SCOTUS: Birthright EO struck down

[gatomontes99]

So Trump's EO is not valid. However, it is constitutional. That sounds like a contradiction. SCOTUS said that the EO violates a federal statute. So, now the Republicans can pass a law to stop anchor babies. It needs to be done now. 

https://www.scotusblog.com/

In other SCOTUS rulings, we now have unlimited campaign funding and trans in sports is a states' rights issue. 

[Hodad]

1 hour ago, gatomontes99 said:

So Trump's EO is not valid. However, it is constitutional. That sounds like a contradiction. SCOTUS said that the EO violates a federal statute. So, now the Republicans can pass a law to stop anchor babies. It needs to be done now. 

https://www.scotusblog.com/

In other SCOTUS rulings, we now have unlimited campaign funding and trans in sports is a states' rights issue. 

Did you not read the majority opinion or the blog to which you linked? 

"In a decision by Chief Justice John Roberts, in Trump v. Barbara, the justices agreed with the challengers, as well as all of the lower courts around the country that have considered the issue, that Trump’s order cannot be reconciled with the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which confers citizenship on anyone “born … in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

Writing for the majority, Roberts emphasized that the “children born of parents unlawfully or temporarily present in the United States” “satisfy both elements of the Citizenship Clause.” “Under the Constitution,” he concluded, “they are citizens at birth.”

So, no, the Republicans cannot pass a law that contravenes the constitution. Birthright citizenship is part of the constitution and remains so. You'd have to pass an amendment to change that fact. And there isn't even remotely enough support for the idea to do that. 

No attorney on either side of this issue actually believes that it's not. Nobody. There was just a cynical hope from some people that this incarnation of the SCOTUS was corrupt enough to let it through. As they've done with a number of otherwise clear and obvious questions. 

Note that the three dissenting justices are conventionally identified as originalists. If there was ever a case that revealed this claim as the thinnest of fig leaves, this is it. lol what a joke. Just grubby partisan hacks parading around in the costume of principle. 

[robosmith]

3 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

So Trump's EO is not valid. However, it is constitutional. That sounds like a contradiction. SCOTUS said that the EO violates a federal statute. So, now the Republicans can pass a law to stop anchor babies. It needs to be done now. 

https://www.scotusblog.com/

In other SCOTUS rulings, we now have unlimited campaign funding and trans in sports is a states' rights issue. 

Of course Trump's EO is invalid, and so is YOUR "ANALYSIS."

Texans like you are unpopular all over the NATION. LMAO

[Nationalist]

53 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Of course Trump's EO is invalid, and so is YOUR "ANALYSIS."

Texans like you are unpopular all over the NATION. LMAO

No they're not. If anyone is unpopular nation-wide, its you California Tweenkies.

[John Johnston]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

Of course Trump's EO is invalid, and so is YOUR "ANALYSIS."

Texans like you are unpopular all over the NATION. LMAO

Wait until Talarica wins in November. 🥳

[gatomontes99]

3 hours ago, Hodad said:

Did you not read the majority opinion or the blog to which you linked? 

"In a decision by Chief Justice John Roberts, in Trump v. Barbara, the justices agreed with the challengers, as well as all of the lower courts around the country that have considered the issue, that Trump’s order cannot be reconciled with the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which confers citizenship on anyone “born … in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

Writing for the majority, Roberts emphasized that the “children born of parents unlawfully or temporarily present in the United States” “satisfy both elements of the Citizenship Clause.” “Under the Constitution,” he concluded, “they are citizens at birth.”

So, no, the Republicans cannot pass a law that contravenes the constitution. Birthright citizenship is part of the constitution and remains so. You'd have to pass an amendment to change that fact. And there isn't even remotely enough support for the idea to do that. 

No attorney on either side of this issue actually believes that it's not. Nobody. There was just a cynical hope from some people that this incarnation of the SCOTUS was corrupt enough to let it through. As they've done with a number of otherwise clear and obvious questions. 

Note that the three dissenting justices are conventionally identified as originalists. If there was ever a case that revealed this claim as the thinnest of fig leaves, this is it. lol what a joke. Just grubby partisan hacks parading around in the costume of principle. 

Read the whole thing. 

"Congress could—consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment—amend §1401(a) or otherwise enact new legislation establishing exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country. But Congress has not yet done so. "

And further down:

"Consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress could amend §1401(a) or otherwise enact new legislation establishing exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country. But Congress has not yet done so. "

I am correct. I am always correct. 

[gatomontes99]

2 hours ago, robosmith said:

Of course Trump's EO is invalid, and so is YOUR "ANALYSIS."

Texans like you are unpopular all over the NATION. LMAO

For someone that bîtches and moans about ad hominem attacks, you sure do employ it as a tactic often. In fact, I would guess 90+% of your posts are personal insults. 

[robosmith]

3 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

For someone that bîtches and moans about ad hominem attacks, you sure do employ it as a tactic often. In fact, I would guess 90+% of your posts are personal insults. 

It's NOT ad hominem, it's appeal to popularity. LMAO

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, gatomontes99 said:

Read the whole thing. 

"Congress could—consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment—amend §1401(a) or otherwise enact new legislation establishing exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country. But Congress has not yet done so. "

And further down:

"Consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress could amend §1401(a) or otherwise enact new legislation establishing exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country. But Congress has not yet done so. "

I am correct. I am always correct. 

You are wrong. You are always wrong to ^LIE

What you quoted ^here is the opinion of ONE JUSTICE KAVANAUGH, who "dissenting in part." LMAO;

Quote

JUSTICE KAVANAUGH, concurring in the judgment and dissenting in part. Executive Order No. 14160 establishes new exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country. 90 Fed. Reg. 8449 (2025). The Court today holds that the Order violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. I respectfully disagree with the Court’s constitutional holding. In my view, the Executive Order does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. But the Order does contravene a federal statute, 8 U. S. C. §1401(a). Congress could—consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment—amend §1401(a) or otherwise enact new legislation establishing exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country. But Congress has not yet done so.

....

For those reasons, to reiterate, the Executive Order does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. But the Order does contravene 8 U. S. C. §1401(a). Consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress could amend §1401(a) or otherwise enact new legislation establishing exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country. But Congress has not yet done so.

 

Edited 3 minutes ago by robosmith
spell error

[gatomontes99]

36 minutes ago, robosmith said:

It's NOT ad hominem, it's appeal to popularity. LMAO

Wow. You don't even know what ad hominem or appeal to popularity means. 

[Hodad]

50 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

Read the whole thing. 

"Congress could—consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment—amend §1401(a) or otherwise enact new legislation establishing exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country. But Congress has not yet done so. "

And further down:

"Consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress could amend §1401(a) or otherwise enact new legislation establishing exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country. But Congress has not yet done so. "

I am correct. I am always correct. 

That's not part of the majority opinion. Just Kavanaugh's personal. It has no holding power and sets no precedent.

And no, you can't simply pass a law that overrides constitutional law. That would make the constitution rather pointless. -- Congress could TRY, but it would again fail, even before this incarnation of the court. And there frankly isn't support for it in congress. 

It's really, really embarrassing that this was even a 6-3 split. There simply isn't a serious argument to be made that the constitution doesn't say and mean exactly what it says and means--and has meant since the amendment was drafted. And the SCOTUS majority opinion reflects that and is clear on that point. 

Edited 25 minutes ago by Hodad

[robosmith]

27 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

Wow. You don't even know what ad hominem or appeal to popularity means. 

I know exactly what they mean, and there's NO REASON to believe ^this OPINION. LMAO