- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- 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 12/6/25 at 6:54 am to Taxing Authority
Posted on 12/6/25 at 6:54 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
Do we really expect other nations to come here and enforce their laws on US soil? Seems worse than having illegal/ to me.
Nations do it when the death penalty is on the line for the crime committed by one their citizens. And we oblige.
Ultimately we can sustain this rule anymore. We are allowing future enemies to be born here, sent back to their nations to be groomed to do us harm, and then sent back to do us harm. Even make it to the WH.
1
Posted on 12/6/25 at 6:57 am to cajunandy
We will get a ‘feel good’ decision on this that will continue to make things like anchor babies and chain migration easier. Wait and see.
Posted on 12/6/25 at 7:07 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Wong Kim Ark goes into an in-depth historical analysis of the meaning of the words at the time.
Roe went into a historical analysis of abortion at the time to support that ruling. Was it bunk? Yes.
Is wka bunk? Yes.
Posted on 12/6/25 at 7:14 am to Turbeauxdog
quote:
Roe went into a historical analysis of abortion at the time
Holy shite
You're not a serious poster
Posted on 12/6/25 at 7:21 am to Turbeauxdog
quote:
Is wka bunk? Yes.
Interesting. Please show your work with sources that that disagree with WKA on the definition and contemporary usage of the applicable terms.
Please don't embarrass yourself like your other sentence and use inapplicable terms. I separated the posts so you can just ignore that rhetorical suicide.
Posted on 12/6/25 at 8:56 am to retired_tiger
quote:Please change your name to retarded_tiger
retired_tiger
Posted on 12/6/25 at 9:53 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You're not a serious poster
Zero self awareness.
Posted on 12/6/25 at 10:30 am to deeprig9
Until an Amendment is made ….9-0 in favor of Trump.
Apparently reading comprehension is a problem for you.
Apparently reading comprehension is a problem for you.
Posted on 12/6/25 at 10:33 am to BigJim
quote:
But I can't see how they overturn the precedent.
Roe says "hello"
Plessy would also like to have a word.
Posted on 12/6/25 at 11:01 am to Turbeauxdog
quote:
Zero self awareness.
Says the person who can't use relevant examples and comparisons
This conversation seems beyond your capabilities
I even separated your bad post into 2 so you could give a relevant response. You chose to respond to you being laughed at instead. Telling
Update: you still have the option of responding to the serious and relevant discussion
This post was edited on 12/6/25 at 11:03 am
Posted on 12/6/25 at 11:04 am to lionward2014
quote:fewer
I want less gun laws, not more
Posted on 12/6/25 at 11:07 am to RelentlessAnalysis
I dunno with the volume of gun regulations it may be less, at this point
Posted on 12/6/25 at 11:23 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
They would not agree to hear it if that were the case. Someone is looking to abrogate Wong Kim Ark. I’ll bet we get a Thomas majority opinion stating the 14th was only for slaves and not what we see today.
Agree totally.
WKA was based entirely on British conceptions of feudalism and makes no freaking sense. It’s especially crazy since not even the Brits follow this anymore.
It addressed the application of a specific statute and based its logic on a footnote in another dissimilar case.
I predict they adopt the concurrence to point out that WKA has no underpinnings in American Constitutional Law - which is in fact adopted to eliminate being “subjects”’of the crown (the logical underpinnings of WKA). Thomas will write it and also rule that it was meant to apply to freed slaves only. Roberts will write some concurrence that makes it equally confusing.
Congress needs to act
Posted on 12/6/25 at 11:28 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I want less gun laws, not morequote:I dunno with the volume of gun regulations it may be less, at this point
fewer
So many that they have become "uncountable nouns!"
Posted on 12/6/25 at 11:30 am to Wednesday
quote:
It addressed the application of a specific statute and based its logic on a footnote in another dissimilar case.
WKA? Wut?
I reckon you're conflating arguments here and citing the Player v Doe argument
quote:
WKA has no underpinnings in American Constitutional Law - which is in fact adopted to eliminate being “subjects”’of the crown
So when is Heller being reversed for similar reasons?
Considering Scalia used the British concept of "militia" which has a much stronger relationship to the crown.
quote:
Thomas will write it and also rule that it was meant to apply to freed slaves only.
And his rejection of Textualism will be complete
quote:
Congress needs to act
How can Congress overrule the Constitution?
This post was edited on 12/6/25 at 11:34 am
Posted on 12/6/25 at 11:36 am to Cosmo
There is no textual argument against Birthright Citizenship.
Let’s see if Thomas is a hypocrite or not.
Let’s see if Thomas is a hypocrite or not.
Posted on 12/6/25 at 11:45 am to SammyTiger
quote:
Let’s see if Thomas is a hypocrite or not.
THE most interesting subplot to me
He can destroy his legacy with this late heel turn on such a major ruling.
It will be very sad if this happens in a dissent and not the majority opinion
Posted on 12/6/25 at 11:50 am to SlowFlowPro
How can the supreme court base an entire interpretation of the constitution based on the definition of citizens based on subjects?
The whole case is defective, illogical and not based on ANYTHING. It’s as dumb as Roe v Wade.
Furthermore- the damn amendment expressly reserves Congress latitude to act to enforce.
I know this is your favorite case in American Jurisprudence- but it’s wrong, and has always been wrong and it needs to be reversed.
But fear not - Roberts will find a way to make sure that the ruling doesn’t decide anything’s
The whole case is defective, illogical and not based on ANYTHING. It’s as dumb as Roe v Wade.
Furthermore- the damn amendment expressly reserves Congress latitude to act to enforce.
I know this is your favorite case in American Jurisprudence- but it’s wrong, and has always been wrong and it needs to be reversed.
But fear not - Roberts will find a way to make sure that the ruling doesn’t decide anything’s
Posted on 12/6/25 at 11:59 am to Wednesday
quote:
How can the supreme court base an entire interpretation of the constitution based on the definition of citizens based on subjects?
That's not an entirely accurate description of the ruling, as the textual-historical analysis only uses that in small portions.
Just like Scalia in Heller.
quote:
The whole case is defective, illogical and not based on ANYTHING
It's literally a textbook textualism analysis
It's based on textualism using historic and contemporary meaning of the words at the time they were written.
quote:
Furthermore- the damn amendment expressly reserves Congress latitude to act to enforce.
Which doesn't mean Congress can invalidate the Constitutional baselines included. You know this.
Do I need to do a textual analysis of what "enforce" means to clarify it for you or will you drop this terrible argument?
Where is your outrage over Heller or pretty much any other Scalia opinion based on Textualism?
Posted on 12/6/25 at 12:00 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Says the person who can't use relevant examples and comparisons This conversation seems beyond your capabilities I even separated your bad post into 2 so you could give a relevant response. You chose to respond to you being laughed at instead. Telling Update: you still have the option of responding to the serious and relevant discussion
Your asininity is nauseating.
Page 13 of 17
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News