The Ketanji Jackson shitshow just keeps going

[WestCanMan]

6 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Eh, it's not that I'm setting out to recruit undocumented immigrants, but at the same time, people are people. We don't have a caste system. I'm not much concerned with the country or origin or the color of their skin. Once they are born here they are citizens like any other and as long as they work to build that better life, we're all better off for it. 

You just ignored the elephant in the room: tens of thousands of pregnant women - who are not American citizens - just travel to the US every year to drop babies, for a free citizenship ticket, and it's not sustainable.

That is the topic at hand, not your rah-rah BS about the American dream that is totally of topic.

Left4rds only care about "American values" when they have a hidden agenda. Aside from that it's "F AMERICA! PUT THESE OTHER PEOPLE FIRST!!!!"

[Hodad]

2 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

You just ignored the elephant in the room: tens of thousands of pregnant women - who are not American citizens - just travel to the US every year to drop babies, for a free citizenship ticket, and it's not sustainable.

That is the topic at hand, not your rah-rah BS about the American dream that is totally of topic.

Left4rds only care about "American values" when they have a hidden agenda. Aside from that it's "F AMERICA! PUT THESE OTHER PEOPLE FIRST!!!!"

What's not sustainable about it? Are we out of room? Out of food? (Immigrants are disproportionately responsible for agriculture and construction, BTW.) Do we have all the labor we need? 

You're just recycling the same nativist FUD that we've always had. Rooted in xenophobia, the fear of some "other" taking from us, but generation after generation, that has been proved wrong. The fears were unfounded and the country grew and thrived. The immigrant population today is about what it was during industrial boom time. 

You want us to think that this time and this round of FUD are really different? Why? Why should we expect a different outcome than we've enjoyed all along? What's the logic?

[robosmith]

3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Look...when America was a fledgling nation, they needed more people. That has changed.

Sorry Canuck, your OPINION means NOTHIING HERE.

3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

However the SCOTUS is full of absolutionists who will side with the letter of the constitution. That worked for abortion...its likely not gonna work for this. But...today that law is outdated and destructive.

Just cause you don't like brown people doesn't have ANY impact on what the Constitution says. LMAO

[robosmith]

3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Sure it is. And I would expect Congress will address it if the SCOTUS rejects the EO.

Neither will change the Constitution.

You don't even understand that an amendment was needed to establish birthright citizenship and another will be needed to CHANGE IT. LMAO

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

I need to ask you, why on earth would you want to give citizenship to the offspring of illegal aliens?

"Wanting" has nothing to do with it. Your "wants" esp NOT, Canuck.

[Reg Volk]

What an idlot Brown is.  She's almost as dumb as Robo!! 

[Nationalist]

4 hours ago, Hodad said:

Eh, it's not that I'm setting out to recruit undocumented immigrants, but at the same time, people are people. We don't have a caste system. I'm not much concerned with the country or origin or the color of their skin. Once they are born here they are citizens like any other and as long as they work to build that better life, we're all better off for it.  The American dream is that someone can start with nothing and through hard work and talent build something. People who share that dream are okay in my book. They're not taking from anybody, but rather adding to.

Realistically, as a population, immigrants (of all types) are net contributors. They fill vital roles that Americans aren't interested in. They aren't entitled. They have generally escaped much worse circumstances and aren't afraid of hard work to keep the opportunity they have gained for their families. They are generally community and family oriented, "good" people. On the whole, they commit crime at lower rates than the rest of the population. The kids study hard and their parents dream of sending them to college and the next generation having even more access and opportunity. 

Immigrants built this country. And all along there has been resistance from "nativist" groups, but all along immigrants have added to and enriched America. There's no reason to think that will change.  IIRC, about half of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or first generation Americans, and they are vastly overrepresented in the leadership of those companies. Again, closing in on 50% of CEOs. And there are no free rides in the C-Suite. It's about as cutthroat as it gets. But look at Microsoft, Google, IBM, Anthropic etc., etc.  Or Musk and his half dozen companies. All are being run by immigrants or children of immigrants. These people are major contributors to growth and innovation.

You never know who's going to cure cancer or crack the code on some other big problem. Human potential is human potential. Let's not squander it because of irrational prejudices.

 

People are people? And for that you want to hand out citizenship to illegal aliens?

That's silly. Why the Hell must you Libbies be so silly? 

Its not irrational at all. You're being irrational though. With your 'what ifs' and people are people. Its almost like you want to make life more difficult for real citizens...instead of criminals and birth vacationers...which is silly.

Edited April 6 by Nationalist

[Hodad]

1 minute ago, Nationalist said:

People are people? And for that you want to hand out citizenship to illegal aliens?

That's silly. Why the Hell must you Libbies be so silly? 

Its not irrational at all. You're being irrational thought. With you 'what ifs' and people are people. Its almost like you want to make life more difficult for real citizens...instead of criminals and birth vacationers.

You think people whose parents were born here are somehow magically better or more desirable than people whose parents were born somewhere else? Nah, that's pretty irrational. 

Like I said, people are people. I'm open to rational, fact-based arguments about how we should shape immigration policy, but the nativist FUD of "just because" isn't very compelling. 

[CdnFox]

40 minutes ago, Reg Volk said:

What an idlot Brown is.  She's almost as dumb as Robo!! 

Is that possible? It took us years of medical procedures intense drug therapy and training to get robo this dumb, and she just comes by it naturally? What the hell! 

[Nationalist]

19 minutes ago, Hodad said:

You think people whose parents were born here are somehow magically better or more desirable than people whose parents were born somewhere else? Nah, that's pretty irrational. 

Like I said, people are people. I'm open to rational, fact-based arguments about how we should shape immigration policy, but the nativist FUD of "just because" isn't very compelling. 

Better? No.

CITIZENS!

Do you not understand the concept of country and patriotism at all?

And enough of the empty chickenshit. I never said "just because". If your not interested in controlling your own immigration, then I'd say you have a problem with the nation as a whole.

That would be a "bad" thing.

[Reg Volk]

Andrew with the analysis of just why so many people are fed up with the river of unintelligible crap pouring out of KJB's piehole.  The whole "wallet stolen in Japan" babble-fest just shows that hiring Supreme Court Justices because of their skin color and/or gender makes no sense, and only results in mass incompetence, that we see playing out with every ruling she makes.

[Hodad]

5 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Better? No.

CITIZENS!

Do you not understand the concept of country and patriotism at all?

And enough of the empty chickenshit. I never said "just because". If your not interested in controlling your own immigration, then I'd say you have a problem with the nation as a whole.

That would be a "bad" thing.

Eh, I don't think you understand what America is. It's not a geography. It's not a snapshot of people frozen in time (as if the REAL Americans had to have arrived by X date). It's a concept. A journey toward a more perfect union, toward a set of ideals. 

I don't really care a bit about where someone's parents were born--nor did the founders, for that matter. The entire history of the United States has operated on the principle that people born here are American citizens. The amendment just formalized the existing standard.

I simply want people willing to work toward the promise of America. That's what I expect of my countrymen, regardless of where their parents were born. 

 

[Nationalist]

2 hours ago, Hodad said:

Eh, I don't think you understand what America is. It's not a geography. It's not a snapshot of people frozen in time (as if the REAL Americans had to have arrived by X date). It's a concept. A journey toward a more perfect union, toward a set of ideals. 

Interesting. 

First of all, I never mentioned any date people had to be in America by, but nice try at side-stepping the issue.

Tell me...

how's that journey toward a more perfect union coming along?

2 hours ago, Hodad said:

I don't really care a bit about where someone's parents were born--nor did the founders, for that matter. The entire history of the United States has operated on the principle that people born here are American citizens. The amendment just formalized the existing standard.

I simply want people willing to work toward the promise of America. That's what I expect of my countrymen, regardless of where their parents were born. 

Again with the side-stepping. Nobody cares where they come from. They care HOW they came and WHY.

Let's try to live within THIS century...mkaaayyy? Conditions change, as has the law. The first federal US immigration laws were formed in 1924. Since then there have been a number of changes to address changing conditions. Between 2021 and 2025 the US president...lovingly known as "Brandon"...opened the borders to a deluge of people.  Over 10 million unvetted, uncontrolled people from anywhere for any reason.

And the result of that, was a second Trump presidency. Evidently the American people do NOT want an immigration free-for-all. Recently polls have shown that American citizens do not want free citizenship granted to the babies of illegal aliens born inside the nation. And that 14th amendment was made to provide legal status to black slaves after the civil war, and you know it. So please stop warping reality.

I do not think Trump's EO will pass muster. But the debate will not end there. Of that you can rest assured.

Yet...I would propose a compromise. Let the amendment stand. BUT...the babies would get US citizenship ONLY by staying in the USA. Now...since the parents are not citizens and in the nation illegally or on temporary status, they would have to leave their baby in the custody of an American citizen, to be raised as an American. Once an adult, the person may choose to sponsor the natural parents for legal entry.

 

[Reg Volk]

[WestCanMan]

21 hours ago, Hodad said:

You think people whose parents were born here are somehow magically better or more desirable than people whose parents were born somewhere else? Nah, that's pretty irrational. 

Of course they are, on average.

Most Americans share American values, right across the race & religious spectrum. 

Compare that with muslims and it's not close at all: 

• almost 100% of muslims consider pedophilia 'normal', and they have no choice, because their own prophet married a small child and had sexual relations with her before she hit puberty
• most muslims are comfortable with the idea of genocide, because Iran and Hamas openly and loudly proclaim the need for genocide against Israel and they are popular with 90% of muslims. They also showed no concern whatsoever for massive genocides in Pakistan in 1947 and 1971. They don't look on those genocides as "bad".
• violent bigotry is a normal part of islamic society
• anti-semitism and even genocide are enshrined in their hadiths
• extremely violent misogyny is normal in islamic countries, and even normal among muslims in western countries
• extremely violent homophobia is normal across the entire muslim world

Would you honestly try to claim that muslims have similar values to our own? 

If a crowd of 100 blue-hairs went and visited 20 "modern" muslim countries for 1 week, what percent of them would be violently beaten if they tried to carry out their normal daily routines over there? And I'm not counting threats at all, just actual violent assaults where blood is drawn. Ok, and including imprisonment... 

You're just talking out of your asss like a good little cultist, Hodad.

Try to find a travel advisory for a muslim country (not an area of a city) that says "It's safe for women to walk around without a hijab, and homosexuals don't need to worry if people find out that they're gay." 

[Nationalist]

The Libbies have run out of arguments. 

The unfortunate fact is, they hate America and want it destroyed.

Its as simple as that.

[Deluge]

On 4/6/2026 at 10:32 AM, Hodad said:

No, she didn't. There are two conditions for citizenship:
"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"

Nope. 

If the amenders knew that perverts like you would try to turn the 14th Amendment into a magic wand for border erasing psychopaths, they would've tore up the original document and worded things a whole lot differently. 

[Fluffypants]

New stupid decision from the DEI judge

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ketanji-brown-jackson-says-she-cannot-fathom-new-supreme-court-order/ar-AA21jWs0?ocid=MSNHP_W099&pc=W099&cvid=69e7781c90e84edfb117d644c1176a8c&ei=17

She doesn't understand how a cop can claim reasonable suspicion when the cops got a call about a suspicious vehicle and then when the cops come to investigate 2 people in the car run before the cops could even turn on their lights and the driver starts trying to leave with a door still open.

[Hodad]

3 hours ago, Fluffypants said:

New stupid decision from the DEI judge

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ketanji-brown-jackson-says-she-cannot-fathom-new-supreme-court-order/ar-AA21jWs0?ocid=MSNHP_W099&pc=W099&cvid=69e7781c90e84edfb117d644c1176a8c&ei=17

She doesn't understand how a cop can claim reasonable suspicion when the cops got a call about a suspicious vehicle and then when the cops come to investigate 2 people in the car run before the cops could even turn on their lights and the driver starts trying to leave with a door still open.

You don't have any idea what you're talking about. Jackson was not making any commentary on the facts of the case. She's arguing that the it's the wrong to issue a summary reversal rather than hearing the case because there's clearly a gap in understanding and precedent between how the lower courts view reasonable suspicion and how the SCOTUS views it. Therefor it would be responsible to hear the case and address the gap. -- Her position is that unless the lower court made an error of fact, there should not be a summary reversal because that gap in understanding is an issue worth addressing. 

The other justices can disagree with her. You can disagree with her. But at least understand what you're disagreeing with. 
 

[Deluge]

On 4/4/2026 at 7:34 PM, Reg Volk said:

The vast majority of people in power positions who happen to be female, black, Hispanic, etc. got to where they were by merit. However, when people see appointees like Ketanji Jackson, who CLEARLY got her position because of identity boxes she checked, it perpetuates the stereotype that DEI is the reason for all their success. Therefore, they need to work even harder to prove they deserve to be the position they’re in. We may set a record for 8-1 Supreme Court decisions. 🙄

What the silly b*tch is trying to do is assert identity politics. "If I identify as a Japanese citizen, I AM a Japanese citizen."

[robosmith]

On 4/21/2026 at 11:23 AM, Hodad said:

You don't have any idea what you're talking about. Jackson was not making any commentary on the facts of the case. She's arguing that the it's the wrong to issue a summary reversal rather than hearing the case because there's clearly a gap in understanding and precedent between how the lower courts view reasonable suspicion and how the SCOTUS views it. Therefor it would be responsible to hear the case and address the gap. -- Her position is that unless the lower court made an error of fact, there should not be a summary reversal because that gap in understanding is an issue worth addressing. 

The other justices can disagree with her. You can disagree with her. But at least understand what you're disagreeing with. 
 

Don't you just love shutting down all the amateur legal "experts" posting here without so much as a law degree, let alone the EXPERIENCE of practicing law for decades like a JoSCOTUS. LMAO

[Hodad]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

Don't you just love shutting down all the amateur legal "experts" posting here without so much as a law degree, let alone the EXPERIENCE of practicing law for decades like a JoSCOTUS. LMAO

Honestly? No. No I don't. 

People have always had tastes and opinions, but on matters of fact, there used to be social pressure for people to read, learn, think and understand a topic before they comment. Because if you say stupid shit at a cocktail party people look at you accordingly and it feels shitty--the natural consequence of being ignorant and uninformed. 

The internet lets stupid people find other stupid people and associate exclusively with said stupid people, so that they quickly forget that they're stupid. Nobody staring at them funny at cocktail parties. This misplaced sense of confidence is super annoying. 

I don't have a JD. I don't watch the SCOTUS every day. But I am literate, willing to read, willing to learn, and capable of comprehending before I speak on matters of fact. 

It's not fun. It's frustrating. 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

Don't you just love shutting down all the amateur legal "experts" posting here without so much as a law degree, let alone the EXPERIENCE of practicing law for decades like a JoSCOTUS. LMAO

Dude you turn out to be wrong more than 99 percent of the time when it comes to legal stuff    did you mean 'shutting down'  or "causing great amusement for"?

[robosmith]

43 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Honestly? No. No I don't. 

People have always had tastes and opinions, but on matters of fact, there used to be social pressure for people to read, learn, think and understand a topic before they comment. Because if you say stupid shit at a cocktail party people look at you accordingly and it feels shitty--the natural consequence of being ignorant and uninformed. 

The internet lets stupid people find other stupid people and associate exclusively with said stupid people, so that they quickly forget that they're stupid. Nobody staring at them funny at cocktail parties. This misplaced sense of confidence is super annoying. 

I don't have a JD. I don't watch the SCOTUS every day. But I am literate, willing to read, willing to learn, and capable of comprehending before I speak on matters of fact. 

It's not fun. It's frustrating. 

I think being embarrassed here when their misconceptions are exposed are the online equivalent of "party people look at you accordingly and it feels shitty."

But only if they are open minded, which a lot are not...