- 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
2
Posted on 12/5/25 at 2:24 pm to ChineseBandit58
quote:
I would guarantee that they NEVER considered the potential of someone ILLEGALLY flying in hundreds of thousands of aliens to dump in selected legislative district in order to upend the census records.
If you told them at the time of writing the 14th amendment that the phrasesubject to the jurisdiction would be later interpreted to apply to anyone born in the United States, they would’ve promptly taken the 14th amendment and tossed it into the trash.
Everyone who has looked at this for more than 10 minutes knows this.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 2:24 pm to ChineseBandit58
quote:
What his version of textualism and your version are not necessarily congruent.
His version of Textualism is very congruent with mine
His new version rejecting Textualism is not congruent with my Textualism
Thomas specifically rejected legislative intent and commentary from legislators in his textualism days. Just like Scalia.
quote:
I would guarantee that they NEVER considered the potential of someone ILLEGALLY flying in hundreds of thousands of aliens to dump in selected legislative district in order to upend the census records.
That's what Amendments are for
Using the courts to amend the Constitution instead of following the amendment process is "Living Document" analysis.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 2:25 pm to Cosmo
quote:
Sadly think it will be 5-4 with roberts and barrett flipping because “feelings”
Yep
Posted on 12/5/25 at 2:26 pm to ELVIS U
No,
Probably 6-3 with the 3 usual whack jobs dissenting.
At worse 5-4 with the compromised clown joining them.
Probably 6-3 with the 3 usual whack jobs dissenting.
At worse 5-4 with the compromised clown joining them.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 2:27 pm to retired_tiger
Their father is American, dumbass.
That’s not what an Anchor Baby is lol
That’s not what an Anchor Baby is lol
Posted on 12/5/25 at 2:27 pm to ELVIS U
quote:
This is one we are going to lose
I think you’re correct.
There is no political will to fix an obvious problem with an obvious common sense solution.
You could copy/paste that for 20 issues we’re facing.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 2:33 pm to the808bass
quote:
There is no political will to fix an obvious problem with an obvious common sense solution.
You could copy/paste that for 20 issues we’re facing.
But both parties are super serious this is the time they will fix it!
The whole system is shite these days.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 2:37 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:yes, but I will not. do your own work.
Can you
Posted on 12/5/25 at 2:39 pm to cajunandy
quote:
6-3 in favor of Trump
read the briefs
I've researched this topic and discussed with liberal and conservative professors going back to my time in law school, and my opinion has remained the same.
The 3 liberal judges will go against Trump if he wrote an EO that said the sky was blue. Thomas and Alito would side with him if he wrote an EO saying the sky was green.
It comes down to Roberts, Gorsuch, ACB, and Kav.
Roberts isn't going to upend the status quo. ACB is a procedural stickler. Gorsuch is fairly strict on procedure as well. Kav may go with Trump, but could also see him saying that the way it is written the 14th requires birthright citizenship. At minimum they will require legislative action, but they will likely say it needs an amendment.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 2:43 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
How's this apply to those kids?
Are you serious?
Posted on 12/5/25 at 2:53 pm to kingbob
quote:That is not remotely Textualism. That is “living document“ analysis. No Textualist on the planet would agree with the band.
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 basic textualist would side with the band.
Where did you find this nonsensical analysis?
Posted on 12/5/25 at 2:54 pm to BigJim
Well considering the origination of the amendment was to address the citizenship of FORMER SLAVES, and not little Pablo who crossed over the border in his illegal mother's womb, I don't see how they can't side with POTUS on this issue. The citizenship status of freed slaves had to be settled for a whole bunch of different reasons. Entering this country as a citizen of another nation, popping out a kid, and granting the child citizenship, was NOT the intent of the amendment.
quote:
But I can't see how they overturn the precedent. They would have to overrule the original intent of the language, using the understanding at the time.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 2:54 pm to lionward2014
solid.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 2:56 pm to greygoose
I love seeing people who hold very strong opinions, when they do not even understand the questions.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 2:56 pm to lionward2014
quote:
ACB is a procedural stickler. Gorsuch is fairly strict on procedure as well.
That may be why they have not granted writs on the other case as some believe there is an issue with standing.
That is the odd part of this case. It is not on final judgment, rather this is on an interlocutory appeal. SCOTUS rarely grants an interlocutory appeal.
During oral arguments on universal injunctions Gorsuch actually asked why the government did not include the citizenship part. He came across as though he was disappointed that birthright citizenship was not before them.
Lastly, I believe Sotomayor has a tell when she is on the losing side. She was clearly angry during oral arguments with the government and she was on the losing side. Her anger also included the governments attack on birthright citizenship.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 2:56 pm to BigJim
I don’t know exactly how I feel about this one, but I remember thinking that Wong could be limited to its facts. For example, I don’t think the Chinese were here illegally bc of the absence of comprehensive immigration laws.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 2:59 pm to N.O. via West-Cal
quote:
I don’t think the Chinese were here illegally bc of the absence of comprehensive immigration laws.
I don't think I agree with SlowFlowPro that this is some sort of meaningless distinction.
I guess, we shall see.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 3:03 pm to SlowFlowPro
“The fact that they can arrest/deport them implies jurisdiction.”
Maybe, but Indians were subject to arrest, and they were not citizens at the time. I remember being taught the Wong case a long time ago when the issue wasn’t so hot, and my liberal prof questioned whether birthright citizenship was as solidly established as we all assumed at the time.
Maybe, but Indians were subject to arrest, and they were not citizens at the time. I remember being taught the Wong case a long time ago when the issue wasn’t so hot, and my liberal prof questioned whether birthright citizenship was as solidly established as we all assumed at the time.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 3:03 pm to Y.A. Tittle
Be glad he's siding against Trump and common sense again.
Page 6 of 17
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News