Supreme Court reviewing birthright citizenship

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Trump admin faces tough questions from skeptical justices over ‘quirky’ birthright citizenship arguments

“You obviously put a lot of weight on ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ But the examples you give to support that strike me as very quirky,” he said.

nypost.com

By Ryan King and Josh Christenson

WASHINGTON — Supreme Court Justices from across the ideological spectrum pummeled a lawyer for the Trump administration with biting questions during oral arguments Wednesday over the president’s executive order on birthright citizenship.

While it wasn’t fully clear which way the high court will go in the landmark case, Republican-appointed justices made clear they were far from a lock for the administration — all while President Trump was in the room as the first sitting president in US history to observe oral arguments in person.

“You obviously put a lot of weight on ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ But the examples you give to support that strike me as very quirky,” Chief Justice John Roberts asked US Solicitor General John Sauer early on.

Comment:
‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof' just means citizen.
They are not trying to abolish birthright citizenship.
They want to make it clear that birthright citizenship was only intended for American citizens.
It was not intended for foreign citizens who illegally entered our country.
However I don't have confidence that the Supreme Court will rule that birthright citizenship is only for American citizens.

 

[Independent thinker]

Trump admin faces tough questions from skeptical justices over ‘quirky’ birthright citizenship arguments

“You obviously put a lot of weight on ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ But the examples you give to support that strike me as very quirky,” he said.

nypost.com

By Ryan King and Josh Christenson

WASHINGTON — Supreme Court Justices from across the ideological spectrum pummeled a lawyer for the Trump administration with biting questions during oral arguments Wednesday over the president’s executive order on birthright citizenship.

While it wasn’t fully clear which way the high court will go in the landmark case, Republican-appointed justices made clear they were far from a lock for the administration — all while President Trump was in the room as the first sitting president in US history to observe oral arguments in person.

“You obviously put a lot of weight on ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ But the examples you give to support that strike me as very quirky,” Chief Justice John Roberts asked US Solicitor General John Sauer early on.

Comment:
‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof' just means citizen.
They are not trying to abolish birthright citizenship.
They want to make it clear that birthright citizenship was only intended for American citizens.
It was not intended for foreign citizens who illegally entered our country.
However I don't have confidence that Supreme Court will rule that birthright citizenship is only for American citizens.

Not looking good right now for the home team. Fingers crossed.

 

[Chuz Life]

Trump admin faces tough questions from skeptical justices over ‘quirky’ birthright citizenship arguments

“You obviously put a lot of weight on ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ But the examples you give to support that strike me as very quirky,” he said.

nypost.com

By Ryan King and Josh Christenson

WASHINGTON — Supreme Court Justices from across the ideological spectrum pummeled a lawyer for the Trump administration with biting questions during oral arguments Wednesday over the president’s executive order on birthright citizenship.

While it wasn’t fully clear which way the high court will go in the landmark case, Republican-appointed justices made clear they were far from a lock for the administration — all while President Trump was in the room as the first sitting president in US history to observe oral arguments in person.

“You obviously put a lot of weight on ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ But the examples you give to support that strike me as very quirky,” Chief Justice John Roberts asked US Solicitor General John Sauer early on.

Comment:
‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof' just means citizen.
They are not trying to abolish birthright citizenship.
They want to make it clear that birthright citizenship was only intended for American citizens.
It was not intended for foreign citizens who illegally entered our country.
However I don't have confidence that the Supreme Court will rule that birthright citizenship is only for American citizens.

Though they are better justices that most of those they replaced, we still have too many fuctarded dumbasses on the SCOTUS.

 

[1srelluc]

Dupe

Thread 'Supreme Court Oral Arguments in the Birthright Citizenship Case'

Today at 10:13 AM

Oral Arguments going on now. So far, the Court seems skeptical of Trump's EO.

Personally this stuff is often frustrating to me. It should be obvious that if you illegally break into our nation, your child doesn't get citizenship. But here we are, a do-nothing Congress, so we're relegated to this.

Follow along here:

Oral argument live blog for Wednesday, April 1

On Wednesday, April 1, we will be live blogging as the court hears argument in Trump v. Barbara, on the constitutionality of President Donald Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship. […]

www.scotusblog.com

• SweetSue92
• Replies: 86
• Forum: Law and Justice System

• 
• 

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Though they are better justices that most of those they replaced, we still have too many fuctarded dumbasses on the SCOTUS.

I think that Roberts and Barrett will join with the three far left judges to give them 5 votes.

 

[Lockback]

I think that Roberts and Barrett will join with the three far left judges to give them 5 votes.

I think you're probably correct. And it will further the decline of America in the years ahead.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I think that Roberts and Barrett will join with the three far left judges to give them 5 votes.

At least.

 

[Fang]

Most countries in Europe and Asia do not have birth right citizenship. Some at least require 1 parent to be a citizen which to me seems reasonable. The 14th Amendment had noble beginnings, but no one imagined one party would refuse to enforce the border and immigration laws and even create sanctuary cities. With that said, I think it’s an uphill battle for Trump.

 

[Lockback]

Most countries in Europe and Asia do not have birth right citizenship. Some at least require 1 parent to be a citizen which to me seems reasonable. The 14th Amendment had noble beginnings, but no one imagined on party would refuse to enforce the border and immigration laws and even create sanctuary cities. With that said, I think it’s an uphill battle for Trump.

We're totally screwed.
The America I've loved my whole life is disappearing before my eyes.

 

[Chuz Life]

I think that Roberts and Barrett will join with the three far left judges to give them 5 votes.

I don't have any faith in any of them after the way they fucked up the whole Dobbs decision.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

I think you're probably correct. And it will further the decline of America in the years ahead.

Yes
The racist and corrupt Democrat Party is turning America into a third world county.

 

[Lockback]

Yes
The racist and corrupt Democrat Party is turning America into a third world county.

Precisely correct.

 

[dudmuck]

We're totally screwed.
The America I've loved my whole life is disappearing before my eyes.

14th amendment has been around since 1868.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

If We cannot control our immigration, then we are not a sovereign country.
If we are not a sovereign country then our government, laws and culture are in jeopardy.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

14th amendment has been around since 1868.

Where does it say illegal migrants?

 

[AntonToo]

Most countries in Europe and Asia do not have birth right citizenship. Some at least require 1 parent to be a citizen which to me seems reasonable. The 14th Amendment had noble beginnings, but no one imagined one party would refuse to enforce the border and immigration laws and even create sanctuary cities. With that said, I think it’s an uphill battle for Trump.

Umm yea, some countries have different laws than we do.

If you right-wingers don't like the law then go ahead and try to change it instead of making weasel arguments in courts to get around the law.

 

[Fang]

14th amendment has been around since 1868.

2nd Amendment has been around since 1791 so by your logic Liberals need to shut up about it.

 

[Lockback]

14th amendment has been around since 1868.

Pregnant Chinese women are lining up to come to America to have their child here, whereupon they return to China. The child is raised in Communist China, then returns here with full American citizenship.
You like that idea?

 

[Cassandro]

Comment:
‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof' just means citizen.

That is a ridiculous comment. If it just means citizen, why was it included?

 

[Fang]

Umm yea, some countries have different laws than we do.

If you right-wingers don't like the law then go ahead and try to change it instead of making weasel arguments in courts to get around the law.

Clearly you have no clue the process to change an amendment, nor do you understand what is taking place in the SCOTUS. Trump isn’t trying to change the law, he’s essentially arguing it’s broad reach and definition. As I said it’s an uphill battle, but it one were to try and make a change this is the best way.