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 1 hour 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 2 hours 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

[gatomontes99]

14 minutes ago, Hodad said:

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. 

Good gawd dude. Yes, it is part of the Majority opinion and there are 3 parts, authored by 3 people. All on the majority opinion side. 

14 minutes ago, Hodad said:

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. 

Again, I am always right:

Congress

(8) Senator Howard, when proposing language to be included in the 14th Amendment and making reference to English common law exceptions, clarified his intent that citizenship should not be conveyed to everyone born or present in the United States, when he stated, ``This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are FOREIGNERS, ALIENS, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers  accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons''.

You are correct that it is embarrassing that this is 6-3. It should be 9-0 in favor of omitting foreigners and aliens just because they happen to give birth inside the country. 

Congress is working on a solution already. I am not hopeful it will ever pass, but it needs to. 

[gatomontes99]

9 minutes ago, robosmith said:

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

Appeal to authority pertains to the affirmative, based on popular support. It does not pertain to the negative based on popular opinion. Further, your ad hominem attack (because you meant the statement to discredit me based on my association with a geographic location) was also a bare assertion fallacy. It turns out that a plurality of Americans that don't live in Texas view the people that live in the state favorably: 

The survey from Crosswind Media and Public Relations shows 59 percent of Americans outside of Texas view the state favorably, with 33 percent having a "very positive" view of the state, and 26 percent having a "somewhat positive" view. On the other side of the spectrum, 21 percent of those surveyed did not view Texas positively.

Not only did you employ ad hominem, you incorrectly used appeal to authority and you neglected to recognize that you used bare assertion. 

[Reg Volk]

[Hodad]

38 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

Good gawd dude. Yes, it is part of the Majority opinion and there are 3 parts, authored by 3 people. All on the majority opinion side. 

No. And if you have no idea how the SCOTUS works, why the fark are you going to argue about it? Get educated.

The majority opinion is the official opinion of the court. It's authored by one justice and then co-signed by others. With 5 justices signing on, it has the force of law. 

Each justice has the option to write another opinion (there are three main types) that expand on their thinking. These are separate opinions that have no holding power and set no precedent--no force of law. 

1. A concurring opinion (yes, and) expanding on their thinking.
2. A dissenting opinion--the majority got the decision wrong, and here's why
3. A mixed opinion--the decision on the case is correct, but I disagree with the reasoning in the opinion

Kavanaugh wrote the third option. It is explicitly NOT part of the majority opinion and has no force of law. 

Here is the literal wording copied and pasted from the syllabus of the SCOTUS opinion:
ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, BARRETT, and JACKSON, JJ., joined.  JACKSON, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which SOTOMAYOR, J., joined as to the introduction and Part I.  KAVANAUGH, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment and dissenting in part.  THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which GORSUCH, J., joined. ALITO, J., and GORSUCH, J., filed dissenting opinions. 

Being ignorant is not a crime. You're not the only person in America who doesn't understand how the SCOTUS works. But to be such an a-hole while being totally ignorant is a rare gift. Ignorance can be cured. The a-holishness seems to be permanent. Go fark yourself, loser. 

[Reg Volk]

Being ignorant is not a crime. You're not the only person in America who doesn't understand how the SCOTUS works. But to be such an a-hole while being totally ignorant is a rare gift. Ignorance can be cured. The a-holishness seems to be permanent. Go fark yourself, loser. 

Hodad - this sums you up perfectly.  The lack of self-awareness is amazing! 

[Reg Volk]

2 hours 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. 

Jonathan Turley agrees with you if you go to the 3 minute mark.  He's an actual constitutional lawyer, unlike Hodad the blithering idlot.