same moral or ethical value?
Or are you just yelling “hypocrite?”
The latter. I want the court to make decisions based on the letter of the law, not what moral or ethical value they assign to a decision. Making a moral determination and working backwards to a reasoning is what libs do
Posted on 4/2/26 at 9:13 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Who will then argue that if you don't adopt their policy position here, literally your children will be raped by brown people.
Probably not my children.
But someone’s.
SFP approves.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 9:14 am to Ingeniero
quote:
is what libs do
Thank you for your service.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 9:18 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I think a better way to describe it other than hypocrisy is that these people don't have sincere policy positions and they are just NPCs who repeat talking points and don't actually understand what they're talking about
A more charitable (and, at least in my opinion, more likely) reading of their position is that they see the gaming of the system and that it seems to only go one direction with regards to illegal immigration. And they mistakenly believe that our Justice system has any connection to the idea of justice. So they mistakenly think that justice should be achieved by the Justice system.
Posted on 4/2/26 at 9:21 am to deuceiswild
quote:squarely on a soap box, if I had to guess
So where does SFP stand
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News