- 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 10:27 am to Taxing Authority
Posted on 6/30/26 at 10:27 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
Were slaves, brought here against their will, permanently domiciled here? Ultimately, that's why the "domicile" question fails. If anyone could argue they weren't domiciled and allegent to the US it would be the very people the amendment was designed to protect.
Yes, I think slaves were permanently domiciled here. Just like Wong Kim ARk's parents were permanently domiciled here. And I think most illegals are permanently domiciled here (there are clearly exeptions). But more to the point - people here on visas are clearly, no possible denial, NOT permanently domiciled here. That is the class you go after via EO and the only class you go after.
1
Posted on 6/30/26 at 10:27 am to TideCPA
quote:We're not. Amendments exist. Constitution can be changed, but not from the bench, and not by EO. And that's a good thing.
we're stuck with an awful reality with respect to birthright citizenship and a giant welfare state.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 10:28 am to Taxing Authority
quote:Why is everyone assuming I believe SCOTUS decided incorrectly here? The words mean what they mean, and Trump clearly overstepped. Doesn't make the situation any less shitty.
Yup. Just like the nobody in 1789 could have possibly foreseen the consequences of semi-automatic firearms (2A), radio, TV, or social media (1A).
Guess those should be overridable with an EO too?
Posted on 6/30/26 at 10:30 am to Taxing Authority
quote:We can agree to disagree there. In the context of a giant welfare state like we currently have, functionally giving increasing electoral power to net takers is not actually a good thing, regardless of whether it's consistent with the language of an 1868 amendment.
We're not. Amendments exist. Constitution can be changed, but not from the bench, and not by EO. And that's a good thing.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 10:30 am to JimEverett
quote:
Yes, I think slaves were permanently domiciled here. Just like Wong Kim ARk's parents were permanently domiciled here. And I think most illegals are permanently domiciled here (there are clearly exeptions). But more to the point - people here on visas are clearly, no possible denial, NOT permanently domiciled here. That is the class you go after via EO and the only class you go after.
Interestingly, this is exactly what Gorsuch seems to argue. It doesn't crack down on the children of illegals being made citizens, but it seems like there's an argument against temporary visa holders. I don't see how that helps the admin's mission though.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 10:33 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
We're not. Amendments exist. Constitution can be changed, but not from the bench, and not by EO. And that's a good thing.
Honestly... this is where I'm at
I believe most policy related SCOTUS rulings should generally fall in 1 of 2 camps
1) That's your job, Congress, no one else's (like this 1)
2) That belongs to each state to decide how it wants to handle it (like gay marriage & abortion)
Posted on 6/30/26 at 10:34 am to TideCPA
quote:
Yep. The problem is nobody in 1868 could have possibly foreseen the consequences of that language being an invasion of third-worlders seeking the benefits of a giant welfare state; that concept would have been unbelievably alien.
Lyndon B Johnson changed this country forever when he signed the Hart-Cellar Act. He was an absolute disgrace of a president.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 10:37 am to TideCPA
quote:
Huh? I'm arguing the same words apply in the modern context. For speech, that's a good thing because it's consistent with the intentions of the drafters of that amendment.
He's saying that the 1A wouldn't protect internet speech, because it wasn't something foreseen at the drafting of the 1A
Posted on 6/30/26 at 10:38 am to TideCPA
quote:
We can agree to disagree there. In the context of a giant welfare state like we currently have, functionally giving increasing electoral power to net takers is not actually a good thing, regardless of whether it's consistent with the language of an 1868 amendment.
This is living document analysis, similar to "the 2A only applies to muskets" arguments
Posted on 6/30/26 at 10:39 am to Ingeniero
quote:
I don't see how that helps the admin's mission though.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 10:40 am to SlowFlowPro
It is incredibly important to be logically consistent
And if the country falls into the shitter, that’s really of no consequence.
And if the country falls into the shitter, that’s really of no consequence.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 10:44 am to the808bass
quote:
It is incredibly important to be logically consistent
And if the country falls into the shitter, that’s really of no consequence.
Asking the Supreme Court to make decisions based on what you think the consequences are/should be rather than logical consistency and constitutionality is what libs do. We need hate speech laws and gun bans because "think of the children"
Posted on 6/30/26 at 10:44 am to rt3
To be honest, the most important ruling today wasn’t Trump (maintained the status quo) or West Virginia (ends a lot of stupidity but doesn’t actually impact that many people).
The real impactful decision National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC. This decision effectively struck down limitations on campaign funds spent by political parties in coordination with candidates on candidates in races. This is a HUGE change. I am not sure if this change will make elections better or worse. I fear it will strengthen political parties, but it may also weaken Super PACs.
The real impactful decision National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC. This decision effectively struck down limitations on campaign funds spent by political parties in coordination with candidates on candidates in races. This is a HUGE change. I am not sure if this change will make elections better or worse. I fear it will strengthen political parties, but it may also weaken Super PACs.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 10:44 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:No it's not. This isn't a legal opinion, only my own opinion of current reality. The courts shouldn't overrule the plain text of the 14th for the same reason they shouldn't overrule the plain text of the 2nd.
This is living document analysis, similar to "the 2A only applies to muskets" arguments
Posted on 6/30/26 at 10:45 am to the808bass
quote:
It is incredibly important to be logically consistent
And if the country falls into the shitter, that’s really of no consequence.
If we are no longer a nation of laws, I reckon the Leftists will have the advantage
This is like how the ruling yesterday neutering Congress will backfire in the end.
This post was edited on 6/30/26 at 10:46 am
Posted on 6/30/26 at 10:45 am to rt3
Did Hitler or Mussolini ever have their courts review and strike down every action they tried to make? I'm just wondering because it doesnt seem like Trump is a very good fascist. Wouldnt a fascist have these judges thrown in prison and do what he wants anyway?
Posted on 6/30/26 at 10:46 am to TideCPA
quote:
No it's not. This isn't a legal opinion, only my own opinion of current reality.
If we claim the Constitution is invalidated as society changes, then there is no more Constitution. This is why the "living document" analysis is so scary.
quote:
The courts shouldn't overrule the plain text of the 14th for the same reason they shouldn't overrule the plain text of the 2nd.
I agree. How society changed since inception should have no weight in the conversation at all.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 10:48 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:JFC. I agree with this decision, despite the horrible unintended consequences the plain language has precipitated.
If we claim the Constitution is invalidated as society changes, then there is no more Constitution. This is why the "living document" analysis is so scary.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 10:54 am to TideCPA
quote:
The courts shouldn't overrule the plain text of the 14th
Good thing the 14th has no plain text.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 10:57 am to shinerfan
quote:
Good thing the 14th has no plain text.
It's as unambiguous as "shall not be infringed."
Page 8 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News