I believe that the conservative appointees are trying to rule as the Constitution simply says. Plus adhering to precedent that’s not in conflict with the Constitution. I wish that the Democrat appointees would do likewise. But they don’t.

Yep. Pregnancy tests at customs. Positive? You go home now.

To me the only thing that changed from status is that now it’s SC precedent and we announced it publicly. Now the subversives and those seeking to manipulate immigration laws have a tool to pry with that has been sanctioned. There’s bound to be unfavorable consequences from that which our ruling class is insulated from

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
Ok so we just don’t let the pregnant fuckers into the country.

No one says we need to let them in. If they’re pregnant stay home.

There is nothing stopping China was sending over waves of barely pregnant women to have anchor babies here. Plenty of these women do it on their own, but now the state could help more of them do it.

Mrs. Lee has a cousin who did it and we went to visit her in SoCal and then took her to the hospital. Her son spent the first two weeks of his life in the US and has not been back since. Now he's 12 yrs. old, speaks no English and in six more years, he'll be able to come back and vote, serve in the military, get a security clearance, serve on a jury, etc. Does anyone think the Chinese gov't. isn't planning on sending more of these sleepers back to the US and settling them in areas where their votes can swing elections? 100% will happen. These kids have zero loyalty to the US, none. And these kids will be able to run for president.

We already have a population where nearly half of the people hate the US want it destroyed. Why not let foreign adversaries use their anchor babies as sleeper agents to finish the job?

quote:

Originally posted by downtownv:

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
Ok so we just don’t let the pregnant fuckers into the country.

No one says we need to let them in. If they’re pregnant stay home.

Nah. Since the un-pregnant women can still come and eff themselves to a family of ten, why not bar them weaker sex altogether? And that includes transgender “men”. Chromosomal testing right at the gate. Results obtained elsewhere not accepted. If we’re going to get serious about it, do it right.

quote:

Ok so we just don’t let the pregnant fuckers into the country.

No one says we need to let them in. If they’re pregnant stay home.

Also, no one says the parent(s) have to stay in the US and collect free shit. Don't want to separate families? Kick the kid out with them. (Not suggesting in an inhumane manner.)

It is difficult to see a practicable way out of this mess now that the Constitution is decided this way. Every federal law trying to limit pregnant women entering or staying will be challenged.

Maybe do this as part of an overall strategy:

https://x.com/chriswithans/status/2072038220829999609

Last year, on Day One, President Trump signed an executive order limiting birthright citizenship to kids born in the USA to citizens, not illegals or foreign parents just passing through. Democrats sued. The case snaked its way to the Supremes, and yesterday they struck down the executive order in a 6-3 ruling that, being perfectly fair to all sides, was a hot mess. The Washington Post reported, “Trump calls on Congress to end birthright citizenship after court defeat.”



In his scathing dissent, Justice Alito wrote what we are all thinking: “This is one of the most important decisions in the history of the Court, and in my judgment, the Court has made a serious mistake.” Justice Thomas, known for his brevity, landed a massive, novella-length, 91-page dissent, which I believe to be the longest dissent of his extensive career— nearly twice his previous record.

As we dig in, remember this first, important fact: the majority did not change anything. In its dazed and discombobulated way, the majority only affirmed the long-standing logic of its 1898 Wong Kim Ark decision. Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, based the decision on feudal common law, the Court’s repudiation of the notorious Dred Scott decision, the Wong Kim precedent, and what appears to be a dangerous overdose of crazy pills.

And once again, the entire argument revolved around the meaning of simple dictionary words, in this case the 14th Amendment’s phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Even more specifically, the word jurisdiction. Though they all delved into the ancient argument’s storied history, the conservatives mostly argued about that definition (with the three female liberal justices cheering on whoever supported automatic citizenship).

Dissenting Justices Thomas and Alito argued that the majority defined the word “jurisdiction” too broadly, erroneously treating it as a synonym for “within our borders.” Roberts shot back that the dissenters were adding requirements into the word —like domicile and allegiance— that aren’t explicitly there.

To give you a taste, Justice Thomas made this common-sense argument about the definition: “The country had just emerged from a civil war that cost the lives of over 600,000 men due to a treasonous denial of allegiance to the Union. Going forward, there would be no national citizenship absent a reasonable expectation of national allegiance.”

Different verse, same as the first. The country’s whole constitutional order apparently hinges on whether nine lawyers can agree on what an ordinary English word meant in 1868.

But this also reveals the silver thread in the septic tank. The Constitution gives one particular branch of the Federal government the authority to define jurisdictional limits in nearly every situation. Guess which branch? Congress.

As a general constitutional matter, Congress holds the primary power to define the scope of U.S. jurisdiction in nearly every domain. Article I gives Congress power to “establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization”— the citizenship-adjacent power. Congress defines which courts have jurisdiction over what issues. Congress defines who is subject to the draft, who must file taxes, and who is subject to U.S. criminal law abroad.

The executive enforces jurisdiction; the judiciary interprets it; but Congress draws the lines.

In a special concurrence, Justice Kavanaugh joined the majority— but for his different reasons. His reason was a blueprint. A strategic, clever blueprint for Congress. Here’s Kavanaugh’s nut graf:

“The Constitution’s Citizenship Clause may well be ambiguous on this precise question. But Congress resolved that ambiguity by codifying birthright citizenship broadly in 8 U.S.C. §1401(a). The executive order doesn’t violate the Constitution — it violates Congress’s statute. And Congress can change that statute.”

While Roberts’ majority opinion was a constitutional argument, Kavanaugh said no, there’s a deeper issue, one that relies on a statute. Get that? President Trump did. He practically heard Kavanaugh yelling through a bullhorn. As WaPo’s subheadline said, “The president asserted that lawmakers could ‘easily’ address the issue through legislation, defying years of congressional stalemates over immigration.”

This time, legislators can’t drag their feet claiming that Trump is asking them to do something unconstitutional, because Kavanaugh just green-lit it. They can’t complain it isn’t urgent, because Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch called it critically important in their dissents. Half of the conservative justices would have supported Trump’s order, with one explaining how Congress can fix it.

That’s silver lining number one, the signal in the noise. Combine that with the original mitigation that SCOTUS did not do anything new or crazy. It conservatively hewed to precedent, as most people predicted it would. Nothing was changed or taken away. But three heartily endorsed Trump’s executive order, and Kavanaugh added a fix.

Dissents and concurrences are not binding or precedent, but they still matter. Recall, for example, that Southern District Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed Trump’s classified records case, relying on legal logic that Justice Thomas supplied in his concurrence in the unrelated presidential immunity case.

https://www.coffeeandcovid.com...ack&utm_medium=email

Here’s Kurt Schlichter’s column on this.

https://townhall.com/columnist...ble-victory-n2678580

Calm down about today’s birthright citizenship case, Trump v. Barbara. We were always going to lose. That was expected by anyone who understands how the courts work; what wasn’t expected is that this ruling was such a huge step toward eventual victory. You don’t have to be happy, but you don’t have to freak out. We’re winning.

Here’s the deal. Let me give it to you from the perspective of a politically informed lawyer, because I understand a little about how courts think, having been raised in a house with a mother who was a judge and appearing in courts all the way up to the Ninth Circuit for 30 years. It’s important you understand all the context to see where we are really at. It’s also important that you keep your feelings in check and not freak out like an emotionally incontinent teenage girl who catches her mom reading her diary.

Let’s talk about the 14th Amendment, which establishes birthright citizenship in the view of the very narrow majority. That “very narrow” part is key. For about 150 years, the common legal understanding of the 14th Amendment has been that it provides that, with narrow exceptions (such as the children of ambassadors), anyone born in the United States is an American citizen. And the text of the amendment can be read to support that. Now, you don’t have to like that, and you don’t have to agree with that reading—like most of you, I think the stronger argument is the one against birthright citizenship for children of transients and illegal aliens—but whether you agree or disagree, it’s not so legally ridiculous as to be disconnected from reality. And it was the reality until new scholarship, developed over the last couple of decades, began to seriously challenge it.

Let’s understand how the courts work. They don’t like changing things. They revere precedent. It takes a lot to get a new understanding of the Constitution to become the mainstream interpretation. Look at the Second Amendment. For a century, it was understood to allow pretty much any regulation of guns, as long as the regulation was “reasonable,” which it always ended up being in the eyes of the courts. The Heller decision completely changed that, and that decision was based on new scholarship. That’s the same process as we’re going through with birthright citizenship. We’re challenging something that’s been established, and you need to understand that our constitutional system is designed to make that hard.

Yeah, we lost today—barely. And that “barely” part is the good news. This was a 5–4 decision on the constitutional issue. Obviously, the three liberals voted against it because they will always vote the way that they perceive helps leftism. If illegal alien kids were believed to be aspiring Republicans, they would’ve been on the other side. None of these legal arguments that I’m talking about apply to them; they are hacks, and they don’t vote on principle. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett do vote on principle; their vote was entirely predictable to anyone familiar with how the courts work. It’s just that their principle is wrong, reflecting the old and established view of the 14th Amendment that we are currently challenging with new scholarship. Lots of people are wrong, and it doesn’t make them the antichrist. Yes, I know all the arguments in favor of changing the understanding of birthright citizenship, and we don’t need to relitigate them here. Just understand that in any case, both sides believe in their arguments. What we need to do is make an effort to get folks nominated to SCOTUS who are more open to new challenges to old thinking because we are making a lot of new challenges to old thinking.

Frankly, I expected SCOTUS to punt completely and rule only on the executive order that President Donald Trump issued. There’s a principle in law that you try to resolve things without reaching constitutional issues if you can, and Trump challenged birthright citizenship with an executive order. Did he have the power to issue such an executive order? I expected the Court to rule that he did not and to avoid the constitutional issue entirely. If the Court decided to confront the constitutional issue, I expected a 7–2 ruling with Justice Alito and Justice Thomas in dissent. What we got was Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Gorsuch both stepping in and accepting, at least to some extent, the new thinking on the 14th Amendment citizenship clause.

This is huge, people. It’s enormous, and the dramatic implications in favor of reforming the old idea of birthright citizenship are being swamped by people freaking out over what was an entirely predictable response to anyone who’s vaguely familiar with how courts work.

Here’s the reality—we are one seat away from changing birthright citizenship. We win today, but this decision moves us forward. Frankly, I expected this evolving understanding of birthright citizenship—which I view as inevitable in the face of the reality of illegal alien anchor babies and birth tourism—to take a decade or two. Again, that’s how our Constitution is designed. It’s not designed to be quick, whether we want it to or it needs to be or not. But this was quick.

Note that this was a 194-page decision when you count all the dissents and concurrences, and I haven’t read it in great detail yet. It’s going to get torn apart and assessed word by word over the next few days, and keep an eye on that. Lurking inside, there may be some hints about legislative ways to curb some of the abuses—like Red Chinese tiger moms flying in for a week to give birth to a kid and flying home with an American citizen—that will pass muster with the majority in the future. In other words, by statute or even executive order, we may be able to limit some of the abuses without a constitutional amendment or a change at the Supreme Court. Sadly, the classic illegal alien anchor baby problem is not going to change under this current understanding of the 14th Amendment. It’s going to have to wait until we get a Court that goes our way.

What today shows is that we are closer to that than ever. We are on the verge of winning, and my assessment is that our victory is now inevitable.

Would I have loved Justice Barrett or Chief Justice Roberts to have defied their natural judicial conservatism—in the non-political sense—and embraced the new thinking today? Yeah, that would’ve been great, but it wasn’t in the cards. Instead, we got two votes that I frankly didn’t expect. And those two votes position us for victory. If one of those five majority justices goes away and President Donald Trump appoints the replacement, it’s very likely we will have a 6–3 majority that supports limiting the current idea of effectively unlimited birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment.

Let me put it in sportsball terms. We didn’t score a touchdown today, but we moved the ball down the field and put ourselves in position for a field goal or maybe even a touchdown in the next couple of plays.

So don’t freak out, don’t cry, don’t scream and yell. There’s no reason to. This result was better than we had any right to expect at this juncture in the process of changing the way the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause is viewed under the law. And this is why keeping the Senate in 2026 is more important than ever.

Cheer up. Don’t doom. We did better than we had any right to expect, and in the end we’re going to win.

I applaud several authors trying to tell us it’s not that bad and then they tell us this is the opportunity for congress to change it.

Big fuckin’ whoop. Those weasels wont pass the SAVE act and that has 80% partisan approval amongst the public. The only way congress will vote for this is if we hold a gun to each of their heads and tell them to push the button.

Congress isn’t going to fix anything.

The people will have to fix it.

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
I applaud several authors trying to tell us it’s not that bad and then they tell us this is the opportunity for congress to change it.

Big fuckin’ whoop. Those weasels wont pass the SAVE act and that has 80% partisan approval amongst the public. The only way congress will vote for this is if we hold a gun to each of their heads and tell them to push the button.

Congress isn’t going to fix anything.

The people will have to fix it.

This seems to echo your sentiment, which is the same as many Americans on Congress, SCOTUS and the way the country is being decided by the courts not the people...

https://x.com/RonDeSantis/status/2072108050849132602




“I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the Government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.“

—Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address (1861)

quote:

"At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.“

—Abraham Lincoln

Abe makes a good point there.

Please put Ron DeSantis on my bingo card to replace Thomas.

quote:

Originally posted by 1s1k:
I hate to say it but has there ever been a rock solid conservative female judge? If it involves kids they have a tough time putting emotion aside.

Every election cycle and pending major SCOTUS decisions, I dreed the affluent, suburban females influence on the vote.

Only solution here is Convention of the States. And if it comes to that, while they're at it, they need to also get medieval on some elected officials - og after salaries, pensions, corruption, term limits, etc.

An inside look at how Roberts, Kavanaugh and Coney-Barrett make their SCOTUS rulings: