- 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: Supreme Court Live re Birthright Citizenship and Nationwide Injunctions
Posted on 5/15/25 at 4:00 pm to dafif
Posted on 5/15/25 at 4:00 pm to dafif
quote:
Barrett questioning the solicitor general on whether he will follow the direction of the second circuit is otherworldly in a Supreme Court oral argument case
Yeah, it has zero bearing on this matter. He should have responded in such.
0
Posted on 5/15/25 at 4:15 pm to deltaland
quote:
The question is should birthright citizenship apply to a person born here if the parents were here illegally. There’s an argument that it shouldn’t apply because it’s a loophole that’s being abused. A woman pregnant 9 months in Mexico shouldn’t be able to hop the border and spit a baby out and it be a U.S. citizen automatically.
While I understand What you are saying, a literal reading of the constitution does not allow for that.
To me it’s like the second amendment. We can’t read things into it that are not there.
Posted on 5/15/25 at 4:41 pm to LSUFanHouston
The other issue is that "illegal" is an act of Congress, and that was done after the court ruling they're trying to distinguish with the "the case doesn't apply to illegals" argument.
How can Congress supersede the Constitution by creating a status of person to whom the Constitution doesn't apply?
How can Congress supersede the Constitution by creating a status of person to whom the Constitution doesn't apply?
Posted on 5/15/25 at 4:42 pm to hogcard1964
quote:
ACB has turned out to be a complete loon.
I don’t think she started out that way. I think she was influenced by the 3 liberal women justices. She was the only female conservative and women tend to fall in with their peers for acceptance. They are less likely to be steadfast in their principles than men especially in the face of social pressure
Posted on 5/15/25 at 4:49 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
How can Congress supersede the Constitution by creating a status of person to whom the Constitution doesn't apply?
That depends.
Are we pretending the Admiralty Law is not in effect?
And are we still pretending the USA is not in fact a "Corporation"?
Posted on 5/15/25 at 4:49 pm to LSUFanHouston
quote:
While I understand What you are saying, a literal reading of the constitution does not allow for that. To me it’s like the second amendment. We can’t read things into it that are not there.
But yet there are laws restricting the 2nd amendment if you read it literally.
I get tired of the inconsistency and whenever they decide to interpret the constitution literally it’s bad for the country as in the case of birthright citizenship having no limitations. And I do agree that is the literal interpretation. But then we get to the first or 2nd amendment and it’s “a living document” and interpreted to allow some restrictions.
It’s all bullshite and more times than not the way it’s decided to be interpreted ends up bad for the country rather than good. It’s one or the other either we always take it literally or we don’t.
I’m for literal interpretation but it needs to be across the board which means a whole lot of laws should be struck down
Posted on 5/15/25 at 4:53 pm to EphesianArmor
quote:
That depends.
Are we pretending the Admiralty Law is not in effect?
And are we still pretending the USA is not in fact a "Corporation"?
frick yes. Welcome, friend. 
Posted on 5/15/25 at 4:53 pm to IvoryBillMatt
Unfortunately, I think it was assumed birthright citizenship had no shot, and the real hearing was on nationwide injunctions.
Any semblance of hope there?
Any semblance of hope there?
Posted on 5/15/25 at 4:54 pm to GeekedUp
I would think that would be a slam dunk.
Posted on 5/15/25 at 5:01 pm to GeekedUp
quote:
Unfortunately, I think it was assumed birthright citizenship had no shot, and the real hearing was on nationwide injunctions.
Any semblance of hope there?
We won't learn anything about birthright citizenship. They might stop nationwide injunctions, but filing for a putative class would get around that.
Posted on 5/15/25 at 5:04 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
've listened to about 30 minutes and No. They're all agreeing they're not going to argue the merits.
I just listened to the Missouri AG they aren’t arguing the birthright citizenship they are arguing the nationwide injunction issue?
Do I have that correct?
This post was edited on 5/15/25 at 5:06 pm
Posted on 5/15/25 at 5:08 pm to IvoryBillMatt
It seems to me that when SCOTUS thinks prior decisions were wrong they have reversed then. Like Roe v Wade was reversed. But hard to think they would do this when the amendment in question seems to plausibly require this and common sense would suggest that if you are born here you are a citizen. It doesn’t legalize the parents. And SCOTUS under Robert’s wants congress to stop being pussies and actually legislate instead of letting the President or Courts take the heat.
Posted on 5/15/25 at 5:10 pm to Royalfishing
quote:
But hard to think they would do this when the amendment in question seems to plausibly require this
Naw, fam.
Posted on 5/15/25 at 5:14 pm to Royalfishing
The difference with RvW is that is a pretty intenuated decision, and it’s easy to strip it back and say there isn’t a constitutional basis for this.
VS something like birthright citizenship which is just based on the language of the constitution, so changing course now is basically saying we’ve been wrong for the last 230 something years
VS something like birthright citizenship which is just based on the language of the constitution, so changing course now is basically saying we’ve been wrong for the last 230 something years
Posted on 5/15/25 at 5:20 pm to IvoryBillMatt
TY. Seems positive I rule that lat part. I’ll have to google that…
Posted on 5/15/25 at 5:20 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
so changing course now is basically saying we’ve been wrong for the last 230 something years
Well it doesn’t make sense in this day and time. It’s not the 19th century when we needed people to realize Manifest Destiny……I mean the situation is getting untenable and it’s never been clarified…..not touched since the 1890s and the kid in question was a child of LEGAL immigrants
Posted on 5/15/25 at 5:31 pm to deltaland
quote:Using the premise as it currently exists:
There’s an argument that it shouldn’t apply because it’s a loophole that’s being abused. A woman pregnant 9 months in Mexico shouldn’t be able to hop the border
Someone born here, yet never living (after their first month of life) in the US for their next 50 yrs, has more US rights than someone born elsewhere, then attaining and maintaining US citizenship over a course of 50 yrs?
Our Constitutional contributors were logical folks. Can someone please lay out the logic of birthright in the above scenario?
Posted on 5/15/25 at 5:36 pm to deltaland
quote:
I think she was influenced by the 3 liberal women justices
I think it was when her family was threatened by the far left. She's a coward and also thinks she's the smartest person on earth.
She's a big mistake made by Trump.
Posted on 5/15/25 at 5:38 pm to 14&Counting
quote:
Well it doesn’t make sense in this day and time. It’s not the 19th century when we needed people to realize Manifest Destiny……I mean the situation is getting untenable and it’s never been clarified…..not touched since the 1890s and the kid in question was a child of LEGAL immigrants
Ok, is that how the constitution works?
This post was edited on 5/15/25 at 5:39 pm
Page 5 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News