- 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: Live: Supreme Court hears Trump bid to limit birthright citizenship
Posted on 4/1/26 at 9:59 am to lionward2014
Posted on 4/1/26 at 9:59 am to lionward2014
quote:
Alito started with a Scalia quote that the SG said was wrong. That's a summary of the day so far.
Yeah. The admin is fricked.
0
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:00 am to Ingeniero
I think Gorsuch could surprise Trump even more. He routinely asks interesting question that makes you believe one thing and then in reality goes another way. He's a smart guy.
But as a whole the Supremes are loathe until just recently to overturn precedent, especially long established precedent in this case. There hasn't been any competent challenge to Wong Kim Ark since it was decided in 1898. There have been a few attempts such as in 1924 and even in 2004 with Hamdi v. Rumsfeld to no success. Of the few that made it up to SCOTUS just about all were thrown out and Hamdi was a loser.
But as a whole the Supremes are loathe until just recently to overturn precedent, especially long established precedent in this case. There hasn't been any competent challenge to Wong Kim Ark since it was decided in 1898. There have been a few attempts such as in 1924 and even in 2004 with Hamdi v. Rumsfeld to no success. Of the few that made it up to SCOTUS just about all were thrown out and Hamdi was a loser.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:02 am to KiwiHead
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:10 am to VoxDawg
quote:
So fricking fricked up. I'll pray they frick him to his face. Sorry, I say frick a lot these days.
Was this an April Fools post?
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:14 am to VoxDawg
And they say Trump is immature. LOL
Honestly, I don't have a problem with birthright citizenship for someone who is residing here in accordance with the law. If we could fix that one little detail, a ton of issues go away.
Honestly, I don't have a problem with birthright citizenship for someone who is residing here in accordance with the law. If we could fix that one little detail, a ton of issues go away.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:17 am to Vacherie Saint
KJB gave up a lot of counterplay for the admin. He was able to close pretty strong there.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:18 am to lionward2014
Yeah KBJ being the closer was weak. Walked a few batters there
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:18 am to TBoy
Did you representive say that?
You far lefters are crazy
You far lefters are crazy
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:20 am to lionward2014
quote:Oof. Feel sorry for the SG having to argue this one.
Alito started with a Scalia quote that the SG said was wrong. That's a summary of the day so far.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:22 am to loogaroo
Simple question I hope a justice asks. Can a person born in the US to non US citizens, who then lived in the parents home country, be eligible to serve an POTUS or be appointed to SCOTUS.
What parameters are in place to prevent a hostile nation from raising American born babies in their home country to then return to the US as adults and inject themselves into US government, policies, politics, as American citizens.
Also, what would prevent said foreign "US citizen" that has never lived on US soil from funding US policies and politicians?
What parameters are in place to prevent a hostile nation from raising American born babies in their home country to then return to the US as adults and inject themselves into US government, policies, politics, as American citizens.
Also, what would prevent said foreign "US citizen" that has never lived on US soil from funding US policies and politicians?
This post was edited on 4/1/26 at 10:27 am
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:25 am to fwtex
quote:
What parameters are in place to prevent a hostile nation from raising American born babies in their home country to then return to the US as adults and inject themselves into US government, policies, politics, as American citizens.
China could have a whole invasion of American citizens waiting.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:28 am to fwtex
quote:
Simple question I hope a justice asks. Can a person born in the US to non US citizens, who then lived in the parents home country, be eligible to serve an POTUS or be appointed to SCOTUS.
Under the Constitution as it stands today, yes. The requirement is that the person be a "natural born citizen." Should we want this? Absolutely not, I would hope people would vote against a candidate like that.
That hypo shouldn't matter in determining the constitutionality of birthright citizenship. The Constitution isn't a living document, even if that was argued by the SG today.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:28 am to lionward2014
Thanks for updates. Can't listen ATM.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:30 am to lionward2014
quote:
That hypo shouldn't matter in determining the constitutionality of birthright citizenship. The Constitution isn't a living document, even if that was argued by the SG today.
People keep giving arguments to justify amending the Constitution which are not directly applicable to this discussion. These are all very valid arguments to justify amending the Constitution
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:38 am to loogaroo
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here. Have they been in oral discussion for an hour?
This post was edited on 4/1/26 at 10:39 am
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:39 am to lionward2014
quote:OF COURSE IT SHOULD.
That hypo shouldn't matter in determining the constitutionality of birthright citizenship.
It goes straight to the intent of the right.
As posted earlier, only lunacy would hold that intent of the 14thA was to allow the CCP to jet pregnant CCP-loyal women into the US, drop a baby, return to China, raise the child as a US-hating CCP-loyalist, and have him eligible to be elected POTUS, whereas Elon Musk is ineligible.
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:41 am to Vacherie Saint
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:41 am to VoxDawg
The Democrat party in a nutshell
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:42 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
As posted earlier, only lunacy would hold that intent of the 14thA was to allow the CCP to jet pregnant CCP-loyal women into the US, drop a baby, return to China, raise the child as a US-hating CCP-loyalist, and have him eligible to be elected POTUS, whereas Elon Musk is ineligible.
This could not have been conceptualized at the time, the same as automatic firearms capable of fitting into pockets. Modern developments in society and technology don't change the text. If these developments cause problems, we have the ability to amend the Contract to address these problems.
The other option is to make the Constitution a "living document"
Posted on 4/1/26 at 10:44 am to VoxDawg
Page 2 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News