This ruling should have been unanimous, given the plain language of the 14th amendment. OK, given the "unusual" views of Alito and Thomas on almost every issue, it should have. been 7-2, at least. The more interesting and disturbing result, and one that requires considerable comment, is that the decision was NOT 9-0 or even 7-2. This is yet another reason that expanding the SCOTUS is necessary, by the Ds, once they have the power to do so. Imposing 10 year term limits would be a good idea, too.
I think term limits would ensure that the court would almost never be completely filled at any given time. But I do see merit in having 13 justices for 13 circuits.
I'm glad for the win, but the fact that only 5 justices voted to affirm a basic Constitutional Right while a sixth wobbled his way to a concurrence is alarming. The Supreme Court must be reformed as soon as possible.
They're the ones who didn't consider themselves feminists. Big mistake. I knew I was a feminist by the time I was 10, in 1971. I wanted on board that bandwagon.
Interested in why the dissenters dissented. Could lead to more cases. Also, Kavanaugh bases his concurrence on the enabling law, not the Constitution, which could change the result, should the law be amended. Not as good as I'd hoped.
Oh someone in the House will introduce a constitutional amendment tomorrow, I'm sure. I just read yesterday that a couple of reps have introduced an amendment to repeal the 17th amendment (direct election of senators). These people simply do not live in reality.
Kavanaugh was essentially telling Trump to twist some arms and get Congress to enact a law banning birthright citizenship. Would it hold up? Who knows? But his wink, wink concurrence is infuriating.
It's quite sad that some on the Court would be happy if the Constitution did not exist. Many of their decisions are pulled out of thin air. They violate their oath by ignoring the Constitution. The Democrats, when back in power, must expand the Court and impose term limits.
Pardon me, but I am confused as to why the Birthright issue was argued before the Supreme Court. Birthright Citizenship is in the United States Constitution. If the Supreme Court hadn't voted to "protect" it, does that mean it is no longer in the Constitution? If so, how is that legal? This would be tantamount to a 9-person Constitutional Convention. Please explain. Thank you.
So this time Thomas looks, interprets and determines what HE thinks our forefathers’ intent was behind the 14th amendment. Perhaps he should take a look at the intent behind the 2nd. This man is the most dishonest, disgraceful juror in the annals of time. He disgusts me.
The saddest part is that such an obvious case didn't generate a 9-0 decision.
But then again, the Three Stooges of Jurisprudence: Slimy Sam Alito, Crooked Clarence Thomas and Goofy Neil Gorsuch haven't seen a power they haven't given to Trump. I'm sure they'll do the opposite when a Democrat is Pres.
I want to ask those clowns: What part of this sentence don't you understand?
ll 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.
This ruling should have been unanimous, given the plain language of the 14th amendment. OK, given the "unusual" views of Alito and Thomas on almost every issue, it should have. been 7-2, at least. The more interesting and disturbing result, and one that requires considerable comment, is that the decision was NOT 9-0 or even 7-2. This is yet another reason that expanding the SCOTUS is necessary, by the Ds, once they have the power to do so. Imposing 10 year term limits would be a good idea, too.
This should have been an easy 9-0. May Originalism die in a fire.
Originalism a/k/a judges playing bad amateur historians.
6-3.
It seems to me our "supreme" court is not quite "supreme.
I think term limits would ensure that the court would almost never be completely filled at any given time. But I do see merit in having 13 justices for 13 circuits.
Yes the fact that it was 5-4 left me utterly shaken.
I'm glad for the win, but the fact that only 5 justices voted to affirm a basic Constitutional Right while a sixth wobbled his way to a concurrence is alarming. The Supreme Court must be reformed as soon as possible.
I’m worried that scotus took the case instead of accepting the 14th amendment as it is. I’m worried that it was a5-4 decision instead of 9-0.
'No president has the power to decide who is entitled to the rights our Constitution protects.'
...unless they have bought the court and wish to reduce women to second-class citizenship. Dobbs. Never forget.
Unfortunately, a lot of women forgot in 2024.
They're the ones who didn't consider themselves feminists. Big mistake. I knew I was a feminist by the time I was 10, in 1971. I wanted on board that bandwagon.
Interested in why the dissenters dissented. Could lead to more cases. Also, Kavanaugh bases his concurrence on the enabling law, not the Constitution, which could change the result, should the law be amended. Not as good as I'd hoped.
Shouldn't even have been heard.
And, in unsurprising news, Trump had called on Congress to change the law, just as Kavanaugh suggested.
Oh someone in the House will introduce a constitutional amendment tomorrow, I'm sure. I just read yesterday that a couple of reps have introduced an amendment to repeal the 17th amendment (direct election of senators). These people simply do not live in reality.
Kavanaugh was essentially telling Trump to twist some arms and get Congress to enact a law banning birthright citizenship. Would it hold up? Who knows? But his wink, wink concurrence is infuriating.
It's quite sad that some on the Court would be happy if the Constitution did not exist. Many of their decisions are pulled out of thin air. They violate their oath by ignoring the Constitution. The Democrats, when back in power, must expand the Court and impose term limits.
T Y for your continued work Norm et al. TY to the justices for the US Constitution.
Pardon me, but I am confused as to why the Birthright issue was argued before the Supreme Court. Birthright Citizenship is in the United States Constitution. If the Supreme Court hadn't voted to "protect" it, does that mean it is no longer in the Constitution? If so, how is that legal? This would be tantamount to a 9-person Constitutional Convention. Please explain. Thank you.
So this time Thomas looks, interprets and determines what HE thinks our forefathers’ intent was behind the 14th amendment. Perhaps he should take a look at the intent behind the 2nd. This man is the most dishonest, disgraceful juror in the annals of time. He disgusts me.
As the old saying goes,
Even a stopped clock can be right twice a day!
The saddest part is that such an obvious case didn't generate a 9-0 decision.
But then again, the Three Stooges of Jurisprudence: Slimy Sam Alito, Crooked Clarence Thomas and Goofy Neil Gorsuch haven't seen a power they haven't given to Trump. I'm sure they'll do the opposite when a Democrat is Pres.
I want to ask those clowns: What part of this sentence don't you understand?
ll 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.
5-4? The correct response was, "Fuhgeddaboudit!"