- 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
0
Posted on 12/5/25 at 1:35 pm to Saint Alfonzo
quote:
This is incorrect.
It wasn’t incorrect when the 14th was passed.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 1:36 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Again, 7-2 against Trump.quote:As of today, I'd be shocked if Gorsuch doesn't join them.
I think we all know how this will end. Robert's and Barrett siding with the leftists
The "shocking" element of the entire discussion is Thomas' apparent abandonment of three decades of his own principles.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 1:37 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
This makes, literally, no sense. Apply this "logic" to the 2A or even 1A
It makes complete sense. Jurisdiction meaning the use of ….and subject to the JURISDICTION thereof
Jurisdiction is specifically used in the 14th. Not the 1st or 2nd
Just say “my bad got it” and lets move on
Posted on 12/5/25 at 1:38 pm to the808bass
quote:Precisely.
They would have to overrule the original intent of the language, using the understanding at the time.quote:
No. They would have to overrule Wong Kim Ark (which ignored intent) and argue for the original intent.
"We hereby abandon Textualism in favor of Originalism."
I don't see it happening.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 1:38 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
For an Originalist, yes. For a Textualist, not so much.
You’re mouthing words without a philosophical foundation. Certainly without a coherent theory of language.
When I say something, I have intent behind it. If you want to know what I mean, the best person to ask is me.
Now say something dumber than you just said.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 1:38 pm to evil cockroach
Don't know about 9-0, but I have doubts that they end it with the existing precedent in place.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 1:41 pm to the808bass
quote:"Trump has an intelligent and internally-consistent plan in everything that he says and does."
Now say something dumber than you just said.
That is just the dumbest thing I could imagine typing for you.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 1:41 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
Thomas is going to go from outwardly and loudly rejecting looking at legislative intent to relying almost exclusively on legislative intent in this case
Posted on 12/5/25 at 1:43 pm to Mr.Perfect
quote:
It makes complete sense. Jurisdiction meaning the use of ….and subject to the JURISDICTION thereof
Jurisdiction is specifically used in the 14th. Not the 1st or 2nd
Just say “my bad got it” and lets move on
Jurisdiction is used only in one of the three, but you made no argument as to why that word is different than any other words used in the 1A or 2A
Posted on 12/5/25 at 1:43 pm to boosiebadazz
If Thomas states that he will be correct.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 1:44 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
That’s a white flag. Thanks.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 1:44 pm to retired_tiger
Do you not understand the meaning of anchor babies or just a retread of a burnt out douche ?
Posted on 12/5/25 at 1:46 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Why would Congress or the Executive get to take the role of the judiciary and define these terms?
The courts ruled that the Judiciary defined “jurisdiction” under WKA because the parents were legal residents, i.e., jurisdiction by default.
It never ruled on parents that are illegal aliens.
So it’s your contention that the federal government has jurisdiction over illegals even though they want to deport them?
Posted on 12/5/25 at 1:46 pm to Cosmo
Literally a 0% chance Barret votes in our favour.
This post was edited on 12/5/25 at 1:48 pm
Posted on 12/5/25 at 1:48 pm to Sassafrasology
quote:
The courts ruled that the Judiciary defined “jurisdiction” under WKA because the parents were legal residents, i.e., jurisdiction by default.
It never ruled on parents that are illegal aliens.
a. That distinction isn't really relevant
b. That doesn't answer my question
I asked why Congress or the Executive would supersede the judiciary and your response is a complete deference to the judiciary.
quote:
it’s your contention that the federal government has jurisdiction over illegals even though they want to deport them?
The fact that they can arrest/deport them implies jurisdiction.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 1:49 pm to Sassafrasology
Using jurisdiction in our common vernacular as a substitute for the term as it’s used in “subject to the jurisdiction” in the 14th amendment is one step away from calling a hippopotamus a horse.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 1:49 pm to the808bass
quote:An Originalist knows what SOME people SAID their motivations were in enacting any piece of legislation. There is NO WAY to "know" the "intent" of the hundreds or thousands or millions (depnding upon context) of people who voted for it. Thus, it is inherently subjective, though certainly less-so than the "living document" nonsense.quote:You’re mouthing words without a philosophical foundation.
For an Originalist, yes. For a Textualist, not so much.
A Textualist can look at a dictionary and a grammar text from the time period in question and apply the rules found therein to give us a much more OBJECTIVE idea of what the text says and means.
At its foundation, the primary purpose of "law" is to provide an objective and predictable framework under which people can live their lives and govern their daily affairs and interactions with others. Textualism does a better job of furthering that purpose than does ANY more-subjective school of interpretation ... including Originalism.
This post was edited on 12/5/25 at 2:21 pm
Posted on 12/5/25 at 1:50 pm to cajunandy
FIX that glaring dystopic interpretation NOW.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 1:53 pm to the808bass
quote:
Using jurisdiction in our common vernacular
Wong Kim Ark cannot do this, unless they had time machines in the 1890s and pulled a Marty McFly
And the concept of jurisdiction "in our common vernacular" has existed since at least the Roman Republic.
I'd wager it has existed in similar form since Hammurabi, but I'm admittedly less educated on that than the civilian tradition that traces its lineage back to codal Rome.
This post was edited on 12/5/25 at 1:54 pm
Page 3 of 17
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News