https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/12/supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-trumps-challenge-to-birthright-citizenship/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2/#49494864)

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!"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2/#49494937)

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.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2/#49494977)

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

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2/#49494996)

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.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2/#49495017)

(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

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2/#49495038)

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.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2/#49495059)

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.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2/#49494959)

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.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2/#49495100)

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.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2/#49495037)

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?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2/#49494993)

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

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2/#49495068)

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

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2/#49495003)

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.)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2/#49495122)

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).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2/#49495135)

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.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5808053&forum_id=2/#49495153)