I mentioned in the weekly politics thread that this should've been 9-0 for a supposed bunch of "Textualists." I don't know how the plain words could be interpreted in another way. And if they were...
I mentioned in the weekly politics thread that this should've been 9-0 for a supposed bunch of "Textualists." I don't know how the plain words could be interpreted in another way.
And if they were really "Textualists," they wouldn't be doing any interpreting! As usual, hiding behind a thin veneer of "principles" that's masking their true ideology.
Unsurprisingly all of the dissenting opinions all relied on "textualist" interpretations. In order to interpret the constitution, however, they need to frame the language in the time they come...
Unsurprisingly all of the dissenting opinions all relied on "textualist" interpretations. In order to interpret the constitution, however, they need to frame the language in the time they come from. How do they do this? Well, they fall back on even older systems of law. They discuss what a "domicile" is, taken from the context of feudal law... you know, when kings rule over things? The explicit rejection of which is the entire premise of this country? Well no worries, we can use feudal interpretations of law to interpret the constitution! Surely what kings' wanted in their system of law applies to the United States!! 🤦‍♀️
Well.. Kavanaugh didn't at least. He just argued that the constitution couldn't have predicted our current day problems and should be open to interpretation of new technology or current-day problems (4th amendment and search/seizure involving cars, for example). Interesting choice as it's kind of anti-textualist despite his history of textualist rulings (such as with dobbs v jackson).
The ruling reaffirms the long-settled understanding that the 14th Amendment automatically confers citizenship on any child born in the United States, with limited exceptions for children of diplomats and other rare cases. The principle was established in a landmark 1898 high court decision that found that Wong Kim Ark, a man born to Chinese immigrants in San Francisco, was a citizen.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote the majority opinion for the ideologically mixed group of justices that included the court’s three liberals, as well as conservative Amy Coney Barrett.
Conservative Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh dissented from the 5-4 majority in ruling the executive order violated the 14th Amendment, but he joined the 6-3 majority in finding the order violated federal law.
I sometimes like to play devils advocate with court decisions, since there job is not to do what's right, or what people want, it's to decide what the written text of the constitution and...
I sometimes like to play devils advocate with court decisions, since there job is not to do what's right, or what people want, it's to decide what the written text of the constitution and amendments says. If citizens don't like laws, it should be up to the legislative branch to fix them, not the judicial (assuming a functioning government). But here is the text of the 14th amendment:
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 State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Yeah there is no room for interpretation here. That is pretty fucking clear. The fact that this wasn't 9-0 is a disgrace to the entire judicial system of the US and everything it stands for.
And there is a ton of contemporary documentation about how explicit they were that it was inclusive so that racists couldn't exclude people they didn't like, including the Irish. It's so...
And there is a ton of contemporary documentation about how explicit they were that it was inclusive so that racists couldn't exclude people they didn't like, including the Irish.
If we even make it past trump without totally falling into fascism, we're going to need some serious court reform (or impeachment and removals) to have any chance keeping fascism at bay. The fact...
If we even make it past trump without totally falling into fascism, we're going to need some serious court reform (or impeachment and removals) to have any chance keeping fascism at bay.
The fact that 4/9 of the most powerful people in the country are this openly disregarding one of the clearest parts of the Constitution is astonishing. There is absolutely no excuse for it.
Seriously, it’s fucking insane. I know I shouldn’t be surprised by anything anymore, but I read the headline and literally thought “yeah, even this lot aren’t corrupt enough to go against...
Seriously, it’s fucking insane. I know I shouldn’t be surprised by anything anymore, but I read the headline and literally thought “yeah, even this lot aren’t corrupt enough to go against something this obvious”. Turns out 45% of them are…
Yeah I really have no idea how anyone can have the mental gymnastics to argue the definition of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". If you can be prosecuted by the federal government, you're...
Yeah I really have no idea how anyone can have the mental gymnastics to argue the definition of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". If you can be prosecuted by the federal government, you're under their jurisdiction...
Responses here seem rather negative. It's narrower than I'd like, but it seems to me that a 5-4 win is still a win and that's worth celebrating. It's one less thing to worry about.
Responses here seem rather negative. It's narrower than I'd like, but it seems to me that a 5-4 win is still a win and that's worth celebrating. It's one less thing to worry about.
It's not one less thing to worry about. This is more akin to Roe v Wade. We survived by the skin of our teeth, but Kavanaugh gave them a map to an argument that would let Congress ignore the...
It's not one less thing to worry about. This is more akin to Roe v Wade. We survived by the skin of our teeth, but Kavanaugh gave them a map to an argument that would let Congress ignore the constitution.
They haven't been working on this one for years the way they did with abortion. It seems very unlikely that they give up because they lost this particular bout. I disagree we can stop worrying about it. The court is less supportive of birthright citizenship than in Kim Ark Wong and 4 of them say it isn't a constitutional right.
I mentioned in the weekly politics thread that this should've been 9-0 for a supposed bunch of "Textualists." I don't know how the plain words could be interpreted in another way.
And if they were really "Textualists," they wouldn't be doing any interpreting! As usual, hiding behind a thin veneer of "principles" that's masking their true ideology.
Unsurprisingly all of the dissenting opinions all relied on "textualist" interpretations. In order to interpret the constitution, however, they need to frame the language in the time they come from. How do they do this? Well, they fall back on even older systems of law. They discuss what a "domicile" is, taken from the context of feudal law... you know, when kings rule over things? The explicit rejection of which is the entire premise of this country? Well no worries, we can use feudal interpretations of law to interpret the constitution! Surely what kings' wanted in their system of law applies to the United States!! 🤦‍♀️
Well.. Kavanaugh didn't at least. He just argued that the constitution couldn't have predicted our current day problems and should be open to interpretation of new technology or current-day problems (4th amendment and search/seizure involving cars, for example). Interesting choice as it's kind of anti-textualist despite his history of textualist rulings (such as with dobbs v jackson).
From the article:
5-4?? The Roberts court is truly ridiculous.
I sometimes like to play devils advocate with court decisions, since there job is not to do what's right, or what people want, it's to decide what the written text of the constitution and amendments says. If citizens don't like laws, it should be up to the legislative branch to fix them, not the judicial (assuming a functioning government). But here is the text of the 14th amendment:
Yeah there is no room for interpretation here. That is pretty fucking clear. The fact that this wasn't 9-0 is a disgrace to the entire judicial system of the US and everything it stands for.
And there is a ton of contemporary documentation about how explicit they were that it was inclusive so that racists couldn't exclude people they didn't like, including the Irish.
It's so explicitly clear.
If we even make it past trump without totally falling into fascism, we're going to need some serious court reform (or impeachment and removals) to have any chance keeping fascism at bay.
The fact that 4/9 of the most powerful people in the country are this openly disregarding one of the clearest parts of the Constitution is astonishing. There is absolutely no excuse for it.
Seriously, it’s fucking insane. I know I shouldn’t be surprised by anything anymore, but I read the headline and literally thought “yeah, even this lot aren’t corrupt enough to go against something this obvious”. Turns out 45% of them are…
Yeah I really have no idea how anyone can have the mental gymnastics to argue the definition of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". If you can be prosecuted by the federal government, you're under their jurisdiction...
This should have been an easy 9-0 decision.
Responses here seem rather negative. It's narrower than I'd like, but it seems to me that a 5-4 win is still a win and that's worth celebrating. It's one less thing to worry about.
It's not one less thing to worry about. This is more akin to Roe v Wade. We survived by the skin of our teeth, but Kavanaugh gave them a map to an argument that would let Congress ignore the constitution.
They haven't been working on this one for years the way they did with abortion. It seems very unlikely that they give up because they lost this particular bout. I disagree we can stop worrying about it. The court is less supportive of birthright citizenship than in Kim Ark Wong and 4 of them say it isn't a constitutional right.