- 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: The Supreme Court is about to decide four huge cases defining Trump’s power
Posted on 6/22/26 at 2:48 pm to junkyarddawg3
Posted on 6/22/26 at 2:48 pm to junkyarddawg3
quote:
No they aren’t.
Yeah. WEird phrasing to say the least. You might even say this author is biased.
1
Posted on 6/22/26 at 2:49 pm to udtiger
If only Congress weren’t so useless.
Posted on 6/22/26 at 2:52 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
If only Congress weren’t so useless
you fricking have that right.
a simple solution is to define what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means, but you could not get the fricking Dems to agree on that and Thune would give it the SAVE Act treatment.
This post was edited on 6/22/26 at 2:54 pm
Posted on 6/22/26 at 2:52 pm to JimEverett
quote:
Yeah. WEird phrasing to say the least. You might even say this author is biased.
I’m just goofing. Amateur journalism, but that’s no surprise.
This post was edited on 6/22/26 at 3:05 pm
Posted on 6/22/26 at 2:54 pm to Henry Jones Jr
quote:
I would be shocked if birthright citizenship went his way. The way people have talked about that it may go 9-0 or 8-1 against him. I would love to be wrong though
Same here. I think what we're going to need is either a complete repeal of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment or a new Amendment to modify it which states "All persons born of at least one American citizen" instead of "All persons born or naturalized in the United States".
Posted on 6/22/26 at 3:09 pm to uggabugga
1 - maybe.
2- probably
3/4 - slam dunk
2- probably
3/4 - slam dunk
Posted on 6/22/26 at 3:12 pm to uggabugga
Crazy to think the one BS court case , Wong Kim, might bring down the Republic.
Posted on 6/22/26 at 3:26 pm to junkyarddawg3
quote:
No they aren’t.
Explain.
Posted on 6/22/26 at 4:20 pm to JimEverett
quote:
For those on visas, you might get a dissent of 3 or 4, with outside chance at a majority, say those here on a visa (temporary) cannot give birth and have a child that becomes a citizen.
The court will decide on the constitutionality if the matter before them.
What you’ve described needs to be don’t via legislation and then when it’s challenged the court can make the same determination.
Of course Republicans won’t do shite legislatively so here we are.
Posted on 6/22/26 at 4:25 pm to udtiger
quote:
a simple solution is to define what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means
If the Trump EO fails, this would fail for the same reasons.
Posted on 6/22/26 at 4:25 pm to Bard
quote:
I think what we're going to need is either a complete repeal of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment or a new Amendment to modify it which states "All persons born of at least one American citizen" instead of "All persons born or naturalized in the United States".
Correct. This isn't something Congress has the power to do, either.
Posted on 6/22/26 at 4:27 pm to SquatchDawg
quote:
The court will decide on the constitutionality if the matter before them
His answer discusses that. The constitutionality hinges on domicile, and he was describing different domicile-related outcomes.
The court can define domicile in a way that prevents those on visas temporarily from having it, the same as birth tourists.
Posted on 6/22/26 at 4:29 pm to uggabugga
Birthright citizenship isn't being framed correctly. In my mind it should be that there is no constitutional right for the parents. Sure your kid might be a citizen but they can come back when 18. Until then, see you later. Having a kid doesn't mean you get to milk the system forever. No thank you.
It would be great if the court ruled in Trump's favor but I don't think they will and the spineless republican's would never pass a law stating parents must either leave the child or take it with them as they are kicked out. And until that law passes we will continue to have anchor baby issues.
It would be great if the court ruled in Trump's favor but I don't think they will and the spineless republican's would never pass a law stating parents must either leave the child or take it with them as they are kicked out. And until that law passes we will continue to have anchor baby issues.
Posted on 6/22/26 at 4:42 pm to uggabugga
quote:
I would love to be similarly shocked. You'd think that something as clearcut as ruling against rich chinese taking 'birth vacations' so their spawn would have all the rights of American citizenship would be a no-brainer.
Easier fix would be for the tourist to have to leave the kid here. If they go home and try to come back, say "Prove that was you".
Posted on 6/22/26 at 4:44 pm to uggabugga
quote:
(4) strip protections from hundreds of thousands of immigrants.
Man the words protections and immigrants are doing steel beam bending work. Removing temporary status granted in *checks notes* 2010. That's a helluva "temporary" status. Must've been some earthquake.
Posted on 6/22/26 at 5:48 pm to SquatchDawg
quote:
The court will decide on the constitutionality if the matter before them.
What you’ve described needs to be don’t via legislation and then when it’s challenged the court can make the same determination.
No, the Court can do what I described. In fact, I believe it was either hinted at or straight-up talked about in oral argument.
They can find that the precedent in the Kim Ark case (or whatever the case is called) applies to people born to parents who were permanently domiciled in the U.S.A. - if you read the case there is a focus on the permanent nature of the parents' domicile.
Thus, members of the Court can claim , for instance( I am not saying this is what they will do), that permanent domicile means you are subject to the laws/jurisdiction of the US in a way that those here on temporary visa are not subject.
It would require different reasoning of that case, but not necessarily overturning the case.
Posted on 6/22/26 at 8:00 pm to Slingscode
quote:perhaps wishful thinking but a legit possibility.
One thought is that since it's taking them sooooo long to release these opinions, is that the minority is dragging their feet with the dissents. This may be a good sign.
Or maybe just wishful thinking.
What they did with overturning Roe, even after the leak happened and some were getting death threats. The lefties on the court are evil.
Sadly pro-American logic is not a factor
Posted on 6/22/26 at 8:06 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
If she’s writing the opinion on any of those topics…..this board will implode at a nuclear level because that means it was probably unanimous against the administration.
or she lost 8-1
If Roberts ever lets her write the main opinion on anything important he is incompetent.
Posted on 6/22/26 at 8:11 pm to JimEverett
quote:
applies to people born to parents who were permanently domiciled in the U.S.A. - if you read the case there is a focus on the permanent nature of the parents' domicile.
I agree.
The parents of Wong Kim Ark had lived in US for 20 years before he was born.
This is a bullshite case to establish precedent for people coming here and a few weeks later shitting out a US citizen.
Posted on 6/22/26 at 8:31 pm to uggabugga
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News