Supreme Court & Birthright Citizenship

[BackAgain]

He will be known as the GREAT View attachment 1241074

No. That’s just another shitlib lie. How typical and pathetically lame of you.

 

[protectionist]

No, not at all....!

You just want to break the constitution and twist history, and I'll have none of it!

No I want the Constitution as Howard & Bingham created it to be (from their own words). YOU are who wants to break that apart.

 

[jacksonlamb]

Yes, they affirmed the 14th, which is > no kids of foreigners,

... which is all people born in the US are citizens.

 

[jacksonlamb]

No I want the Constitution as Howard & Bingham created it to be (from their own words). YOU are who wants to break that apart.

That won't happen. Not a chance.

 

[protectionist]

... which is all people born in the US are citizens.

except kids of foreigners

 

[protectionist]

That won't happen. Not a chance.

Time will tell. Don't make any bets.

 

[jacksonlamb]

except kids of foreigners

... which means kids of foreign diplomats. All other kids of foreigners were born citizens if born on US soil.

 

[jacksonlamb]

Time will tell. Don't make any bets.

I have made bets on the spread boards. We will know in June.

 

[Zincwarrior]

But you don’t understand what you read.

The wife does say I not the sharpest tool in the shed.

 

[BackAgain]

there are only unreasonable doubts about birth citizenship

Wrong again, you imbecile. There are perfectly reasonable doubts about the present interpretation. Your denial is just your usual simpleton wishful thinking.

no rational bouts based historically, constitutionally, or patriotically

Even in your misspelled mindless reiteration of your close-minded point of view, you’re still wrong.

Try to follow along, ya pin dick moron. Just because you make these grandiose assertions doesn’t make them true.

 

[BackAgain]

The wife does say I not the sharpest tool in the shed.

lol.

Hey. I hear ya. I’m married too. And my wonderful wife is (sadly) still mostly “liberal” in her political views.

 

[jacksonlamb]

Wrong again, you imbecile. There are perfectly reasonable doubts about the present interpretation. Your denial is just your usual simpleton wishful thinking.

Even in your misspelled mindless reiteration of your close-minded point of view, you’re still wrong.

Try to follow along, ya pin dick moron. Just because you make these grandiose assertions doesn’t make them true.

You know you will lose a 7-2 vote against your silliness.

 

[jacksonlamb]

lol.

Hey. I hear ya. I’m married too. And my wonderful wife is (sadly) still mostly “liberal” in her political views.

Then there is hope.

 

[BackAgain]

You know you will lose a 7-2 vote against your silliness.

I still haven’t predicted how the SCOTUS will come down on this. I only maintain how they should come down on this, you diseased dildo.

 

[BackAgain]

Then there is hope.

Not for you ever bing intelligent.

 

[jacksonlamb]

Not for you ever bing intelligent.

Oh, I and most others have you bing whipped on intelligence.

 

[BackAgain]

Oh, I and most others have you bing whipped on intelligence.

I am completely uninterested in your ignorant and retarded opinion.

And, be reminded, you do not get to validly speak for others.

 

[jacksonlamb]

I am completely uninterested in your ignorant and retarded opinion. And, be reminded, you do not get to validly speak for others.

You hang on my posts, you dope. I validly speak about whomever I want to speak about.

 

[BackAgain]

You hang on my posts, you dope. I validly speak about whomever I want to speak about.

No. Wrong again, you narcissistic dumbass troll.

I often do reply to folks who make (or, like you, try but fail to make) intelligent refutations or rebuttals of some of my prior posts. You, as a rule, jump on my posts with a string of your own. So, consequently, I reply to those.

And, no. Most of what you spew is nowhere near valid.

 

[jacksonlamb]

No. Wrong again, you narcissistic dumbass troll.

I often do reply to folks who make (or, like you, try but fail to make) intelligent refutations or rebuttals of some of my prior posts. You, as a rule, jump on my posts with a string of your own. So, consequently, I reply to those.

And, no. Most of what you spew is nowhere near valid.

Nope, that is you. Why no evidentia hearing? There were allegations without proof. Plaintiff attorneys could not provide evidence. Judges adjudicate, and what they adjudicated is that the allegations were shit. End of story.