re: SCOTUS will hear Birthright Citizenship case

I posted it because of the CNN coverage, jizz rag.

quote:

---

quote:
Those who argue for a “living constitution” want to push unpopular changes via judicial decree because they lack the electoral consensus to change the Constitution via the amendment process.
====
This is MAGA in this example.

---

/\ THIS /\ is bullshite in its most insipid form.

Precisely the opposite is true

About 30 years too late; country is radically changed in demographics. 3rd world here we come in ten years.
(except the top 10%)

Sadly you are right

BTW there is a second case 25-364 that SCOTUS did not grant writs, did not deny writs either. In that case some believe there is an issue with standing. SCOTUS may not dispose of the second case until after they render a decision in the present case. If writs are denied in 364 before 365 is decided then overturning the lower courts in 365 is not looking good.

quote:

---

read the briefs

---

Can you tell me the best brief that doesn't rely on legislative intent or language of the legislators who drafted the 14A?

This is glorious.

quote:

---

his journey abandoning textualism

---

What his version of textualism and your version are not necessarily congruent.

I'd like to align myself with what the 'common sense' definition of the problem they were trying to fix was at the time they wrote it.

I would guarantee that they NEVER considered the potential of someone ILLEGALLY flying in hundreds of thousands of aliens to dump in selected legislative district in order to upend the census records.

Nor would they have considered the wholesale disregard of the rest of the laws of the land to allow another 20,000,000 aliens to walk across the border without a moment of vetting, to set up shop as charges of the state to feed, house, treat, defend, allow to commit crime at will, and fight any attempt to actually apply the laws of the land to get them deported.

you KNOW they would have either laughed their asses off at YOUR interpretation of what they had written - or else just shot your arse for being so gullible.

But go ahead - you b you.

quote:

---

It basically states “ignore the drafter’s own words”.

---

Which is exactly what Scalia and Thomas preached for decades.

quote:

---

That’s easy, the legislators vote on “official comments”. The comments lay out exactly what a code article is supposed to mean. Sometimes, these comments are meant to repudiate and override a decision by the Louisiana Supreme Court.

---

And our codal comments have no jurisprudential weight and the courts often ignore them, even if the comments specifically note a change was to overrule the LASC.

I have argued one of these cases at the appellate level and won. Over a textual change SPECIFICALLY written to overrule a LASC case. Legislative history and comments both establish that was the intent. Why was this ultimately a failure? They written text used in the change didn't fix the problem that LASC had previously ruled on. All it did was make a sloppier statute sloppier, with the same limitations as the prior status after the prior LASC ruling.