"It's a new world. It's the same Constitution."

[LafayetteBear]

Ouch. That's the sound of John Roberts telling Donald Trump to go pound sand. And best of all, Trump was there in person to hear it.

I am gonna predict a 7-2 ruling against Cheeto, with only Alito and Thomas supporting him. But this could even be a unanimous court, since (as noted in a lower court) Trump's Executive Order purporting to ban birthright citizenship was "blatantly unconstitutional."

How John Roberts’ retort sums up the case against Trump’s birthright citizenship order

“It’s a new world. It’s the same Constitution,” the chief justice told Solicitor General John Sauer at Wednesday’s hearing on Trump’s order.

www.ms.now

 

[bdgan]

Ouch. That's the sound of John Roberts telling Donald Trump to go pound sand. And best of all, Trump was there in person to hear it.

I am gonna predict a 7-2 ruling against Cheeto, with only Alito and Thomas supporting him. But this could even be a unanimous court, since (as noted in a lower court) Trump's Executive Order purporting to ban birthright citizenship was "blatantly unconstitutional."

How John Roberts’ retort sums up the case against Trump’s birthright citizenship order

“It’s a new world. It’s the same Constitution,” the chief justice told Solicitor General John Sauer at Wednesday’s hearing on Trump’s order.

www.ms.now

I agree that's what he seems to be saying but that doesn't make it right. The reason cases like this get to the Supreme Court is because the constitution / law isn't black and white. The courts job is to interpret the intention of the law. Saying you're a citizen if your born here seems to e an attempt to read the constitution as black and white instead of trying to understand what the authors intended.

I don't think the authors intended to support birth tourism. Bring hundreds of 8+ month pregnant women to this country, have American citizens pay for their hospital stay, then immediately become citizens eligible for social welfare.

 

[FLaw47]

I agree that's what he seems to be saying but that doesn't make it right. The reason cases like this get to the Supreme Court is because the constitution / law isn't black and white. The courts job is to interpret the intention of the law. Saying you're a citizen if your born here seems to e an attempt to read the constitution as black and white instead of trying to understand what the authors intended.

I don't think the authors intended to support birth tourism. Bring hundreds of 8+ month pregnant women to this country, have American citizens pay for their hospital stay, then immediately become citizens eligible for social welfare.

I'm sure you'd apply that same sentiment to the 2nd amendment, yeah?

 

[DailyBuck7]

Ouch. That's the sound of John Roberts telling Donald Trump to go pound sand. And best of all, Trump was there in person to hear it.

I am gonna predict a 7-2 ruling against Cheeto, with only Alito and Thomas supporting him. But this could even be a unanimous court, since (as noted in a lower court) Trump's Executive Order purporting to ban birthright citizenship was "blatantly unconstitutional."

How John Roberts’ retort sums up the case against Trump’s birthright citizenship order

“It’s a new world. It’s the same Constitution,” the chief justice told Solicitor General John Sauer at Wednesday’s hearing on Trump’s order.

www.ms.now

Ouch. That's the sound of John Roberts telling Donald Trump to go pound sand. And best of all, Trump was there in person to hear it.

I am gonna predict a 7-2 ruling against Cheeto, with only Alito and Thomas supporting him. But this could even be a unanimous court, since (as noted in a lower court) Trump's Executive Order purporting to ban birthright citizenship was "blatantly unconstitutional."

How John Roberts’ retort sums up the case against Trump’s birthright citizenship order

“It’s a new world. It’s the same Constitution,” the chief justice told Solicitor General John Sauer at Wednesday’s hearing on Trump’s order.

www.ms.now

Coming from the guy who saved Obamacare mandates by calling the forced buying of health insurance a tax.

 

[LafayetteBear]

I agree that's what he seems to be saying but that doesn't make it right. The reason cases like this get to the Supreme Court is because the constitution / law isn't black and white. The courts job is to interpret the intention of the law. Saying you're a citizen if your born here seems to e an attempt to read the constitution as black and white instead of trying to understand what the authors intended.

I don't think the authors intended to support birth tourism. Bring hundreds of 8+ month pregnant women to this country, have American citizens pay for their hospital stay, then immediately become citizens eligible for social welfare.

In all candor, I find the notion of "birth tourism" to be highly annoying and offensive. Particularly for folks who want their children born here as a form of backup plan, but have no intention of residing here and contributing to our economy or our community here. I am probably not alone in that, and it is something that Solicitor General John Sauer tried to exploit in today's oral argument at the Supreme Court. Here is the portion of the above linked article that focuses on the issue:

During Sauer’s opening remarks, the former Trump personal lawyer referred to “birth tourism” while complaining that “uncounted thousands of foreigners from potentially hostile nations have flocked to give birth in the United States in recent decades, creating a whole generation of American citizens abroad with no meaningful ties to the United States.”

Later in the hearing, Roberts returned to the subject, asking Sauer: “Do you have any information about how common that is, or how significant a problem it is?”

Sauer called the question a “great” one but said that “no one knows for sure.”

That was an odd way to start an answer about a claim that even partly underpins the government’s attempt to redefine what it means to be an American.

The solicitor general then turned to citing “media reports” that estimate more than 1 million people coming from China, as well as a congressional report about “Russian elites” going to Miami through “birth tourism companies.” He said the “media reported” that “based on Chinese media reports,” there have been at least 500 such companies in China.

“Having said all that,” Roberts replied, “you do agree that that has no impact on the legal analysis before us?”

That’s a judicial way of saying it’s irrelevant.

I'm thinking that the birth tourism argument could be made more relevant in a case that presented different facts, and perhaps where more evidence concerning the scope of the "birth tourism" problem was presented. There must be a way to procure information on this issue.

The other thing I see as a hurdle in addressing birth tourism is that outlawing it requires an analysis of the mother's intent in coming to the U.S. no? If an expectant mother comes here not as a tourist but seeking permanent residence and employment here, she is not in any sense a "tourist." Should her child, if it is born here, be denied citizenship?

 

[tigres88]

I agree that's what he seems to be saying but that doesn't make it right. The reason cases like this get to the Supreme Court is because the constitution / law isn't black and white. The courts job is to interpret the intention of the law. Saying you're a citizen if your born here seems to e an attempt to read the constitution as black and white instead of trying to understand what the authors intended.

I don't think the authors intended to support birth tourism. Bring hundreds of 8+ month pregnant women to this country, have American citizens pay for their hospital stay, then immediately become citizens eligible for social welfare.

In all candor, I find the notion of "birth tourism" to be highly annoying and offensive. Particularly for folks who want their children born here as a form of backup plan, but have no intention of residing here and contributing to our economy or our community here. I am probably not alone in that, and it is something that Solicitor General John Sauer tried to exploit in today's oral argument at the Supreme Court. Here is the portion of the above linked article that focuses on the issue:

During Sauer’s opening remarks, the former Trump personal lawyer referred to “birth tourism” while complaining that “uncounted thousands of foreigners from potentially hostile nations have flocked to give birth in the United States in recent decades, creating a whole generation of American citizens abroad with no meaningful ties to the United States.”

Later in the hearing, Roberts returned to the subject, asking Sauer: “Do you have any information about how common that is, or how significant a problem it is?”

Sauer called the question a “great” one but said that “no one knows for sure.”

That was an odd way to start an answer about a claim that even partly underpins the government’s attempt to redefine what it means to be an American.

The solicitor general then turned to citing “media reports” that estimate more than 1 million people coming from China, as well as a congressional report about “Russian elites” going to Miami through “birth tourism companies.” He said the “media reported” that “based on Chinese media reports,” there have been at least 500 such companies in China.

“Having said all that,” Roberts replied, “you do agree that that has no impact on the legal analysis before us?”

That’s a judicial way of saying it’s irrelevant.

I'm thinking that the birth tourism argument could be made more relevant in a case that presented different facts, and perhaps where more evidence concerning the scope of the "birth tourism" problem was presented. There must be a way to procure information on this issue.

The other thing I see as a hurdle in addressing birth tourism is that outlawing it requires an analysis of the mother's intent in coming to the U.S. no? If an expectant mother comes here not as a tourist but seeking permanent residence and employment here, she is not in any sense a "tourist." Should her child, if it is born here, be denied citizenship?

This dude is back! @bdgan get wrecked in every thread he decides to participate in and its hilarious

 

[Moogy]

I agree that's what he seems to be saying but that doesn't make it right. The reason cases like this get to the Supreme Court is because the constitution / law isn't black and white. The courts job is to interpret the intention of the law. Saying you're a citizen if your born here seems to e an attempt to read the constitution as black and white instead of trying to understand what the authors intended.

I don't think the authors intended to support birth tourism. Bring hundreds of 8+ month pregnant women to this country, have American citizens pay for their hospital stay, then immediately become citizens eligible for social welfare.

So, suddenly, cons are in favor of judicial activism and have spit on strict constructionism?

Weird.

Somehow, I think the next time a matter before the Court requires a strict constructionist approach in order to benefit the cons, they'll be back to embracing it.

 

[hopefultiger13]

So, suddenly, cons are in favor of judicial activism and have spit on strict constructionism?

Weird.

Somehow, I think the next time a matter before the Court requires a strict constructionist approach in order to benefit the cons, they'll be back to embracing it.

Dude, you are missing out on what it means to be a Conservative Republican now. Rule of Law, Strict Constitutionalism, Fiscal Conservativism, State's Rights, Smaller Government... NONE of that means SHIIT anymore. What you need to believe in to be a conservative Republican is total and unwavering support of everything that comes out of Trump's mouth. No disagreement allowed. There's no room in the Republican tent for anyone that disagrees with Donald Trump.

Just as an example, can you IMAGINE what the folks on here would be saying if Obama or Biden issued an executive order for all states to provide their registered voting lists? They'd be bouncing off the walls. But crickets when Trump does it.

Personally, I don't have a problem with not having Birthright Citizenship. You can make a pretty good argument that it's not in our best interest to have that right now. As mentioned above, you could make a pretty good arguement that the 2nd amendment didn't mean individual rights of gun ownership, but instead referred to State Militias. None of that matters. The constitution clearly says differently in both cases. If you want to change that, change the constitution. You don't get to ignore the parts you don't like.

 

[baltimorened]

In all candor, I find the notion of "birth tourism" to be highly annoying and offensive. Particularly for folks who want their children born here as a form of backup plan, but have no intention of residing here and contributing to our economy or our community here. I am probably not alone in that, and it is something that Solicitor General John Sauer tried to exploit in today's oral argument at the Supreme Court. Here is the portion of the above linked article that focuses on the issue:

During Sauer’s opening remarks, the former Trump personal lawyer referred to “birth tourism” while complaining that “uncounted thousands of foreigners from potentially hostile nations have flocked to give birth in the United States in recent decades, creating a whole generation of American citizens abroad with no meaningful ties to the United States.”

Later in the hearing, Roberts returned to the subject, asking Sauer: “Do you have any information about how common that is, or how significant a problem it is?”

Sauer called the question a “great” one but said that “no one knows for sure.”

That was an odd way to start an answer about a claim that even partly underpins the government’s attempt to redefine what it means to be an American.

The solicitor general then turned to citing “media reports” that estimate more than 1 million people coming from China, as well as a congressional report about “Russian elites” going to Miami through “birth tourism companies.” He said the “media reported” that “based on Chinese media reports,” there have been at least 500 such companies in China.

“Having said all that,” Roberts replied, “you do agree that that has no impact on the legal analysis before us?”

That’s a judicial way of saying it’s irrelevant.

I'm thinking that the birth tourism argument could be made more relevant in a case that presented different facts, and perhaps where more evidence concerning the scope of the "birth tourism" problem was presented. There must be a way to procure information on this issue.

The other thing I see as a hurdle in addressing birth tourism is that outlawing it requires an analysis of the mother's intent in coming to the U.S. no? If an expectant mother comes here not as a tourist but seeking permanent residence and employment here, she is not in any sense a "tourist." Should her child, if it is born here, be denied citizenship?

is there a way to "split the baby"...make birth tourism illegal and other legal?

 

[UrHuckleberry]

is there a way to "split the baby"...make birth tourism illegal and other legal?

A law or amendment I’d think

 

[firegiver]

Coming from the guy who saved Obamacare mandates by calling the forced buying of health insurance a tax.

It literally is. Its a literal tax.
Are we taking crazy pills?

 

[firegiver]

A law or amendment I’d think

100% how you solve this problem is with a law. Just like should have been done for abortion.

 

[Moogy]

It literally is. Its a literal tax.
Are we taking crazy pills?

No, it wasn't. That was one of many absolutely insane rulings by this Court. The idea that Congress has the power to force people to engage in commerce is mind-blowingly awful. That it helped Obamacare survive was a slight benefit to that ridiculousness, but it was still absolute ridiculousness. Citizens United was more harmful to our democracy, but this case is up there with their most atrocious. And that's saying something.

 

[Moogy]

Dude, you are missing out on what it means to be a Conservative Republican now. Rule of Law, Strict Constitutionalism, Fiscal Conservativism, State's Rights, Smaller Government... NONE of that means SHIIT anymore. What you need to believe in to be a conservative Republican is total and unwavering support of everything that comes out of Trump's mouth. No disagreement allowed. There's no room in the Republican tent for anyone that disagrees with Donald Trump.

Just as an example, can you IMAGINE what the folks on here would be saying if Obama or Biden issued an executive order for all states to provide their registered voting lists? They'd be bouncing off the walls. But crickets when Trump does it.

Personally, I don't have a problem with not having Birthright Citizenship. You can make a pretty good argument that it's not in our best interest to have that right now. As mentioned above, you could make a pretty good arguement that the 2nd amendment didn't mean individual rights of gun ownership, but instead referred to State Militias. None of that matters. The constitution clearly says differently in both cases. If you want to change that, change the constitution. You don't get to ignore the parts you don't like.

A proper strict constructionist reading would limit 2nd Amendment rights to well-regulated (by the federal and state governments, actually ... as state militias were to be ready at the behest of the federal government) militias, but other than that, I agree with your post.

 

[DailyBuck7]

It literally is. Its a literal tax.
Are we taking crazy pills?

You really are supremely ignorant.. The legislation enabling Obamacare referred to it as a penalty. No mention of it being a tax and out of nine supreme Court justices only Roberts referred to it as a tax.

 

[firegiver]

You really are supremely ignorant.. The legislation enabling Obamacare referred to it as a penalty. No mention of it being a tax and out of nine supreme Court justices only Roberts referred to it as a tax.

A tax is a mandatory financial charge or levy imposed on an individual or legal entity by a governmental organization to support government spending and public expenditures collectively or to regulate economic activity through measures designed to mitigate negative externalities. Tax compliance refers to policy actions and individual behavior aimed at ensuring that taxpayers are paying the right amount of tax at the right time and securing the correct tax allowances and tax relief


Would you say its a penalty to not get the tax breaks of having 1 more kid for child tax credit? Its the same premise but different words.

 

[DailyBuck7]

A tax is a mandatory financial charge or levy imposed on an individual or legal entity by a governmental organization to support government spending and public expenditures collectively or to regulate economic activity through measures designed to mitigate negative externalities. Tax compliance refers to policy actions and individual behavior aimed at ensuring that taxpayers are paying the right amount of tax at the right time and securing the correct tax allowances and tax relief


Would you say its a penalty to not get the tax breaks of having 1 more kid for child tax credit? Its the same premise but different words.

Your argument didn't persuade 8 Supreme Court Justices. And if we believe the Court interprets the laws rather than writing them, the legislative determination should control. Many penalties could be described as taxes using Roberts sleight of hand. And, if the government wanted to force you to drive electric cars [or exercise 4 days a week], it could simply enact functional penalities for driving gas powered cars or not exercising and call it a tax.

 

[firegiver]

Your argument didn't persuade 8 Supreme Court Justices. And if we believe the Court interprets the laws rather than writing them, the legislative determination should control. Many penalties could be described as taxes using Roberts sleight of hand. And, if the government wanted to force you to drive electric cars [or exercise 4 days a week], it could simply enact functional penalities for driving gas powered cars or not exercising and call it a tax.

Hey wait... Do we agree the citizens united ruling should be overturned? I'd be so happy to hear your further criticisms of Roberts.

 

[DailyBuck7]

Hey wait... Do we agree the citizens united ruling should be overturned? I'd be so happy to hear your further criticisms of Roberts.

I know very little of Citizen's United and consider it to be unimportant and I am not invested in either side of the case. I wouldn't have cared if it had been decided in a different way. It is very possible that Robert's reasoning there was inconsistent with his reasoning in other cases. All Supreme court justices write opinions whose reasoning can be reasonably claimed to be inconsistent with prior writings. Just in the case at hand, the Robert's quote was very inconsistent with what he did in the Obamacare case.

 

[firegiver]

I know very little of Citizen's United and consider it to be unimportant and I am not invested in either side of the case. I wouldn't have cared if it had been decided in a different way. It is very possible that Robert's reasoning there was inconsistent with his reasoning in other cases. All Supreme court justices write opinions whose reasoning can be reasonably claimed to be inconsistent with prior writings. Just in the case at hand, the Robert's quote was very inconsistent with what he did in the Obamacare case.

Eh? Citizens united is a way more impactful case on Americans than Obama care ever will be.

 

[bdgan]

In all candor, I find the notion of "birth tourism" to be highly annoying and offensive. Particularly for folks who want their children born here as a form of backup plan, but have no intention of residing here and contributing to our economy or our community here. I am probably not alone in that, and it is something that Solicitor General John Sauer tried to exploit in today's oral argument at the Supreme Court. Here is the portion of the above linked article that focuses on the issue:

During Sauer’s opening remarks, the former Trump personal lawyer referred to “birth tourism” while complaining that “uncounted thousands of foreigners from potentially hostile nations have flocked to give birth in the United States in recent decades, creating a whole generation of American citizens abroad with no meaningful ties to the United States.”

Later in the hearing, Roberts returned to the subject, asking Sauer: “Do you have any information about how common that is, or how significant a problem it is?”

Sauer called the question a “great” one but said that “no one knows for sure.”

That was an odd way to start an answer about a claim that even partly underpins the government’s attempt to redefine what it means to be an American.

The solicitor general then turned to citing “media reports” that estimate more than 1 million people coming from China, as well as a congressional report about “Russian elites” going to Miami through “birth tourism companies.” He said the “media reported” that “based on Chinese media reports,” there have been at least 500 such companies in China.

“Having said all that,” Roberts replied, “you do agree that that has no impact on the legal analysis before us?”

That’s a judicial way of saying it’s irrelevant.

I'm thinking that the birth tourism argument could be made more relevant in a case that presented different facts, and perhaps where more evidence concerning the scope of the "birth tourism" problem was presented. There must be a way to procure information on this issue.

The other thing I see as a hurdle in addressing birth tourism is that outlawing it requires an analysis of the mother's intent in coming to the U.S. no? If an expectant mother comes here not as a tourist but seeking permanent residence and employment here, she is not in any sense a "tourist." Should her child, if it is born here, be denied citizenship?

IMO Roberts was wrong to ask how many birth tourists and Sauer looked stupid for not being prepared to answer how many. It seems to me that birth tourism is wrong and inconsistent with the intentions of the 14th amendment. I don't care if it's 100 people or 500,000 people.

 

[bdgan]

So, suddenly, cons are in favor of judicial activism and have spit on strict constructionism?

Weird.

Expecting judges to make decisions based on the intent of the law is only weird to people like you.

 

[bdgan]

Dude, you are missing out on what it means to be a Conservative Republican now. Rule of Law, Strict Constitutionalism, Fiscal Conservativism, State's Rights, Smaller Government... NONE of that means SHIIT anymore. What you need to believe in to be a conservative Republican is total and unwavering support of everything that comes out of Trump's mouth. No disagreement allowed. There's no room in the Republican tent for anyone that disagrees with Donald Trump.

Just as an example, can you IMAGINE what the folks on here would be saying if Obama or Biden issued an executive order for all states to provide their registered voting lists? They'd be bouncing off the walls. But crickets when Trump does it.

Personally, I don't have a problem with not having Birthright Citizenship. You can make a pretty good argument that it's not in our best interest to have that right now. As mentioned above, you could make a pretty good arguement that the 2nd amendment didn't mean individual rights of gun ownership, but instead referred to State Militias. None of that matters. The constitution clearly says differently in both cases. If you want to change that, change the constitution. You don't get to ignore the parts you don't like.

That's a strange take considering the democrats almost always vote in lockstep while republicans are less inclined to stay together.

 

[bdgan]

A law or amendment I’d think

That's probably what's required but there's no possibility of that happening anytime soon.

 

[UrHuckleberry]

That's probably what's required but there's no possibility of that happening anytime soon.

Well unfortunately just changing it by royal decree isn't an option either.

I suspect if there was a law outlawing birther tourism and it was strictly defined you could get bipartisan support. Would definitely need to be strictly defined to get to bipartisan. But no one seems to be interested in bipartanship these days.

 

[bdgan]

100% how you solve this problem is with a law. Just like should have been done for abortion.

What abortion law could pass?

I don't like the idea of abortion but understand that people have different opinions. My compromise would be to allow abortions until 13 weeks but democrats would never accept that. I disagree with the handful of states that have set the limit at 6 weeks.

IMO the bigger political issue is why abortions are even necessary. Birth control pills are widely available and virtually free. So why are abortions necessary? I read that 40% of abortions are black women and a comparable percent have more than one abortion. IMO that's a big problem that should be addressed.

 

[bdgan]

A proper strict constructionist reading would limit 2nd Amendment rights to well-regulated (by the federal and state governments, actually ... as state militias were to be ready at the behest of the federal government) militias, but other than that, I agree with your post.

I'm OK with that opinion but why do you insist that we should stick with the literal language on birth citizenship but revert to intent when it comes to gun laws?

 

[bdgan]

Well unfortunately just changing it by royal decree isn't an option either.

I suspect if there was a law outlawing birther tourism and it was strictly defined you could get bipartisan support. Would definitely need to be strictly defined to get to bipartisan. But no one seems to be interested in bipartanship these days.

Challenging the law is much different than changing something by royal decree. Both parties routinely challenge decisions made by our executives and lower courts.

I disagree that you could get bipartisan agreement on birther tourism. They couldn't even reach agreement on the definition of birth tourism. I read that 250,000 children were born to undocumented mothers in 2023 and you could argue that a large percent of those mothers came here for the sole purpose of having their children born in an American hospital, becoming citizens, qualifying for benefits, getting an education, etc. Republicans would consider them tourists while democrats would consider them refugees.

 

[UrHuckleberry]

Challenging the law is much different than changing something by royal decree. Both parties routinely challenge decisions made by our executives and lower courts.

I disagree that you could get bipartisan agreement on birther tourism. They couldn't even reach agreement on the definition of birth tourism. I read that 250,000 children were born to undocumented mothers in 2023 and you could argue that a large percent of those mothers came here for the sole purpose of having their children born in an American hospital, becoming citizens, qualifying for benefits, getting an education, etc. Republicans would consider them tourists while democrats would consider them refugees.

Sure, and I do think assigning motivation or intention is difficult in law.

And the royal decree was certain a joke, but that has seemed to be Trump's general attitude with some of these EO's. Moving forward as the executive has unlimited power and isn't bound by the constitution. Many aren't incremental steps to challenge established precedents but rather completely in the face of that.

 

[bdgan]

Sure, and I do think assigning motivation or intention is difficult in law.

And the royal decree was certain a joke, but that has seemed to be Trump's general attitude with some of these EO's. Moving forward as the executive has unlimited power and isn't bound by the constitution. Many aren't incremental steps to challenge established precedents but rather completely in the face of that.

I think all presidents abuse executive authority but I agree that Trump pushes the envelope more than others.

 

[hopefultiger13]

That's a strange take considering the democrats almost always vote in lockstep while republicans are less inclined to stay together.

First of all, I'm not a Democrat or a Republican. I'm an independent and a moderate. I would be ashamed to be associated with either political party.

And almost all Republicans are in lockstep with Trump... the ones that aren't resign or get primaried. What you are talking about happens EVERY time a party is out of power (They don't have majorities in the House, Senate, or have the Whitehouse). The reason that this is news is b/c the Republican Majorities are so small that anyone that crosses the party line makes a big difference. And Democrats aren't in lockstep, the Democratic Senators from WV and Penn are notorious for crossing party lines.

 

[FLaw47]

First of all, I'm not a Democrat or a Republican. I'm an independent and a moderate. I would be ashamed to be associated with either political party.

And almost all Republicans are in lockstep with Trump... the ones that aren't resign or get primaried. What you are talking about happens EVERY time a party is out of power (They don't have majorities in the House, Senate, or have the Whitehouse). The reason that this is news is b/c the Republican Majorities are so small that anyone that crosses the party line makes a big difference. And Democrats aren't in lockstep, the Democratic Senators from WV and Penn are notorious for crossing party lines.

My boy Joe Manchin is no longer in congress, unfortunately. You can lobby the same claims to ol Kristin Sinema though.

 

[Moogy]

Expecting judges to make decisions based on the intent of the law is only weird to people like you.

Wut? The cons are short-circuiting as their fearful leader keeps changing what he allegedly stands for.

Strict constructionist Constitutional analysis is a lynchpin of the conservative viewpoint (Thomas, Alito, Scalia, et al).

Looking at outside factors, whether those are intent of authors, or changing circumstances, is considered anti-American judicial activism Commie stuff by the cons.

Be better.

 

[Moogy]

I'm OK with that opinion but why do you insist that we should stick with the literal language on birth citizenship but revert to intent when it comes to gun laws?

First, I don't intend on anything ... I'm pointing out what is and is not. So, I'm simply stating facts like the "literal language is X." That doesn't mean I support or don't support that way of determining an outcome. But, again, the literal language re gun laws does not support individual rights ... it supports the right to bear arms only insofar as it relates to a well-regulated militia. We've learned Constitutional analysis, like most other things, is above your pay grade.