- 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 9:51 am to rt3
Posted on 6/30/26 at 9:51 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."
This is a fricking retarded opinion just taken at face value.
0
Posted on 6/30/26 at 9:51 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
Well, I'm not an attorney either. Maybe that's not a requirement either, but I'd be shocked if anyone ever elevates someone who isn't an attorney to SCOTUS.
It's like the Pope... you don't have to be a Priest to be elected leader of the Catholic Church
Posted on 6/30/26 at 9:52 am to rt3
quote:
As others have noted, Kavanaugh writes that Trump's EO conflicts with the federal law "[u]nless and until Congress enacts" new legislation.
See I’d be fine with this opinion if Congress wasn’t fricking useless.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 9:52 am to JimEverett
quote:
Yes - that wa the only way you were going to get a majority to get any wiggle room, because a majority was not going to overturn Kim Ark (or whatever the case name is), even moreso on just a EO. But you could fit this idea into the Kim Ark case. No doubt that was why the EO was drafted the way it was as well.
If Trump issued an EO today that said "the children of people in the US on non-immigrant visas are not considered subject to the jurisdiction of the US and are not citizens" would have a punchers chance at surviving even with this decision.
Now I doubt SCOTUS takes it up again but it would be a lot closer.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 9:53 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof
quote:
The Citizenship Clause’s key phrase—“subject to the jurisdiction”—refers to the power of the United States to govern those within
its territory. N. Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language 732 (def. “jurisdiction”); J. Worcester, Dictionary of the English
Language 1435 (def. “subject”). The scope of that power was settled
largely by Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 7 Cranch 116, where
Chief Justice Marshall explained that “jurisdiction” referred to “the
full and complete power of a nation within its own territories,” “susceptible of no limitation not imposed” by the nation itself. Id., at 136.
The narrow exceptions to jurisdiction arose where exercising jurisdiction would “degrade the dignity” of “foreign sovereigns”—most frequently in the case of “foreign ministers.” Id., at 136–139. But private
individuals who traveled to the United States for “business or caprice”
were “amenable to the jurisdiction of the country.” Id., at 144. Children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily
present here are thus subject to the Nation’s jurisdiction.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 9:53 am to TTOWN RONMON
quote:
Trump can end this without the Supreme Court, all he has to do is use his Emergency Powers. As soon as he shows this is being used by foreign entities to try and overthrow our Gov. he can enact these powers and the SC have no ability to overcome these Emergency Powers.
This is fantasy land fed to you by MAGAPatriot1776 faceless Twitter bots.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 9:53 am to JimEverett
quote:
Next down the road - does Title IX REQUIRE a ban on transgender athletes.
At the very least it would require tram athletes to count towards their biological sex
Posted on 6/30/26 at 9:54 am to rt3
We knew birthright citizenship was most likely not going to fall but still sucks. They are technically right in that Congress needs to pass an amendment but the likelihood of that happening is slim to none.
I am happy that the trans ban was held in place. Finally some fricking sense on that front
I am happy that the trans ban was held in place. Finally some fricking sense on that front
Posted on 6/30/26 at 9:54 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
You skipped over the most important part:
quote:
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof
SCOTUS didn't include the comma before this statement, thus changing the meaning.
I skipped over that part because any person, illegal alien, legal alien, permanent resident, citizen, or anyone actually physically present in country is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and the state they reside in while they are physically present.
See:
Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1878)
Basically, if you can serve someone, you have jurisdiction.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 9:56 am to lionward2014
quote:
Read Gorsuch's dissent since it was the most interesting thing to me that he dissented. He essentially says they shouldn't strike down the EO because part of it isn't facially invalid as applied to people here on temporary visas, BUT he hinted he believes children of illegals are still citizens.
I see what you're talking about. For those who haven't read it yet:
quote:
The government insists that aspect of the
order can survive any possible legal challenge, too, because individuals can secure domicile in this country only if they do so in compliance with federal law. See ante, at 57–58, n. 10 (THOMAS, J., dissenting).
About that, however, I harbor doubts. Perhaps Wong Kim Ark does not squarely foreclose the government’s position. After all, that case addressed a child born to parents who lawfully resided in this country. Still, I wonder: Is a child born here to parents who have long chosen to make this Nation their permanent home not a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment solely because his parents’ presence violates statutory law? If those parents are not domiciled here, then where are they domiciled? And if the answer is nowhere, how can we reconcile that conclusion with this Court’s longstanding recognition that every person is domiciled somewhere?
This was a lot closer to a blowout than some razors edge flip from ACB or Roberts, like people would have you believe.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 9:56 am to lionward2014
quote:This wold mean US law would no apply to non-immigrants. They would be ABOVE the law. Could not be charged with crimes. How would we deport them? Under what jurisdiction?
If Trump issued an EO today that said "the children of people in the US on non-immigrant visas are not considered subject to the jurisdiction of the US
Posted on 6/30/26 at 9:57 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
Well, I'm not an attorney either.
We can tell
Posted on 6/30/26 at 9:57 am to lionward2014
Surely the issue was discussed by the majority and the dissent. Will be interesting to see if the majority makes any meaningful distinction between permanent and temporary residents.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 9:57 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
That's actually pretty fantastic. Can't say I knew any of this.
Yeah, it's crazy.
quote:
That said, I doubt we're going to see non-attorneys elevated to SCOTUS.
I wouldn't rule it out, honestly, and I'm being serious. In fact, I think that is more likely than "packing the court."
The more the population in general buys into populism, the less constitutionality or law matters to them.
Just look at this board. Almost nobody here cares about what's actually legal or constitutional, because populists don't care about things like that.
Us vs Them is all that matters. Getting the ruling you want.
I'll bet you any amount you want that if you started a thread here asking people whether they would support a political loyalist without any legal training whatsoever—just any ole baw who will always vote according to what they want, regardless of any constitutional implications—being appointed to the SCOTUS, the resounding, "Of Course!" would be heard in the next county over.
And the other side is the same way, because, populism.
So I think it will happen. Maybe sooner than you think.
In fact, I wouldn't rule it out the next time an appointment comes up and POTUS has the juice in Congress to get them confirmed.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 9:58 am to BrownLeft Shoe
quote:
I skipped over that part because any person, illegal alien, legal alien, permanent resident, citizen, or anyone actually physically present in country is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and the state they reside in while they are physically present.
Yes, I'm aware courts are wrong about this.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 9:58 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
This wold mean US law would no apply to non-immigrants.
No, it would not.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 9:59 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
Yes, I'm aware courts are wrong about this.
Yeah what do courts know about jurisdiction?
Posted on 6/30/26 at 9:59 am to BrownLeft Shoe
quote:
I skipped over that part because any person, illegal alien, legal alien, permanent resident, citizen, or anyone actually physically present in country is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and the state they reside in while they are physically present.
See:
Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1878)
Basically, if you can serve someone, you have jurisdiction.
That was essentially the debate at oral argument. Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch (sort of) agreed that the term jurisdiction means something different here, which is what Sauer argued. If SCOTUS went with the EO, civil suits were about to get upended as an unintended consequence.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 10:00 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
Yes, I'm aware courts are wrong about this.
You get called hard headed a lot don't you
Posted on 6/30/26 at 10:00 am to SammyTiger
quote:
Yeah what do courts know about jurisdiction?
Jurisdiction and allegiance are not the same.
Page 5 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News