- 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: SCOTUS Opinion Day - June 30
Posted on 6/30/26 at 9:37 am to lionward2014
Posted on 6/30/26 at 9:37 am to lionward2014
quote:
Gorsuch dissenting is WILD.
That's the biggest surprise to me. He didn't seem convinced at all by the admin's arguments.
0
Posted on 6/30/26 at 9:37 am to BearCrocs
quote:
Thomas has a dissenting opinion, joined by Alito; Alito and Gorsuch filed dissenting opinions.
Kav is "concurs in part, dissents in part"
Posted on 6/30/26 at 9:37 am to lionward2014
We love our women supreme court justices, don't we folks?
Posted on 6/30/26 at 9:37 am to atlgamecockman
quote:
Very curious to see how Thomas tries to get around the plain language of the Constitution.
You should be curious how Roberts did that. The plain language of the Constitution does not grant birthright citizenship.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 9:37 am to BearCrocs
quote:
We love our women supreme court justices, don't we folks?
John Roberts?
Posted on 6/30/26 at 9:37 am to lionward2014
Meanwhile Kavanaugh sides with the liberal 3 more than either Roberts or ACB and not a single person hates on him for it.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 9:37 am to BearCrocs
fricking Amy Comey Barrett
Posted on 6/30/26 at 9:37 am to Ingeniero
quote:
6-3 against the administration in birthright citizenship
It is the only time I've seen this particular group of justices become strict constructionists.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 9:38 am to rt3
Gorsuch was the best Trump appointment of the three by far.
This post was edited on 6/30/26 at 9:39 am
Posted on 6/30/26 at 9:40 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
You should be curious how Roberts did that. The plain language of the Constitution does not grant birthright citizenship.
Lol go read the opinion, it's pretty clear it does.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 9:40 am to TakingStock
Next democrat throws open the borders like Biden did and the country is toast.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 9:40 am to TakingStock
Talking about Kav...
quote:
He says that the EO does not violate the 14th Amendment but does violate the federal statute that codified the 14th Amendment.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 9:41 am to rt3
As anticipated, birthright citizenship for illegals is upheld.
Barret and Roberts sided with the 3 liberal justices. Kavanaugh had a concurrent opinion that agreed in part and dissented in part. Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch dissented.
Barret and Roberts sided with the 3 liberal justices. Kavanaugh had a concurrent opinion that agreed in part and dissented in part. Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch dissented.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 9:41 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
John Roberts?
Roberts will think he's doing something noble.
He looks outside, realizes the only reason there aren't armored carriers and fencing is because he was going to go the way the mob that seeks to undermine this country wants. Men like him are so interesting. In the worst way.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 9:41 am to rt3
quote:
Roberts concludes that children born to parents who are in the United States unlawfully or temporarily are "born in the United States" and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." "Under the Constitution, they are citizens at birth."
Posted on 6/30/26 at 9:42 am to atlgamecockman
quote:
Lol go read the opinion, it's pretty clear it does.
Chinese birth tourism is great!
Posted on 6/30/26 at 9:43 am to RohanGonzales
Arguments for limiting birthright citizenship to those domiciled
in the United States fail. These arguments err in their definition of
“allegiance,” contending that natural allegiance was no longer sufficient for citizenship and that some greater quantum of allegiance
(based on domicile) was required. There is scant evidence for this dramatically revisionist view; sources from 1776 to 1868 defined “allegiance by birth” just as the British did—as “the tie or duty” owed by
one who is “born within the dominions and under the protection of a
particular sovereign.”
in the United States fail. These arguments err in their definition of
“allegiance,” contending that natural allegiance was no longer sufficient for citizenship and that some greater quantum of allegiance
(based on domicile) was required. There is scant evidence for this dramatically revisionist view; sources from 1776 to 1868 defined “allegiance by birth” just as the British did—as “the tie or duty” owed by
one who is “born within the dominions and under the protection of a
particular sovereign.”
Posted on 6/30/26 at 9:43 am to atlgamecockman
quote:
Lol go read the opinion, it's pretty clear it does.
The opinion is incorrect. They didn't even quote the Constitution correctly.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 9:43 am to rt3
quote:
Roberts concludes that children born to parents who are in the United States unlawfully or temporarily are "born in the United States" and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." "Under the Constitution, they are citizens at birth."
SFP is about to have 0 billable hours today with all the victory laps and "told you so's" he's due for
Posted on 6/30/26 at 9:44 am to imjustafatkid
Why didn't Trump put you on the court instead of Kav or ACB?
Page 3 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News