re: NJ challenging EO to end birth right citizenship

His deep legal go to..

That's irrelevant.

quote:

---

If you are a textualist as you claim, then the jurisdiction piece wouldn’t only apply to diplomats as it currently does. It would apply to anyone here temporarily:

---

That's not how people of the time understood the words

See: Wong Kim Ark

Scalia on gay right and weed is a different person than scalia on anything else.

quote:

---

effectively laughed at it?

---

Watch me do Slo shite.


LIIIINK?

Agree;

Also,
WKA parents were Chinese laborers who were legal residents who had entered the country legally; but not citizens.
Illegal aliens are not legal residents, and have not entered legally. That’s a pretty big difference.

In WKA the Court reasoned that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" meant being within the complete allegiance and obedience of the United States, which included those present legally in the US.

And; before arguments about the 2 specific exceptions from WKA, those exceptions are for those who are legally in the country at the time of their child’s birth (ex. A diplomat); not for those who are here illegally. Citizenship status of children of Illegal immigrants wasn’t decided in WKA.

quote:

---

Watch me do Slo shite.


LIIIINK?

---

That was easy

quote:

---

“I’ve been on the bench for over four decades, I can’t remember another case where the question presented is as clear as this one is. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,” Coughenour, an appointee of Ronald Reagan, said from the bench. “There are other times in world history where we look back and people of goodwill can say where were the judges, where were the lawyers?”

Coughenour, speaking to a standing-room-only courtroom in downtown Seattle, interrupted before Brett Shumate, a Justice Department attorney, could even complete his first sentence.

“In your opinion is this executive order constitutional?” he asked.

Said Shumate, “It absolutely is.”

“Frankly, I have difficulty understanding how a member of the bar could state unequivocally that this is a constitutional order,” Coughenour said. “It just boggles my mind.”

---

Still not seeing the “effective laughter” but his ruling means very little in the grand scheme. But I guess you’ll have to learn this the hard way.

He’s not wrong, you offer discount divorces and there’s a reason why you do that instead of excelling in your profession.

quote:

---

And; before arguments about the 2 specific exceptions from WKA, those exceptions are for those who are legally in the country at the time of their child’s birth (ex. A diplomat); not for those who are here illegally.

---

This is patently not true.

The concept of "being here illegally" did not exist at the time.

quote:

---

Citizenship status of children of Illegal immigrants wasn’t decided in WKA.

---

Only if you make shite up like the above quote.