Fourteenth Amendment dictates who must be a citizen, but

it does not address who may be a citizen by Act of Congress.

Congress has conferred citizenship on many people who are

not made citizens by the Fourteenth Amendment, including

children born abroad to American citizen parents. These

people and the millions of immigrants who have been natu-

ralized are no less American than those who are fortunate

enough to be born here.

For these reasons, the original meaning of the Fourteenth

Amendment does not require inhumane results, and we

should not adopt an erroneous interpretation of the Four-

teenth Amendment simply out of fear of the consequences

of “rocking the boat” or as a reaction to current immigration

policy.

Nor should we take the position that our hands are tied

by dicta in a sprawling 19th-century opinion that is, to put

the point gently, very far from a model of careful judicial

craftsmanship. Too much is at stake.

United States citizenship is precious. Anyone who has

attended a ceremony where citizens are naturalized can see

that message on the faces of those who take the citizenship

oath. Before saddling the Nation with a medieval rule, we

had better be certain the Constitution requires it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5878557&forum_id=2...id#49971000)

This immediate retraction makes what would have otherwise been a rumor much more believable.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5878557&forum_id=2...id#49971025)

Would be 180 if Alito let Soto and Jackson know he was “retiring” to see if they would leak it lol

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5878557&forum_id=2...id#49971039)

Sounds like they gave some outlets a heads up and NPR jumped the gun. Makes sense that he'd retire now before the midterms and right after release of the remaining terms opinions.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5878557&forum_id=2...id#49971055)

"Yes, Senator."

"But you continued judging."

"That's correct."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5878557&forum_id=2...id#49971061)

Douglas maintained that he could assume judicial senior status on the Court and attempted to continue serving in that capacity, according to authors Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong. He refused to accept his retirement and tried to participate in the Court's cases well into 1976, after John Paul Stevens had taken his former seat.[78] Douglas reacted with outrage when, returning to his old chambers, he discovered that his clerks had been reassigned to Stevens and when he tried to file opinions for cases in which he had heard arguments before his retirement, Chief Justice Warren E. Burger ordered all justices, clerks, and other staff members to refuse help to Douglas in those efforts. When Douglas tried in March 1976 to hear arguments in a capital-punishment case, Gregg v. Georgia, the nine sitting justices signed a formal letter informing him that his retirement had ended his official duties on the Court. It was only then that Douglas withdrew from Supreme Court business.[79]

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5878557&forum_id=2...id#49971277)