Comments on: On immigration and the law: SCOTUS decides that “temporary” means temporary and that the Trump orders were not based on race

By: SENNACHERIB

SENNACHERIB — Fri, 26 Jun 2026 21:14:12 +0000

BobS,
Yes we have, it’s become they might be SOB’s but they’re my SOB’s!

By: BobS

BobS — Fri, 26 Jun 2026 16:36:10 +0000

Does anyone realize that we have moved beyond rational argument and into the realm of “did so.. did not.. did so.. did not…” Whatever the opinion crafted by Alito reads, it absolutely doesn’t matter. We have passed truly into some grey dimension where nothing is real OR unreal, at least to those who want to tear it all down and will stop at nothing to achieve that aim.

By: Robert Shotzberger

Robert Shotzberger — Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:43:50 +0000

14th amendment has nothing to do with immigration. It passed to get rid of the dred scott decision

By: Ray

Ray — Fri, 26 Jun 2026 11:21:11 +0000

If you look at the discussion on birthright citizenship by the originators of the 14th amendment, it didn’t apply to diplomats, visitors or aliens. It only made the former slaves’ citizens. That’s why congress later had to pass the Indian citizenship act.

By: Marlene

Marlene — Fri, 26 Jun 2026 03:28:16 +0000

Geoffrey Britain wrote:
“Since partisanship in Congress prevents resolution of this issue… The S.C. has a constitutional duty to clarify the issue. Doing so in light of a fact based, reasoned examination of the exact wording of the 14th Amendment. As viewed from the perspective of the originating Congress.”
…
Also valuable, in examining the relevant, historic context, is the writings of the guy(s?) who clarified this only applied to slaves’ children, not others who come to America.
I don’t know why that is brushed aside by so many!
Or maybe I do.

By: R2L

R2L — Fri, 26 Jun 2026 03:20:48 +0000

@GB: “As viewed from the perspective of the originating Congress.”
What I have read about an “originalist” interpretation of the Constitution (at least the 1787 version and the 12 initial Amendments) is that the analysis of pertinent language should also consider what the ratifiers of the Constitution or of the Amendments believed the valid meaning to be. The Framers/ creators of that language of course have a large voice in that, but the real sovereignty rests with “the people” via their state legislatures or their conventions.

By: William Klein

William Klein — Fri, 26 Jun 2026 02:25:33 +0000

God help us when the Democrats take over and pack the court.

By: TommyJay

TommyJay — Fri, 26 Jun 2026 00:09:15 +0000

There was a SCOTUS decision that apparently not many are interested in. Including myself to some extent because I have no interest in concealed carry of a firearm.

Jonathan Turley was trying to mention it on Fox when he got cut off. He seemed to think it had some importance beyond the direct issue at hand, perhaps.

In Hawaii, prior to this decision, one could get a concealed carry permit (easily or with great difficulty?), but one could not carry onto a privately owned property that was open to the public unless the property owner gave permission. Presumably either with a posted sign, or through private communication.

SCOTUS struck this down. If you’ve got the permit, you are good to go, though I’m not sure how “blanket” this is.

By: Scioux

Scioux — Thu, 25 Jun 2026 22:55:08 +0000

If we are to guess about what the ruling might be, I think it more likely that the Court would rule that deliberate birth practices to gain citizenship for one’s baby — without a correspondent, contemporaneous effort of the parents to become naturalized citizens, thus attesting to their genuine commitment — won’t work. Then the burden would be on the future parents to do more than just buy airline tickets here .

By: Geoffrey Britain

Geoffrey Britain — Thu, 25 Jun 2026 22:44:21 +0000

The birthright question is too fundamental to be permanently decided by EO, i.e. by one man’s opinion. Since partisanship in Congress prevents resolution of this issue… The S.C. has a constitutional duty to clarify the issue. Doing so in light of a fact based, reasoned examination of the exact wording of the 14th Amendment. As viewed from the perspective of the originating Congress.