re: SCOTUS to decide on taking appeal of birthright citizenship

quote:

---

Looking forward to a 9-0 decision against trump on this one.

---

You would think that since its such a slam dunk SCOTUS would deny Cert on the first conference. SCOTUS did not deny Cert, rather it will reschedule it for the next conference.

This is a matter for which the SCOTUS should issue an opinion.

Other than a footnote in Plyler v. Doe, there's been no statement on this issue in over 100 years (and that ruling was based on very different facts)

This is yet another thing that pisses me off about Congressional Republicans.

They should have ended birthright citizenship statutorily, along with chain migration.

But they didn’t.

Now they’ve, per usual, delegated their legislative authority to the executive and the SCOTUS. And once the SCOTUS weighs in, not only can they not be fired if they make the wrong decision - or legislate from the bench - which when combined with lifetime appointments and stare decisis is lethal to a republic - we are stuck with a policy decision that is impossible to edit, remove or improve (see e.g. frick you Roberts for sticking us with Obamacare bc you may cause a scene). . .

This should have been handled legislatively, but it can’t and won’t be bc of the filibuster. And when y'all hate the result, just remember that Bush adjacent wafflers, ACB, Kav and Roberta, together with the Wise Latina and Affirmative Action Jackson - outnumber Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch. Roberts will frick this up with some concurring opinion that will be impossible to put into practice, but will stymie legislation to actually fix this problem and will again, allow him to temporarily avoid a scene.

I don’t necessarily believe Roberts is compromised- but I do think he is a gigantic gaping pussy who decides what he thinks the law should be, instead of interpreting what the law is.

quote:

---

They should have ended birthright citizenship statutorily

---

So Congress can usurp the Constitution?

That's not how our system works.

quote:

---

family separation

---

Always enjoy this argument.

Imagine I get pulled over for a DUI, but they let me go because my 5 year old daughter is with me and we can’t be separated.

Or I rob a bank but can’t go to jail because I’d be separated from my 7 year old.

Just more and more mental gymnastics from the filth.

Congress should define what makes a naturalized citizen.

The SCOTUS should whether that definition conflicts with the Constitution.

Despite the footnote that makes you so excited, SCOTUS has never addressed whether the children of random foreigners who came into the country 5 minutes before giving birth are citizens.

There is no legislation addressing it.

It is extra constitutional for the Supreme Court to be setting immigration policy, especially now that a bunch of law students write law review articles instead of deciding the cases before the justices. And you know it. Or at least you should

quote:

---

Nothing to prevent the congress from passing a law defining "jurisdiction in such a manner that would end birthright citizenship.

---

That would be giving Congress the power to usurp the Constitution.

quote:

---

Side note SCOTUS used section 5 to prevent Colorado and other states from keeping Trump off the ballad under Section 3.

---

Only because Congress hadn't acted (in some time). That statutory authority doesn't get to have the power to interpret the Constitution. That's the USSC's role.

The statutes must fall within the established text/interpretation of the Constitution at all times. Congress doesn't get to make that determination.

That's why all the Voting Rights Act provisions keep falling, for a recent example.

quote:

---

It's been ruled that way at every step and the Supremes may not even take the case up

---

Roe was "settled law". Until it wasn't.

Oops.

So, while I think what I wish for has a snowball's chance in hell, at least Trump is trying, unlike others before him and there is probably a slight chance they'll take it up.

If they do, whoo boy, it's gonna' be fireworks!

quote:

---

Now, federal courts have blocked that order as unconstitutional, citing more than a century of legal precedent

---

As we've seen so many times before, "precedent" doesn't define what is or is not Constitutionally permissible.

When it is clear that border jumpers are timing illegal entry to use their unborn children as "anchor babies" to gain permanent citizenship, circumventing the laws on the book for legal entrance, something must be done to issue a correction.

In this particular scenario, the constitution itself acts as an arbiter of fate with a big loophole for law-breakers if this remains uncontested. I say, one way or another, this topic needs to be clearly defined. From what little i know, I think Trump's EO will be stricken down by SCOTUS, right or wrong. But, perhaps there is some nuance or specific nomenclature and verbiage that will back him up.