- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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 will hear Birthright Citizenship case
Posted on 12/5/25 at 1:18 pm to boosiebadazz
Posted on 12/5/25 at 1:18 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
’ll bet we get a Thomas majority opinion stating the 14th was only for slaves and not what we see today.
When debating the 14th amendment a Senator said that section 1 was only for slaves.
0
Posted on 12/5/25 at 1:18 pm to cajunandy
I'll be shocked if they change this but these threads are always illustrative of the people who lack the capacity to distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants. Its not a complicated distinction yet approximately half the country seems unwilling or unable to understand it.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 1:20 pm to cajunandy
I think we all know how this will end. Robert's and Barrett siding with the leftists
Posted on 12/5/25 at 1:20 pm to retired_tiger
Your an idiot
Posted on 12/5/25 at 1:20 pm to goatmilker
quote:
I don’t care how or why but please end it. We will be better off without.
^ this
Posted on 12/5/25 at 1:21 pm to OchoDedos
quote:
I think we all know how this will end. Robert's and Barrett siding with the leftists
As of today, I'd be shocked if Gorsuch doesn't join them.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 1:22 pm to cajunandy
Media and everybody else in favor of birthright citizenship: "You cannot overturn this because of the total chaos the sudden change would cause."
And that reason will probably be accepted by SCOTUS. Too much hardship on illegal immigrants and their kids. Next on the docket.....
And that reason will probably be accepted by SCOTUS. Too much hardship on illegal immigrants and their kids. Next on the docket.....
Posted on 12/5/25 at 1:23 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
This makes, literally, no sense. Apply this "logic" to the 2A or even 1A
2A just tells the federal government to BTFO.
The 14th amendment does not force the executive branch to take jurisdiction.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 1:23 pm to BigJim
quote:
They would have to overrule the original intent of the language, using the understanding at the time.
No. They would have to overrule Wong Kim Ark (which ignored intent) and argue for the original intent.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 1:25 pm to Doctor B
cajunandy
Media and everybody else in favor of birthright citizenship: "You cannot overturn this because of the total chaos the sudden change would cause."
And that reason will probably be accepted by SCOTUS. Too much hardship on illegal immigrants and their kids. Next on the docket.....
...and yet they treated MaoCare legal as a tax. ...regardless of how it destroyed health care.
Media and everybody else in favor of birthright citizenship: "You cannot overturn this because of the total chaos the sudden change would cause."
And that reason will probably be accepted by SCOTUS. Too much hardship on illegal immigrants and their kids. Next on the docket.....
...and yet they treated MaoCare legal as a tax. ...regardless of how it destroyed health care.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 1:27 pm to evil cockroach
quote:7-2, but same result.quote:9-0 against Trump
Calling it now
I think they are granting cert just to get people to STFU with the painfully stupid arguments against the consensus view of the 14th Amendment.
Birthright citizenship for illegal alins is BAD POLICY, but ONLY a policy-driven (rather than law-driven) analysis would see it overturned.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 1:30 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
As of today, I'd be shocked if Gorsuch doesn't join them.
Yeah Im betting it will be him as well.
I think hes one of the top two judges on the court.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 1:30 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
painfully stupid arguments against the consensus view of the 14th Amendment.
I found the dissent in Wong Kim Ark to be compelling and profoundly American.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 1:31 pm to hogcard1964
There is really no reason to accept this case to only affirm the lower courts. They could do that by denying the writ application.
It takes 4 justices to agree to hear the case. However you will not get 4 justices to hear the case if they know they will lose. In other words there is a 5th justice that is willing to reverse the lower court.
Read the briefs that have been filed, I suggest the briefs from the congressman and the Tennessee brief. Both are very good.
It takes 4 justices to agree to hear the case. However you will not get 4 justices to hear the case if they know they will lose. In other words there is a 5th justice that is willing to reverse the lower court.
Read the briefs that have been filed, I suggest the briefs from the congressman and the Tennessee brief. Both are very good.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 1:32 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:It is really amazing.quote:It would complete his journey abandoning textualism that he started during Trump 1
I’ll bet we get a Thomas majority opinion stating it the 14th was only for slaves and not what we see today.
A solid Textualist for 30 years, and now ...?
Posted on 12/5/25 at 1:33 pm to retired_tiger
You posting that meme shows just how fricking stupid you are.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 1:34 pm to the808bass
quote:For an Originalist, yes. For a Textualist, not so much.
I’ll bet we get a Thomas ... opinion stating the 14th was only for slaves and not what we see today.quote:
Which is mostly accurate.
Flipping from one to the other because you like the RESULT better? Intellectual dishonesty.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 1:34 pm to Sassafrasology
quote:
2A just tells the federal government to BTFO.
The 14th amendment does not force the executive branch to take jurisdiction.
Why would Congress or the Executive get to take the role of the judiciary and define these terms?
Posted on 12/5/25 at 1:34 pm to TrueTiger
quote:
If you were born on US soil but another nation recognizes you as their citizen, then you are subject to their jurisdiction not the US jurisdiction.
This is incorrect.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 1:35 pm to rtr72
quote:
Your an idiot
Page 2 of 17
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News