Comment by HDThoreaun
6 days ago
No it really isn’t. Immigrants are clearly subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. As Wong Kim stated the only way not to be is if the government has given you permission to be here without being under jurisdiction like a diplomat or if you’re part of an invading force. Every other person in the us is expected to follow us laws. Just because they don’t doesn’t mean the us doesn’t have jurisdiction.
Were you so sure yesterday that the Court would decide the way it did? I'm sure that with a different set of justices, the result could've been different.
A "clear" law would likely not result in a 6:3 vote. There are enough cases in the Supreme Court that get 9:0, those can probably be called "clear".
Every court before the Supreme Court completely dismissed the attempt to kill the 14th amendment.
The Supreme Court is more and more packed with dishonest, racist Republican political hacks who try to twist words to overturn centuries of precedent.
> more and more packed with dishonest, racist Republican political hacks
I'm not sure I see where the "more and more" is coming from.
Out of the three justices nominated by Trump, two (Barrett and Kavanaugh) voted in favor of birth citizenship rights; does it qualify them as dishonest racist Republican political hacks? The other two who dissented, Thomas and Alito, have been serving for 35 and 20 years respectively, so it's hardly about packing.
Also, while 3 of the 4 newest justices were indeed appointed by a Republican president and 1 by a Democrat, before that, we got 2 new justices appointed by Obama (Sotomayor and Kagan). Unless the Congress actually increases the number of justices, I would say the current system works just as designed.
I was sure that Thomas would come up with some bullshit that is completely divorced from the text and history of the constitution. The other 3 doing the same is a disappointment but not a huge surprise.
[flagged]
The problem is that the other half of the country will probably have something to say about activist leftist justices with their agenda. This is just not the constructive way of arguing.
Disclaimer: I'm a legal immigrant myself, and of course I appreciate the today's ruling in favor of jus soli.
3 replies →
Aaaaand, there it is. If I disagree with a ruling, or with the politics of the president that appointed a judge that made a ruling, then the rulings are “illegitimate”.
1 reply →