- 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 1:54 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:To be completely honest, I have never seen Thomas as being among the brightest of SCOTUS Justices (especially as to matters of underlying legal theory), but I have always greatly-admired the consistency of his approach to applying the law.
Thomas is going to go from outwardly and loudly rejecting looking at legislative intent to relying almost exclusively on legislative intent in this case
His retreat from those principles is just baffling to me.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 1:54 pm to cajunandy
This is common sense. Children born of illegals should NOT automatically be a U.S. citizen. Enough of this anchor baby fraud nonsense.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 1:56 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
His retreat from those principles is just baffling to me.
Why? It is to be expected when you first determine a conclusion, and then try to find analysis to reach that conclusion.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 1:57 pm to paulb52
quote:Do you not understand that you are making a POLICY argument, and that it is not the ROLE of SCOTUS to be making policy decisions?
This is common sense. Children born of illegals should NOT automatically be a U.S. citizen. Enough of this anchor baby fraud nonsense.
Their JOB is to objectively apply the law.
If you want a change in POLICY, you should be looking to Congress to initiate a Constitutional amendment.
This post was edited on 12/5/25 at 2:00 pm
Posted on 12/5/25 at 1:57 pm to SirWinston
quote:
Literally a 0% chance Barret votes in our favour.
How's this apply to those kids?
I'd be surprised if she votes in favor, of course.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 1:58 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
A Textualist can look at a dictionary and a grammar text from the time period in question and apply the rules found therein to givel us a much more OBJECTIVE idea of what the text says and means.
Yeah. That’s not what WKA did.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 1:58 pm to retired_tiger
quote:Yes, but that has never been Thomas' m.o.quote:Why? It is to be expected when you first determine a conclusion, and then try to find analysis to reach that conclusion.
His retreat from those principles is just baffling to me.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 1:59 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
How's this apply to those kids?
His implication is that since they're both not white and originally born in the 3rd world, she won't vote for the admin.
He's channeling Nick Fuentes
Posted on 12/5/25 at 1:59 pm to the808bass
quote:
Yeah. That’s not what WKA did.
If you ignore that's literally what they did
Posted on 12/5/25 at 2:00 pm to cajunandy
Posted on 12/5/25 at 2:00 pm to paulb52
quote:
This is common sense. Children born of illegals should NOT automatically be a U.S. citizen. Enough of this anchor baby fraud nonsense.
Listen. The Supreme Court felt bad about the racism against the Chinese and that’s enough reason for us to drive our country over a cliff. Let’s do it together as adults.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 2:01 pm to VoxDawg
Thanks for imbedding an X post on page 4 when we had OP already posted an hour ago.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 2:01 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
"We hereby abandon Textualism in favor of Originalism."
Originialism is a form of textualism. Textualism is “the law means what it says”. Originalism is “the text means what it said at the time it was written.” Originalism is the intellectually honest version of textualism, especially if one views lawmaking as a social contract.
In a contract, there must be a meeting of the minds, parties must know what they are negotiating and agree. The contract’s meaning doesn’t change overtime, but remains consistent for the duration of the contract. To interpret otherwise would undermine the consent of the parties to the contract. Such is the same logic in legislation.
Legislation is the result of negotiation and compromise. It has legal effect based on a bar of consent by all parties involved. With the federal government, it is the consent of the States who agree to be binding to federal law based on their affirmation via their votes of the legislature (ie Congress). The states thus consented when they voted in favor of legislation, the Constitution, and its amendments. In order for that consent to remain valid, we must interpret the meaning of those statutes and provisions to be the same as the Congressmen voting for them understood them to be. To do otherwise would circumvent their consent.
For example, imagine you’re a band signing to a record deal. The label gives you $1 million up front to pay for you to make 5 albums with them over 10 years. At the time, both parties understand that an album is a studio music recording at least 30 minutes in length.
However, 8 years later, “album” has taken on a whole new meaning in popular discourse. People use the phrase “album” not to refer to studio music recordings, but rather any live recording. The band wants to record their next album with a competing label and wants out of their contract, so they sue saying that their 3 studio albums and 2 live show recordings constitutes the 5 albums.
Because “album” wasn’t defined in the contract, the band argue the meaning has changed and shows dictionary definitions from this year as evidence. The record label argues that the meaning now is the same as it was then, and produces multiple dictionaries from the year they signed the contract to show that the common meaning was “studio recording of at least 30 minutes in duration.” Who is correct?
The basic textualist would side with the band. The originalist would side with the record label.
I am an originalist because it produces the most consistent and predictable results over time. People believe that the Constitution does need updating from time to time, but they conveniently ignore that there is a mechanism for doing so via the amendment process. Those who argue for a “living constitution” want to push unpopular changes via judicial decree because they lack the electoral consensus to change the Constitution via the amendment process.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 2:02 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
Their JOB is to objectively apply the law.
Have fun objectively applying the law.
quote:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No
Posted on 12/5/25 at 2:02 pm to SlowFlowPro
Slowhallmonitorpro.
You keep this shite in line!
You keep this shite in line!
Posted on 12/5/25 at 2:02 pm to the808bass
quote:It really is.
A Textualist can look at a dictionary and a grammar text from the time period in question and apply the rules found therein to givel us a much more OBJECTIVE idea of what the text says and means.quote:
That’s not what WKA did.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 2:02 pm to kingbob
quote:
Those who argue for a “living constitution” want to push unpopular changes via judicial decree because they lack the electoral consensus to change the Constitution via the amendment process.
This is MAGA in this example.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 2:02 pm to Tigersforthee
quote:
Its not a complicated distinction yet approximately half the country seems unwilling or unable to understand it.
And yet, in too many cases ICE agents have failed to make that distinction
as they rush to meet the quotas proposed by that human gargoyle, Stephen Miller.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 2:03 pm to VOR
Quotas oh no 4vor!
Page 4 of 17
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News