The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
🚨 SCOTUS To Decide Birthright Citizenship 🚨
Poast new message in this thread
Date: December 8th, 2025 5:57 PM Author: Aqua Disgusting Box Office This is it. This is the big one. Yes it is not looking good for anti-birthright-citizenship bulls, but the shot has to be taken.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/12/supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-trumps-challenge-to-birthright-citizenship/ |
Date: December 8th, 2025 5:58 PM Author: Excitant weed whacker 0%. sorry (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49494867) |
 |
Date: December 8th, 2025 6:00 PM Author: Aqua Disgusting Box Office There’s 1 vote for sure. Maybe alito is 2. I don’t see any of the others. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49494873) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 6:44 PM Author: bateful hairy legs Thomas? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49495015) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 6:50 PM Author: Marvelous pistol Fuck no. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49495040) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 6:53 PM Author: bateful hairy legs Update? Cons? Anyone? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49495052) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 5:59 PM Author: Big free-loading ladyboy electric furnace Birthright will be shut down. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49494872) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 6:44 PM Author: bateful hairy legs (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49495013) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 8:00 PM Author: Thriller public bath (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49495212) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 6:02 PM Author: confused theater It really is insane that this exists. I know a wealthy Indian doctor who recently came here for a few months just so his wife could deliver their daughter. And they boasted about it openly, as if it was just the natural course of things and they were entitled to it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49494879) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 6:07 PM Author: olive den "Excuse me, saar, I - *briefcase full of birth certificates falls open* (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49494906) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 6:44 PM Author: bateful hairy legs (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49495019) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 9:28 PM Author: adventurous brunch (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49495408) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 6:16 PM Author: impressive sex offender well they are entitled to it under the law.
i disagree with birthright citizenship as a policy but it's hard to read the 14th amendment and say it's not the law of the land. especially with over a century of it being the law and none of the 14th amendment drafters at the time protesting "hey, that's not what we meant!" |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 6:22 PM Author: Aqua Disgusting Box Office Solicitor general will be submitting affidavits from the drafters that BC was never intended for children of illegals (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49494954) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 6:23 PM Author: thirsty cerebral temple there is plenty of contemporary testimony from the relevant people in support of that position (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49494960) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 6:45 PM Author: bateful hairy legs (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49495022) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 6:23 PM Author: thirsty cerebral temple the drafters of the 14th Amdt were dead when Wong Kim Ark was decided and long, long dead when birthright citizenship started being applied regularly in large numbers to birth tourists and illegal beaners (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49494957) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 6:32 PM Author: impressive sex offender what are you talking about? wong kim was 30 years after the 14th was ratified. certainly, many who had in hand in drafting and voting for it in amongst the federal government and all the states where it was ratified before it became law were alive at the time wong kim came down.
this was a time where constitutional amendments were frequent, and we didn't rely on SCOTUS to reinterpret the constitution to change the law. if people felt that this was a misinterpretation of the 14th there would be plenty evidence of lobbying to pass something to correct the SCOTUS decision. |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 6:37 PM Author: thirsty cerebral temple 30 years is a long time and most if not all of the drafters were dead by then and Wong Kim Ark only decided the issue for children of permanent residents and I think was likely understood as that at the time before it was retrofitted as something else half a century later |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 6:44 PM Author: impressive sex offender i could click through the hundreds of senators and reps that voted for it but you know that it wouldn't be long until i found several that were alive. it was in living memory and you can't honestly dispute that it was some wild misinterpretation of legislative intent.
your second sentence is mostly correct except it wasn't "retrofitted", the language is clear. the problem is that we didn't change the laws to keep up with emerging issues. as soon as we begin willfully misinterpreting clear language to get to a result we'll have disempowered the people from being able to change the law and instead rely on an unaccountable judiciary using penumbral sorcery to hopefully craft policy we like. |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 6:48 PM Author: bateful hairy legs There were only like 30-40 Sens though at the time so not that many Sens imo (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49495032) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 6:49 PM Author: thirsty cerebral temple or you could click just a couple of times and read the briefs that actually cite a lot of them in one handy little document (well, a handful of handy little documents, but you get the point) All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof, AND words have meaning, and the second limb cannot just be wished or assumed away now I"m certain the court will chicken out, or at least 7+ of them, but your point about language being clear actually works against you, if you read on past the first comma also, if you read what the drafters actually said at the time of the drafting |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 6:53 PM Author: bateful hairy legs If they're here illegally they're not subject to our jurisdiction. If they're from another nation like a diplomat or Indian tribes they're not subject to our jurisdiction. Lots of outs here. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49495050) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 6:56 PM Author: thirsty cerebral temple Yes. This is the argument. I happen to think the briefs on this point are meritorious enough that maybe 1-2 justices might go for it. Unfortunately the majority won't, which means in the long run the country is toast, but at least the Dems will be permanently in charge. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49495058) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 6:56 PM Author: impressive sex offender they are subject to the jurisdiction of the US.
no one just "wished it away", there's plenty of discussion about this in the cases interpreting it if you took the time to read them.
this court overturned roe v wade, which is certainly a much more significant and controversial decision than overturning birthright citizenship. why are you so adverse to the idea that this is the correct reading over SCOTUS lacking courage? it seems clear to me that it's because you don't like birthright as a policy (and i agree!) and *you* simply wish the law is different than what it is. |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 6:58 PM Author: thirsty cerebral temple No. Read the briefs. Seriously. You will enjoy them, even if you aren't persuaded by them, and you might be. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49495067) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 7:00 PM Author: impressive sex offender i have. i don't find them persuasive and i doubt the court will either. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49495073) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 7:01 PM Author: Aqua Disgusting Box Office No u haven’t lol (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49495075) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 9:27 PM Author: Mauve Razzle-dazzle Stage Laser Beams He's an MFE in everything. He doesn't need to "read." (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49495406) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2025 9:46 AM Author: self-absorbed turquoise roast beef orchestra pit "instead rely on an unaccountable judiciary using penumbral sorcery to hopefully craft policy we like. "
yeah what a crazy hypothetical scenario that would be, imagine if the shoe were on the other foot |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 6:46 PM Author: bateful hairy legs (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49495023) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 6:23 PM Author: confused theater right, was referring to their tone.
i understand it's the law but it's crazy that common sense amendments to the constitution are seen as insurmountable or impossible. the leadership in this country has failed for at least the last 50 years. they can't even ban shitpits so i'm not surprised, just disappointed. |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 6:33 PM Author: impressive sex offender i'm with you there. and i think the biggest hurdle to that is people giving up on democracy and just doing whatever it takes to get to the result they want. to that end, i am disappointed to see cons doing the same shit libs do in willfully misinterpreting the law to get to a result they'd prefer. until we put an end to that we'll never get back to actually legislating. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49494985) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 6:57 PM Author: thirsty cerebral temple No. You need to read the Amendment, really read it, and then read the briefs, and then read the Amendment again. You're wildly off here. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49495065) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 6:58 PM Author: Aqua Disgusting Box Office Yes let’s have a set of rules that only one side plays by and does so out of principle. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49495070) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 7:03 PM Author: impressive sex offender i agree unironically. and we're winning in part because of that. i heard many moderates and libs disgusted by dem's political prosecutions, nomination without primary, etc. many people have lost faith in dems because they've revealed themselves to be unprincipled. why should we go down the same path when we're ahead? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49495077) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 7:13 PM Author: Aqua Disgusting Box Office We aren’t ahead. We are not even close to tied. Trump eking out a win in 2024 is not ahead. You had a candidate who raised her hand to agree with the statement “should all illegals get taxpayer funded healthcare?” And who oversaw the largest border invasion the country has ever seen. And trump could not even get 50% of the popular vote.
The country through mass legal and illegal immigration has been forever changed. Texas is getting closer and closer every election. Bush beat Kerry there by over 20 points. Trump beat Harris by 13. The flip is coming, and you won’t feel “ahead” when it happens. |
|
Date: December 9th, 2025 1:46 AM Author: 180 hominid Just want the authors of the 14th amendment intended. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49495816) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 6:24 PM Author: Marvelous pistol 4 justices voted for cert on an EO that never went into effect, I'm sure that means they aim to uphold it! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49494962) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 6:29 PM Author: Crystalline Bisexual Newt Goddamn thread smells like matzo balls covered in duck sauce with a generous pinch of garam masala. Shit was meant for slaves to be full citizens. You fucking foreigners begat foreigners. Entitled fucks. I'm fine with ending it going forward. I'm so fucking sick of hearing a wetback talking about being an American citizen. Jove willing this country can start healing. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49494975) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 6:30 PM Author: thirsty cerebral temple (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49494976) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 6:43 PM Author: Excitant weed whacker The text is clear, conservatives supposedly favor text over purpose, scotus will be loathe to effectively amend the constitution by decree, especially with longstanding precedent and practice, they will say you need to follow the prescribed process to amend (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49495011) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 6:44 PM Author: Aqua Disgusting Box Office Conservatives mostly favor originalism over textualism. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49495020) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 6:46 PM Author: Excitant weed whacker Same thing, textualism is usually used in statutory interpretation contexts, my bad (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49495024) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 6:49 PM Author: Aqua Disgusting Box Office Not the same. Gorsuch is a textualist and on that basis extended anti discrimination laws to trans. Thomas is an originalist and on that basis voted against doing that.
I’m not sure if it makes a difference in this case but the argument is that the originalism argument would be it was never intended to benefit the children of illegals. |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 6:52 PM Author: Marvelous pistol It was though, because at that time there were no limits on immigration AT ALL. The only restriction on was how much money the government could charge an immigrant for a visa, i.e. they wanted immigration to be cheap and easy. The people running the government wanted to grow are population and they wanted as much immigration as physically possible. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49495044) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 7:02 PM Author: Excitant weed whacker Both sides claimed their interpretation was faithful to the text (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49495076) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 6:35 PM Author: Aqua Disgusting Box Office What’s interesting is why they decided to take it up at all. What is the point if there are already 5+ solid votes for upholding BC? They could just leave it alone and the appellate courts order would not be disturbed.
Do we have any SCOTUS scholars here who can explain?
This of course happens whenever they affirm a ruling so I know it’s not exceptional or a hint as to which way they are leaning but what is the calculus here? |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 6:38 PM Author: Marvelous pistol They're going to issue an advisory opinion. Trump is asking for it. New rules (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49494998) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 6:44 PM Author: Excitant weed whacker Cq (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49495018) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 6:46 PM Author: Aqua Disgusting Box Office I also assume that many times when they are affirming they are settling a circuit split. That assumption may be wrong. There is no split here afaik. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49495026) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 6:47 PM Author: Marvelous pistol There's nothing remotely close to a circuit split. This is all about silencing the chatter. The only basis for dissent is that the case never should have been picked up because there's no case or controversy. Maybe a few justices will abstain under that pretense (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49495031) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 6:53 PM Author: lavender mildly autistic plaza i imagine they want to shut down the conversation entirely. it's obvious they are going to affirm birthright citizenship, prob 8-1 or 9-0. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49495051) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 6:56 PM Author: Aqua Disgusting Box Office Thomas will rally the other justices like in 12 Angry Men. They’ll start dropping like flies with Roberts being the last holdout. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49495060) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 6:59 PM Author: thirsty cerebral temple don't make me seriously hope for something that can't happen (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49495071) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2025 2:58 PM Author: Floppy preventive strike boiling water (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49497008) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 6:57 PM Author: Aqua Disgusting Box Office Have they taken up any other cases in order to do that? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49495064) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 6:58 PM Author: Marvelous pistol Yeah they assfucked California on Establishment Clause grounds for COVID restrictions that had already been revoked by the time the case was appealed. Pretty sure it was 9-0. California couldn't explain why they had closed churches but not LAX
EDIT NPR says it was 5-4 but there were some 1A cases that went 7-2 or unanimous around the same timhttps://www.npr.org/2021/02/06/964822479/supreme-court-rules-against-california-ban-on-in-person-worship-amid-the-pandemie
|
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 7:05 PM Author: walnut library what does 'and subject to the jurisdiction thereof' mean? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49495080) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 7:06 PM Author: Marvelous pistol I feel like this was covered in 1L Civil Procdure (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49495081) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 7:07 PM Author: walnut library i feel like it wasn't (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49495085) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 7:14 PM Author: Marvelous pistol Maybe you weren't paying attention. We covered it on day two if not day one (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49495104) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 7:18 PM Author: impressive sex offender you didn't go to law school nsam. i imagine you noticed that jurisdiction is a fundamental conlaw topic for 1Ls but that has nothing to with what it means in the context of the 14th amendment. no law school in the country is teaching this to 1Ls because it's extremely niche and has been settled law for 125 years. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49495114) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 7:22 PM Author: sapphire puppy institution Dunning Kruger (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49495123) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 7:13 PM Author: impressive sex offender (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49495102) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 6:41 PM Author: Marvelous pistol United States
Federal courts
The United States Supreme Court has determined that the case or controversy requirement found in Article Three of the United States Constitution prohibits United States federal courts from issuing advisory opinions. Accordingly, before the court will hear a case, it must find that the parties have a tangible interest at stake in the matter, the issue presented must be "mature for judicial resolution" or ripe, and a justiciable issue must remain before the court throughout the course of the lawsuit. While this doctrine is still in full force, there has been a liberalization of these requirements in recent years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advisory_opinion |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 6:44 PM Author: bateful hairy legs Cons have nothing to lose. If they win it changes everything. Only upside. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49495014) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 6:47 PM Author: Marvelous pistol all the cons practicing fakelaw ITT are going to need John Roberts' cum sandblasted off their asses. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49495027) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 6:58 PM Author: jade cracking kitchen trust fund birthright citizenship is done here. no reason to grant cert otherwise (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49495066) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 10:10 PM Author: fear-inspiring bistre center dog poop Yeah, I am kind of shocked that people in this thread seem to think that birthright citizenship will be upheld. To me, the best case scenario for the plaintiffs is that there are only four votes to eliminate birthright citizenship and that those four justices are hoping to convince Roberts or Barrett to join them (or at least sign on to a watered down decision that restricts birthright citizenship to green card holders or something). But most likely birthright citizenship is dead. And I say this as one with shitlib leanings who generally supports birthright citizenship. (I would prefer the Australian system where there is no citizenship at birth for noncitizens but they become a citizen at age 12 or something if they are still living in the country. But I don't think it should be eliminated entirely.) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49495516) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 7:12 PM Author: diverse claret elastic band lay are cons so dumb that they cannot interpret simple words in the Constitution? Or do they no longer believe in the rule of law? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49495097) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 7:18 PM Author: Marvelous pistol The legal arguments they are raising in 2025 were put forth in Ron Paul newsletters in the 1990s, not flame. I distinctly recall hearing "but it says subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in 2011 when Ron Paul was hot again. It looks like someone recycled an old Ron Paul newsletter, Trump said "sounds good," and now people are having their lives overturned by amateur mall cops. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49495115) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 7:15 PM Author: honey-headed razzmatazz menage goal in life ACB with throw the fight (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49495105) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 7:22 PM Author: Chestnut vibrant set They'll strike down the EO, but there's a decent chance they "clarify" that Congress (vs. the president) can delimit/limit the "jurisdiction thereof". There won't ever be a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate to actually do this (I say that, but it's possible that a duly chastened Dem party signs onto, say, an anti-birth tourism law), but there's a very good chance that, if (1) SCOTUS guts section 2 of the VRA here in Callais (which it's going to); and (2) Dems win a trifecta in 2028, the Dems blow up -- or at least blow a hole in -- the filibuster in order to pass a national ban on partisan gerrymandering. (VRA violations are just a subset of partisan gerrymanders that happen to have a racial effect. W/o the VRA, every deep south state will go to 0 or 1 Dem district, for a net loss of around a dozen seats, which isn't insurmountable in a wave year but which changes the game permanently.)
It's most likely that they try to preserve the filibuster overall and just create an "exception" for democracy preservation (or whatever), which then gives the other side the right to open that hole up wider with similarly impactful shit, at which point a ceasefire is reached: I'm thinking a bill imposing nationwide voter ID, banning all no-cause absentee voting, and narrowing birthright citizenship down to legal residents under certain conditions. (I'm not just making this up; this gets talked about in GOP circles.) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 7:23 PM Author: Marvelous pistol They're going to include some draft statutory language for Congress in the opinion? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49495126) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 7:26 PM Author: Chestnut vibrant set What are you talking about? No, they'll write the opinion in such a way that it's clear that Congress gets to define the scope of the "jurisdiction" referred to in the 14th Amendment, versus that jx. being a fixed concept unalterable even by Congress (this is the view favored by libs, btw).
If your point is that scotus *could* write the opinion more narrowly to leave that point open and just say that the potus can't narrow the jx. thereof -- sure they could, but I'm predicting they write it broadly. Would that make the congressional alterability of the clause "dicta"? Sure, but that only matters if scotus changes hands and the then-current justices want to ditch it (and it probably wouldn't even matter then, since they'd just overrule the decision even if it were a holding). |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 7:27 PM Author: Marvelous pistol Off the top of your head can you name one SCOTUS opinion that said anything remotely like "this is how Congress can make this happen?" I can. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49495138) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 7:32 PM Author: Chestnut vibrant set I mean, in Trump v. Anderson the court unanimously said that state (vs. federal) courts can't declare a federal candidate/officeholder an insurrectionist, but then a majority went further and said that Congress needs to pass rules on disqualification under the insurrection clause (effectively making the clause non-self executing). The libs bitched about this totally unnecessary rationale, as did Justice Barrett, but the cons were clearly thinking two steps ahead and did not want libs just refiling in federal court and getting shitlib D. Mass judges to DQ him (and then having to spend more scotus credibility deciding another case).
More on point to what you seem to be talking about, Kavanaugh famously gave a "road map" to the obama congress to fix obamacare. But that was before he was a scotus justice. |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 7:33 PM Author: Marvelous pistol So the court didn't actually tell Congress how to write a law. You failed. When do I get to cite my example? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49495156) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 7:35 PM Author: Chestnut vibrant set Go for it! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49495159) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 7:36 PM Author: Marvelous pistol I'll do to it once you acknowledge the truth of what I just said. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49495161) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 7:39 PM Author: Chestnut vibrant set That I failed your test? (Is that what you're talking about?... Are you insane, brother?) Sure. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49495175) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 9:06 PM Author: Marvelous pistol Dickerson. Rehnquist jumped to the majority so he could assign the opinion to himself and write it that way. If he had voted his conscience a shitlib would have written the majority opinion (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49495348) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 7:29 PM Author: impressive sex offender you're replying to a not-flame paranoid schizophrenic, your nuanced takes aren't going to make a dent in his mental illness (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49495145) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 7:25 PM Author: impressive sex offender (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49495130) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 7:28 PM Author: honey-headed razzmatazz menage goal in life America is basically over. Brown town (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49495141) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 8:02 PM Author: Thriller public bath (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49495221) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 8:55 PM Author: bateful hairy legs (Ben Shapiro) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49495322) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 9:20 PM Author: Dead Concupiscible Giraffe Crotch Can you clarify why the Democrats would want to pass a national ban on partisan gerrymandering given that it'd affect Democratic states like California and Illinois and Massachusetts and Maryland, which are heavily gerrymandered. Or is it just a ban on mid-cycle redistricting? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49495386) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 11:40 PM Author: Mauve Razzle-dazzle Stage Laser Beams Because Dems would still gerrymander but courts wouldn't do anything about it like affirmative action. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49495689) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 11:31 PM Author: Aqua Disgusting Box Office good post. are you involved in republican politics. no doobs just curious how you know those proposals are actually being discussed and whether you can say more about it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49495669) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2025 3:22 PM Author: Chestnut vibrant set The folks who talk about stuff like this are a small group of dudes who hang around the gop senate conference (e.g., chief counsels for various senators), and I'm certainly not in that group; I don't even live in DC. But yes, I'm prominent enough in my state and will chat with these ppl when I see them at various shit that brings me to DC. I also get emailed their tweets and shit by other geriatric republicans who think that emailing someone a tweet is a normal thing to do. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49497117) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2025 10:07 AM Author: Self-centered Casino Wrinkle "They'll strike down the EO, but there's a decent chance they "clarify" that Congress (vs. the president) can delimit/limit the "jurisdiction thereof"."
agreed. it's plainly in Congress's power, imo. and birth tourism can be eliminated by statute. |
|
Date: December 9th, 2025 10:15 AM Author: impressive sex offender especially considering all the other questionably constitutional statutes they endorse.
if we are going to eliminate birthright, let it at least be done through the legislature rather than executive fiat. |
|
Date: December 9th, 2025 11:03 AM Author: Self-centered Casino Wrinkle agreed. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49496337) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2025 11:04 AM Author: Self-centered Casino Wrinkle and given the public's mood, wouldn't Republicans and centrist Dems vote for a statute denying BRC to birth tourists? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49496341) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2025 11:12 AM Author: impressive sex offender im not so sure. for intelligent and informed voters, sure, but this will be reported as "X dems side with trump republicans against undocumented children."
so much common sense legislation doesn't get passed because of bad optics, so it's dubious it would prevail here on a relatively niche issue. |
|
Date: December 9th, 2025 11:02 AM Author: Mauve Razzle-dazzle Stage Laser Beams If Congress defines "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and there is currently no statute specifying that subject, what is the default rule until Congress passes something? Are the anchor babies in or out? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49496327) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2025 11:06 AM Author: Marvelous pistol Congressional legislation is more powerful than the Constitution, so Congress will win (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49496349) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2025 11:08 AM Author: impressive sex offender 'subject' is a verb, not a noun, in this context. congress needs to define what "jurisdiction thereof" means. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49496361) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2025 11:11 AM Author: Marvelous pistol Date: December 9th, 2025 11:08 AM Author: ever-growing, towering monument of mental illness (gunneratttt)
'subject' is a verb |
|
Date: December 9th, 2025 11:15 AM Author: impressive sex offender well it's actually an adjective in this context but my point that this is not what congress needs to define remains the same
"owing obedience or allegiance to the power or dominion of another" |
|
Date: December 9th, 2025 11:16 AM Author: Marvelous pistol Date: December 9th, 2025 11:15 AM Author: ever-growing, towering monument of mental illness (gunneratttt)
well it's actually an adjective |
|
Date: December 9th, 2025 11:20 AM Author: impressive sex offender your ESL here reminds me of this hilarious exchange
"since you're ESL perhaps this will help: essentially: used to emphasize the basic, fundamental, or intrinsic nature of a person, thing, or situation."
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5802472&forum_id=2#49460565) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 9:19 PM Author: Passionate Tanning Salon Becky The decision will be 6-3 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49495385) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 10:11 PM Author: soul-stirring stag film wong kim ark doesn't make any sense imo, i think sc will oveturn it (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49495518) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 10:39 PM Author: bateful hairy legs (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49495557) |
|
Date: December 8th, 2025 10:57 PM Author: Soggy crackhouse wong kim abrogated (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49495593) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2025 3:06 PM Author: crimson laughsome lodge (AZNgirl) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49497041) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2025 12:36 AM Author: Passionate Tanning Salon Becky When find out? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49495760) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2025 1:34 PM Author: walnut library it won't be retroactive, but bc gone moving forward as it should be |
|
Date: December 9th, 2025 1:39 PM Author: Appetizing piazza Great thread; would read again. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49496795) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2025 2:24 PM Author: Self-centered Casino Wrinkle is there a way for SCOTUS to hold, without being mere dicta, that only Congress could end BRC for birth tourists? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49496909) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2025 2:31 PM Author: impressive sex offender technically no but the distinction between dicta and holding wouldn't be significant since conlaw is just made up. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49496920) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2025 11:10 PM Author: Passionate Tanning Salon Becky (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49498345) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2025 2:44 PM Author: Mauve Razzle-dazzle Stage Laser Beams If they said Trump can't do this by EO, only Congress can by statute would the Congress part be dicta? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49496948) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2025 3:04 PM Author: thirsty cerebral temple it couldn't be ratio so it would have to be obiter (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49497036) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2025 3:06 PM Author: Self-centered Casino Wrinkle that's exactly my fear. but i'm no masterman on what counts as dicta from SCOTUS. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49497042) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2025 3:10 PM Author: impressive sex offender yes, because it's not part of the case presented before them. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49497068) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2025 3:15 PM Author: Self-centered Casino Wrinkle i was hoaping they might try "we don't need to reach the 'big questions' issue if the power to define 'under the jurisdiction' simply doesn't allow the federal government to define BRC narrowly. but because we do decide that there is room to define BRC we must now address the 'big questions' doctrine and we hold that POTUS can't do it unilaterally." (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49497084) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2025 3:20 PM Author: impressive sex offender but that still doesn't resolve the issue of whether "jurisdiction" can be defined by ordinary legislation or whether it must be altered by a constitutional amendment. any discussion on whether congress does have the power would be dicta because it has nothing to do with whether POTUS's EO is unconstitutional. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49497109) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2025 3:12 PM Author: Appetizing piazza Scholarly subthread. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49497072) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2025 3:17 PM Author: irate jet-lagged main people (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49497095) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2025 3:07 PM Author: crimson laughsome lodge I asked Grok or some faggy AI and it said unlikely, only Alito and Thomas are for sure against BRC. Roberts and that Birdshit whore prob won't. If u are saying illegals arent "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US then that wld mean if they get a parking tic or murder someone they cant be prosecuted which is what wld happen for a diplomat. So yeah, eat shit Birdshits, its over, u ahve to go back (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49497050) |
|
Date: December 9th, 2025 3:29 PM Author: Marvelous pistol sealclubber your response? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49497145) |
|
Date: December 10th, 2025 1:06 PM Author: walnut library i don't think that is what 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' actually meant, but i asked because i don't know for sure. i know how it has been ignored which is why i will be fine with a decision that isn't retroactive, but fixes this bullshit |
|
Date: December 9th, 2025 11:15 PM Author: geriatric psychic home lol how non Americans need to ask Grok for answers on legal issues that Americans have known by heart since age 4. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2Ã#49498350) |