Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Nationwide injunctions and birthright citizenship cases
Date: Thu, 15 May 2025 21:16:55 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 108
Message-ID: <1005lk6$38kod$11@dont-email.me>
References: <10052gj$36upi$1@dont-email.me> <1005adi$38kod$1@dont-email.me> <1005kdr$3aejg$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=fixed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 15 May 2025 23:16:55 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="89958d6efb24db3000ce49ed994611d8";
	logging-data="3429133"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19G7WJ3LGdg3det7TZhRNqo"
User-Agent: Usenapp/0.92.2/l for MacOS
Cancel-Lock: sha1:e0iU/U+2LVbXoOUQBTXd+W150bg=

On May 15, 2025 at 1:56:27 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>> May 15, 2025 at 8:50:43 AM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> 
>>> Today, 5/15/2025, three consolidated birthright citizenship cases will
>>> be argued before the Supreme Court. Trump v. CASA, filed by immigrants
>>> rights groups and several pregnant women in Maryland; Trump v.
>>> Washington, filed in Seattle by a group of four states; and Trump v. New
>>> Jersey, filed in Massachusetts by a group of 18 states, the District of
>>> Columbia, and San Francisco.
> 
>>> D. John Sauer is Solicitor General. I recognized the scratchy voice.
>>> He's made these arguments over the years and was clearly hired by Trump
>>> to argue this type of case.
> 
>>> However, Court observers have predicted that most of the time will be
>>> spent analyzing universal injunctions, a practice that has proliferated
>>> over the last several decades.
> 
>> These need to go. What's the point of having a Congress and a president when
>> one unelected judge can substitute his judgment for all of theirs not just in
>> the case before him/her but for every case across the nation? The judiciary
>> doesn't not set public policy. The political branches do.
> 
> The president, who is not a king but an ordinary civilian to whom law
> applies, cannot decree parts of the Constitution inapplicable or
> unenforceable.
> Yes, I know. There are numerous Biden examples -- student loan debt
> forgiveness, all-encompassing immigration parole -- but that doesn't
> make Trump get to cut clauses out of the Fourteenth Amendment.

He's not cutting the clause out, he's saying it's inapplicable to illegal
aliens, and I agree.

>> Nationwide injunctions, qualified immunity, and birthright citizenship all
>> need to be shit-canned.
> 
> Heh. I don't think qualified immunity will be raised, and you forgot
> civil asset forfeiture.
> 
>>> Sauer repeated an argument he's made before, which I don't think is
>>> supported by any sitting Supreme Court justice, that the citizenship
>>> clause was limited to slaves and their children born in the United
>>> States freed by the Thirteenth Amendment.
> 
>> That's certainly what it was intended for by those who drafted it, wrote it,
>> and passed it into law.
> 
> And that law was immediately found unconstitutional by a Supreme Court

The 14th Amendment was found unconstitutional? Because that's the law I'm
talking about. Part of the Constitution itself is unconstitutional? That's
both news to me and a legal paradox.

> If you seriously argue, like Sauer, that the Fourteenth Amendment was a
> grant of liberty to the freed men and no one else

I'm not saying no one else. Just not people who entered the country
illegally.

>  then we lose the
> entire notion that the Constitution and civil rights law was written in
> colorblind language. We lose the entire line of reverse discrimination
> cases starting with the tax law case that Ruth Bader Ginsburg famously
> took to the Supreme Court to more broadly apply the neutral language "on
> the basis of sex" to her client, a dude. We lose Bakke. We lose those
> university admission cases just decided two years ago.
> 
> Please tell me you still believe that the Constitution's language is
> neutral.
> 
>> I used to think it was just an unfortunate oversight that they didn't make
>> that express in the text of the law and we'd either have to repeal/amend
>> that clause or just live with illegals birthing babies here so they can
>> be citizens. But then I was pointed to a whole line of cases that explain
>> the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the context of
>> both the time in which it was written and its meaning under the law and
>> which form persuasive precedent that illegal aliens are not covered by
>> the 14th Amendment's grant of birthright citizenship.
> 
>> It is well-settled law** that if you are here without the consent of the
>> people of the United States as expressed by their duly enacted laws, from a
>> legal perspective, it is quite literally as if you are not present in  this
>> country. It's absurd on its face to assert that people who are illegally on
>> our soil through intentional violation of our laws can, strictly by
>> trespassing on it, achieve the ultimate benefit of citizenship for their
>> kids.
> 
>> **United States v. Ju Toy, 198 U.S. 253 (1905):  "A person who comes to the
>> country illegally is to be regarded under the law as if he had stopped at the
>> limit of its jurisdiction, although physically he may be within its
>> boundaries".
> 
> Yes I know.
> 
> Every time you bring up that case, I ask you how the newborn baby
> himself violated the Immigration and Nationality Act, even if presuming
> his mother did?

Intent is not an element of the offense.

> You always ignore the fundamental question. Ju Toy cannot possibly apply
> to the unborn foetus.

Sure it can.