News roundup

The New Neo Posted on by

(1) This move by Tucker Carlson is no surprise whatsoever: he wants to start a third party. It’s been evident for quite some time that he’d like to be a spoiler.

(2) I had never heard of Neville Roy Singham until today. But I probably should have. Here’s who he is and what’s happening to him:

The Department of Justice, authorized by acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, launched a federal grand jury probe into the tech tycoon to investigate alleged wire fraud, bank fraud and money laundering within his financial network.

Prosecutors are examining the flow of hundreds of millions of dollars that Mr. Singham allegedly funneled from Shanghai into the U.S. through defunct shell corporations and a Goldman Sachs philanthropy fund. …

The funds were allegedly distributed to a constellation of nonprofits, media operations and activist groups, such as CodePink, co-founded by Mr. Singham’s wife, and the Party for Socialism and Liberation, that lawmakers and critics accuse of pushing Chinese Communist Party propaganda and sectarian division.

“Neville Singham is a traitor to our country. He has ties to the CCP,” Sen. Jim Banks, Indiana Republican, told Fox News Digital. “He is an American citizen, but all of his loyalties lie with the Chinese Communist Party. And when you begin to untangle the web of his massive fortune and his philanthropic activities, the money that he sends to left-wing groups in America, and not just groups that espouse ideologies, but espouse violence.”

How nice.

Singham was born here, of Sri Lankan ethnicity on his father’s side. Both parents were academics, and Singham made his own fortune in the software biz.

(3) Speaking of China – there are allegations that it may be funding the anti-data-center push. There’s an investigation going on.

(4) Glenn Reynolds is starting to support repealing the 17th Amendment:

If you’re worried about the influence of special interest money, you should probably give a thought to repeal. Beyond that, State legislatures choosing senators would make senators more accountable to state interests, acting as a check against federal expansion, unfunded mandates, and overreach. This aligns with the Founders’ intent for vertical separation of powers. And the need to be asking for money 24/7 demonstrably discourages otherwise qualified people from seeking office.

What’s more, Senators chosen by legislatures would be less likely to support expansive federal programs (e.g., certain aspects of Obamacare or No Child Left Behind) that impose burdens on states, as they would prioritize state budgets and sovereignty.

I’ve thought for quite some time that it would be a good idea. But there’s no way it could pass – just like most amendments. I’ve become convinced that it is nearly impossible to get 3/4 of the states to agree on anything, and this certainly wouldn’t be something that would even come close.

(5) How do Democrats feel about the DSA? From a Pew poll:

The survey found that 32 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents said they like political leaders who identify as democratic socialists, while 56 percent said they neither like nor dislike such leaders. Just 11 percent said they dislike those leaders.

Support was stronger among exactly the group you’d think:

The survey also found support was strongest among white, younger, college-educated, and upper-income Democrats. White Democrats were the most likely to express favorable views of democratic socialist leaders, with 40 percent saying they like them — nearly double the share of black Democrats (21 percent) and Hispanic Democrats (20 percent). Thirty percent of Asian Democrats also expressed favorable views.

There’s also this unsurprising statistic:

An Economist/YouGov survey released earlier this week found that only eight percent of Democrats considered the United States the “greatest” country in the world ahead of the nation’s 250th anniversary celebration, while nearly four in ten Democrats said they were ashamed to be American.

Connectivity problems seem to have resolved – but it’s too darn hot

The New Neo Posted on by

I had major Wifi connectivity problems today and had to finish and publish the previous post on my cellphone. That’s a far-from-ideal situation and quite frustrating. But all seems well now.

Usually the connection here is pretty strong and pretty reliable, but every now and then – well, you know. We’re not having storms today, either. No, this is what we’re having:

And I’ll throw in this:

Hey, why not some Ann Miller?

ADDENDUM: At least I don’t live in a town or country where they tell me I can’t use my AC.

Trump wasn’t trying to eliminate birthright citizenship

The New Neo Posted on by

I’ve noticed something recently, and it’s not a phenomenon limited to the left. I see it on the right, too. A great many people seem to think that Trump’s EO was an attempt to end birthright citizenship as a whole. It was not.

I first noticed this while listening to a podcast in which people were pointing out that America was built on immigration, that they themselves got their citizenship as the children of immigrants, and so forth, and therefore they’re against Trump’s proposals on birthright citizenship. But of course, that basic process is not in dispute – for legal immigrants. Nor, as far as I know, was the idea to make Trump’s EO on this retroactive and apply to people already born here.

It’s a separate issue whether Trump had the power to do this by executive order. I don’t think he does have that power, as I’ve written before. But the issue I’m writing about in this post is what he actually was trying to do with the order, not whether an executive order would be sufficient to actually accomplish it.

Here’s Trump’s executive order; you can take a look yourself. The order relies on the 14th Amendment requirement that, in order to gain birthright citizenship, a person born here must also be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US:

Among the categories of individuals born in the United States and not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, the privilege of United States citizenship does not automatically extend to persons born in the United States: (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States at the time of said person’s birth was lawful but temporary (such as, but not limited to, visiting the United States under the auspices of the Visa Waiver Program or visiting on a student, work, or tourist visa) and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.

In other words, the order sought exclude babies born to pregnant illegal aliens, and babies born to tourists. The next paragraph goes on to say that documents conferring citizenship should not be issued to those two classes of persons. It adds that it is not retroactive; it only applies to children born after 30 days of the order (I’ve noticed that some people had also wrongly assumed it would be retroactive).

And then it adds this:

Nothing in this order shall be construed to affect the entitlement of other individuals, including children of lawful permanent residents, to obtain documentation of their United States citizenship.

In other words, birthright citizenship would have remained intact for other classes of people.

Now, perhaps you all already knew all this. I had pretty much assumed that everyone already knew it. But then I kept hearing otherwise, some of it from people who are clearly intelligent, some of them also on the right. Was the misunderstanding a failure of the MSM to cover it properly? Or was it just a kneejerk assumption about Trump being an intolerant, marauding person who supposedly wants no immigrants? I don’t know. But I thought I’d clear it up, just in case.

What’s more, I’ve read little recently about a fact I wrote about years ago when discussing this birthright issue, which is that the US is almost alone among first-world nations in conferring it in the first place to the babies of illegal aliens and of tourists. Only Canada has a similar policy (excluding children of diplomats, however, much as we do) along with a host of third-world countries such as Cuba, Chad, and Guyana that ordinarily don’t have to fend off birth tourism anyway. I think a great many people assume that countries such as England and France have birthright citizenship much as we do, but they do not. The general rule for Europe and even for some third-world countries is that the parents must either be born there for some countries, or be legal residents for others.

When I look at recent headlines on the subject, I see a great many like this one from the BBC: “Trump loses Supreme Court battle to end birthright citizenship.” If a person reads only the headline and not the article – which people often do – that person would get the wrong idea. The body of the article itself uses the word “limit” rather than “end,” but doesn’t explain the details, and I think many or most readers would get the impression that Trump wanted to ban much more than was actually the case.

[NOTE: I’m having major WiFi connectivity problems today and had to use my cellphone to publish this. I had originally meant to add a few other articles at the end to illustrate, but have given up at the moment because it’s just too hard to do from a phone. GRRRR!]

[ADDENDUM: Here’s the part I was trying to add earlier, when my Wifi connection dropped out:

Then there’s this headline from something called the American Immigration Council. It reads: “SCOTUS Rules Trump’s Attempt to End Birthright Citizenship Is Unconstitutional.” At least, this article explains the restrictions in paragraph three, but there’s no question in my mind that for the many who don’t read that far, the impression received would be that Trump tried to ban the practice altogether.

On the other hand, this NBC News article uses the word “limit” rather than “end” in the headline. However, it doesn’t explain in the body of the article what those “limits” would be until quite a ways down – that is, paragraph ten. By that point many or even most readers probably would have given up.

The birthright citizenship fight isn’t quite over

The New Neo Posted on by

There’s this:

DOJ senior official Colin McDonald issued a department-wide memo directing federal prosecutors to prioritize investigations and criminal charges against people who travel to the United States under false pretenses to give birth. The potential charges include visa fraud, money laundering, identity theft, and wire fraud.

“The Department of Justice will zealously protect the sanctity of United States citizenship by investigating and prosecuting those who fraudulently exploit our immigration system,” McDonald wrote in the memo, which he posted publicly on social media.

That’s all very well and good when Republicans are in charge. But if Democrats win, faggetaboutit. Of course, that’s true of a lot of things.

In the past, the fraud has worked in this way:

Back in 2019, Chinese national Dongyuan Li ran a company called You Win USA Vacation Services, which helped pregnant Chinese women travel to the United States to give birth. Li claimed to have served more than 500 customers, charging each between $40,000 and $80,000, and she received $3 million in wire transfers from China over two years. Li coached clients to lie on visa applications and at U.S. consulate interviews in China, claiming a two-week stay while planning to stay up to three months, and trained them to conceal their pregnancies from customs officials. …

You Win USA marketed the service by promising children “13 years of free education,” “less pollution,” “an easier way for the whole family to immigrate to the United States,” and “priority for jobs in U.S. government, public companies, and large corporations.” Citizenship as a premium package, complete with step-by-step coaching on how to fool the U.S. government.

Li pleaded guilty to federal charges in 2019.

In the future, though, they might become more subtle about it.

During the present administration, the flow of illegal aliens into this country has been much reduced. This helps deal with one aspect of the problem – although again, that will change if Democrats get back in charge.

And then there’s Congress. I don’t think the amendment effort can possibly end up getting 3/4 of the states to support it. but it needs to be tried.

But really, if birth tourism is reduced greatly and if illegal immigration is much reduced as well, that would take care of the bulk of the problem. Thing is, it’s only a temporary fix.

The Colorado primary’s lessons at the state level

The New Neo Posted on by

I’ve already written about the Colorado Democrat primaries in terms of the House race won by DSA leftist Kiros, but at the state level the results were different. At the state level, the more establishment Democrats resisted the challengers, and the somewhat more pro-Israel candidates defeated the more anti-Israel ones, at least in one case.

For now, that is.

In the contest for governor, the current AG of the state – Phil Weiser – will be the Democrats’ nominee. He is Jewish, 58 years old and a law professor (emeritus now). He is labeled “pro-Israel” by The Times of Israel. But why would Israel be an issue for a governorship? Because it seems to be a litmus test for Democrats these days:

Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, a strong supporter of Israel, defeated Sen. Michael Bennet in the state’s Democratic primary for governor on Tuesday, getting some 55 percent of the vote.

Weiser is the son of a woman born at Buchenwald two days after the concentration camp’s liberation in 1945, and will now be the Democratic Party candidate for governor of the Rocky Mountain state.

In the governor’s race, Bennet initially had the momentum as a three-term senator and the former superintendent of the Denver Public Schools. But voters ultimately chose Weiser, the two-term attorney general and former clerk for the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. …

Weiser, whose children attended a Jewish day school and is a longtime member of a Denver synagogue, has emphasized his support for Israel’s existence and has said he identifies as a Zionist.

So at the statewide level for the post of governor, there was no victory for far left or for the anti-Israel extremists. Then again, Weiser wasn’t primaried by a DSA type candidate or an Israel-hater, he was running against the current senator from the state. Why was there no far-left challenge from a telegenic Hamas-friendly DSA youngster? My guess is that the DSA does its research carefully, and it realizes that at present at the state level, Colorado just isn’t ready. The DSA doesn’t want to waste its energy and money in a losing game, if possible. So nationwide, for the most part, they are concentrating more on US House districts and/or state legislature districts that are extremely blue, as well as mayoral races in similarly true-blue cities. That way, they can win a primary and they are practically guaranteed to win in November.

However, in Colorado there is also the race for the US Senate, in which there actually was a DSA (to be precise, former DSA) challenger at the state level. And yet the primary was won comfortably by Hickenlooper, the more “establishment” candidate and the incumbent. This is very interesting because it follows the pattern of the races we’ve seen in which the establishment Democrat and incumbent was opposed by a younger DSA socialist, and yet here the pattern was broken because the DSA candidate lost. Of course, this was on the state level, and I think that made all the difference. Hickenlooper is no spring chicken, either; he’s 74. His challenger, a woman named Julie Gonzales, is 43 and much younger than he but not quite as youthful (and, it turns out, not quite as telegenic) as the other socialist challengers who have won their recent primary races.

His basic position in the race:

Hickenlooper, a pro-business centrist, pivoted to the left, at least in his campaign messaging, highlighting his work to expand healthcare access, boost housing affordability, cut environmental emissions and overhaul ICE. …

By highlighting his progressive accomplishments while at the same time staying true to his centrist leanings, Hickenlooper was able to successfully thread the needle.

That’s the secret, I think: pivot to the left, but not too much. He was a known quantity and the more rural parts of the state put him over the top, whereas it was very close in Denver:

Hickenlooper and Gonzales split the vote in Denver, the home base of each candidate. Hickenlooper, however, maintained a double-digit lead across most of the rest of the state, except for Adams County and some counties in southern Colorado, where his lead was in the single digits.

After two terms as Colorado governor, Hickenlooper had statewide name recognition in his favor.

Gonzales has the resume one would expect:

Gonzales, 43, has been a state senator since 2019. Before that, she worked as a community organizer and at an immigration law firm.

And her academic career is also exactly and precisely what you would expect:

Gonzales moved to Colorado after graduating from Yale University in 2005, where she studied History and Ethnicity, Race, and Migration.

Is that a major now?

More:

Gonzales supports Medicare for All, universal child care, a higher federal minimum wage, a ban on congressional stock trading, Abolish ICE, protecting abortion rights and gender affirming care, and Palestinian self-determination. She has stated her belief that Israel is guilty of war crimes and genocide.

But of course.

Gonzales’ Wiki entry also states that she was a DSA member from 2018 to 2024; I wonder what happened to change that. Maybe she thought her chance at a statewide victory would be enhanced if she didn’t have the DSA label? If so, it didn’t work.

I also would guess that the post of mayor of Denver is ripe for the DSA picking. The city has not had a Republican mayor since 1963. The current officeholder is Mike Johnston, who is progressive but not DSA-style progressive – for example, this:

Johnston began 2026 with an open letter to Jared Polis. He used a recent stabbing spree on 16th street as an example for why Colorado needs to make it easier to hold mentally incompetent people in custody, and said the state should jail more shoplifters to protect business owners.

I wouldn’t be surprised if, when he’s up for re-election, he’s challenged from the left. And I wouldn’t be surprised if the challenger wins.

Why am I writing so much about yesterday’s Colorado races? It’s not that I’m so fascinated with the state. Nor am I especially knowledgeable about it. But I think yesterday’s results there illustrate trends in states that are extremely blue in certain areas but paler blue as a whole. At the moment, the socialist victories have occurred in sections of the state rather than the whole. That could change over time, and I assume the DSA is counting on building more and more support.

[ADDENDUM: I do still plan to write Part II of the history of the DSA. Soon, but not today.]

Last Friday was the 17th anniversary of commenter FredHJr’s death

The New Neo Posted on by

The old-timers here remember commenter FredHJr. I have posted annually around the time of his death, which occurred in 2009. Sounds like ancient history, doesn’t it? The following is the text, slightly edited, of one of those posts.

Unbelievable that it’s been seventeen years since commenter FredHJr died suddenly and tragically. As time passes, the number of readers here who don’t remember Fred must necessarily increase, so for those of you who don’t know who FredHJr was, please see this and this, as well as these.

Fred’s death was extremely tragic for his family. But it was tragic for this blog, too, because he was an invaluable and irreplaceable member of our community, a “changer” who knew a lot about the Left, and a keen observer of politics, history, religion, culture—of life itself. I still think about him at times, wondering what he’d have to say about everything that’s happened in these last seventeen years.

Nearly every year around the anniversary, I offer some excerpts from his many comments here.

This comment is from October 18, 2008, just a few weeks before Obama was elected president for the first time:

It’s the Marxist/Leninist ethics of expediency. No regrets. Whatever it takes to discredit anything the other side does and excuse the sins of your own side.

…this reveals a lot about who is about to take power and how they will wield it against the rest of us. They get away with it and many will not at all be troubled by it because they are shaped by the post-modernism, cultural Marxism that they imbibed during their formative and educational experience. If we as a people cannot name this accurately and expunge its corrosive influence over our lives, then down into the wages of perdition and disaster we go.

The comment is from October 28, 2008. The election was getting close:

Obama is part of a nexus of interests. What the American dopes who will put him in office are getting is a NETWORK of alliances and interests, running the gamut from Finance (Soros) to academia to media to law. Thus far, in order to appeal to the Middle Muddle he has been packaged as a moderate or centrist. But once in office the venomous swarm of this network will burst out of the nest and devour the host. You wait and see. And I’m not eager for the moment to say “I told you so.” I really would it be the case that it never happens at all.

This was a comment of Fred’s from the very beginning of the Obama presidency, but I think it’s worth mulling over today:

For me, Western Civilization is an incredibly complex work that has eclectically and also seamlessly borrowed the excellence and the virtues of Athens, Jerusalem, Rome, and the Enlightenment. The High Middle Ages and the Renaissance also made important contributions. In its totality it is a meritocracy and a liberation of humanity that has resulted in ever greater learning and material prosperity and health for most of the people who live under it. It is not an unblemished history. Yet in its totality it gleams with advancement when juxtaposed against civilizations which enslave humanity.

I think the beginning of the end of our civilization began with the French Revolution and The Terror. It was the beginning of the elaboration of totalitarian thought and throughout the 19th century this kept on finding newer permutations of elegant, intellectual terror. The 20th century was the culmination of the barbarity of totalitarianism.

These are chosen somewhat randomly, but so very much of what I looked at that Fred had written was on target.

Over the years there have been other commenters here who probably have died, and I would like to mention them too, but for only one other commenter did I actually get official word of that person’s death: that was Mike K, who died in December of 2024. I announced Mike K’s death in this post, with some information about his life, accomplishments, and comments. It’s hard to be specific about other people, but one commenter who comes to mind is “strcpy,” who announced that he was very ill and then disappeared shortly thereafter, about sixteen years ago. I wrote him an email but never heard back, and I fear he’s gone. But I don’t know for sure. Another prolific commenter who disappeared many years ago was Occam’s Beard. I was never able to contact him after that, and so I fear something tragic may have happened. Same for parker.

There are almost certainly others, as well. I wouldn’t necessarily find out. Sometimes people just stop commenting here because they get busy or they get tired or they get turned off. But it stands to reason some of them will have died. So I’ll take this opportunity to say RIP for all of them.

Here’s a happy addendum, for those of you who are wondering if commenter Rufus T. Firefly is all right: he is! I heard from him recently. He’s just been very very busy with work. He does still read here but doesn’t have time to comment.

Denver ♥ Democratic Socialist Melat Kiros

The New Neo Posted on by

The pattern repeats itself. In blue districts, the young people who’ve been indoctrinated into leftism want young telegenic socialists rather than the Democrat old guard.

Thus, we have the defeat of the 67-year-old incumbent Diana DeGette, who has served in the US House since 1997. By my calculations, that’s most likely the year the winner, 29-year-old Melat Kiros, was born in Ethiopia.

Kiros is a doctoral student in public policy at the University of Denver, which I think is very fitting since this is a youth movement that is strong in academia. The defeated DeGette was even a member of the Progressive Caucus in the US House, but that wasn’t enough to save her. Not “progressive” enough – that is, not far enough left, not Israel-hating enough, not young enough.

Kiros’s win suggests that Democratic voters are so frustrated with the status quo and their party that they’re even willing to oust some of their most progressive members in Congress.

I believe that’s true of some Democrat voters, but I don’t know what percentage. I think others just want socialists in power, and it’s not so much a rejection of DeGette (although it is that) as it is an attraction to Kiros.

Meanwhile, Kiros said she understood the struggles of Denverites, pointing out she’s 29 years old, renting and a barista.

A barista, much like AOC’s early resume. But she’s got a law degree and spent time in the corporate law world. Interesting:

Melat Kiros, 29, previously worked as a corporate attorney in New York City and was fired from her firm for writing an article supporting students protesting Israel’s occupation of Palestine, according to her campaign website and social media pages.

Perfect!

She was born in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia weeks before her father was selected by the United States’ Diversity Visa Lottery and moved their family to Colorado …

And she refers to herself this way, saying that Denver, “just voted to send a 29-year-old immigrant, recovering lawyer, barista, Democratic Socialist to Congress.”

I guess I’m being a teeny bit nitpicky by saying she’s not going to Congress quite yet; the November election is some months away. She’s correct, though, in a sense, because winning the Democrat primary virtually guarantees a win in the general, and of course she knows that.

And here is the very clever and soothing way she describes socialism:

In an interview with Next’s Kyle Clark, Kiros elaborated on her socialist platform, saying she would tell voters who might be uncomfortable with it that we already have socialism in the U.S.

“It’s in the roads that we drive on. It’s in our fire stations. It’s in the public schools we send our kids to,” she said. “What I’m calling for is the same security that we have in those institutions to be in our healthcare. To be in our access to nutritional food. To be in making sure that we have universal childcare and universal elder care.”

Kiros went on to say those programs will be necessary to make sure people’s basic needs are protected in the face of artificial intelligence changing “the entirety of our labor economy as we know it.”

“We’re not ready for what it looks like when all those jobs potentially get taken away and wiped out by machinery,” she said.

So socialism is just like the fire department, only better, and we must have it in order to combat AI. Exactly how will this work? Where will the money come from? Who knows; who cares? It will be from other people, and it will be glorious.

In the far left’s battle to take over the Democrat Party, Colorado is the state to watch tonight

The New Neo Posted on by

You can’t say Colorado Democrats weren’t warned. They have the example of New York and other states to show them what the far left has in mind: the takeover of the Democrat Party.

Then again, Colorado is a mostly vote-by-mail state and ballots were sent out on June 8. It’s likely that a lot of the ballots were mailed back quite a while ago, before the results on New York were known.

And I’m fairly sure that many voters in Colorado are just fine with a far-left takeover. How many? We should be finding out tonight, or whenever the ballot-counting ends.

The situation is that several Democrats are facing far-left challenges. The pattern of the following contest is very very familiar: the very young far-left challenger versus the older long-term office holder, the extreme views of the challenger, the scramble by the incumbent to move further left, hatred of Israel as the litmus test, and the third-world origins of the challenger (this time it’s Ethiopia). I’ve also noticed that more often than not the challenger is an attractive woman. And that’s also the case here:

The Democratic primary in Colorado’s 1st District represents the next best chance for the progressive wing of the party to pick up another win over an entrenched incumbent.

Rep. Diana DeGette, who has served in Congress for almost 30 years, is now fighting for political survival. She has sought to burnish her progressive credentials, with one recent ad touting her role as an impeachment manager during President Donald Trump’s Senate trial after the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol, while also emphasizing her support for “Medicare for All” and abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Melot Kiros, a 29-year-old doctoral student and former lawyer who immigrated from Ethiopia as a child, has argued that the 68-year-old incumbent isn’t adequately fighting for the district. She is backed by key politicians and groups on the left, including Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., Justice Democrats, the Democratic Socialists of America and a handful of Democratic candidates who were successful in their insurgent bids.

Israel policy has loomed large in the race. Kiros has said she was fired from her job after publishing a letter critical of how law firms were addressing protests against Israel’s war in the Gaza Strip following the 2023 Hamas attack.

Kiros was recently pressed by NBC affiliate KUSA of Denver about her comments that Hamas’ attack on Israel was “the inevitable consequence of apartheid.” She also declined to say whether a firebombing attack on demonstrators who gathered in Boulder, Colorado, to support Israeli hostages was antisemitic.

The usual lies about Israel, and support of (or at least excuses for) Hamas have become badges of honor for these challengers.

Another Colorado race is described here:

Meanwhile, Democratic Sen. John Hickenlooper is running for a second, and likely final, term after flipping the Colorado seat in 2020. Hickenlooper is facing a younger, more progressive primary challenger in state Sen. Julie Gonzales. The 43-year-old is a former member of the Democratic Socialists of America who has painted Hickenlooper, 74, as a product of “go-along-to-get-along politics,” and criticized him for voting for 10 of Trump’s Cabinet nominees.

Hickenlooper was ahead in the most recent poll I could find, but that may not make a difference in a primary race in which turnout is often low.

Will Colorado succumb or will it resist?

SCOTUS says states can ban trans athletes from girls’ sports

The New Neo Posted on by

This one seems like a no-brainer, but of course because of politics it’s not.

This is the ruling:

The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that states can bar transgender female competitors from playing girls’ sports in a landmark decision with major implications for more than half the country, where such policies are in place.

In a 6-3 opinion, the high court determined that neither Idaho nor West Virginia had violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment with their bans, as well as that Title IX allowed states to separate sports teams on the basis of biological sex.

What is interesting, though, is that even the three liberal justices weren’t completely onboard with not allowing states to ban trans athletes playing in girls’ sports. They thought states could ban the practice, but only for narrow reasons:

The three liberal justices would have allowed the states to proceed with their bans under a much narrower legal rationale that would have left the laws more susceptible to future challenges.

“West Virginia may well have satisfied its burden and seen its ban upheld. The point, rather, is that this Court’s equal protection precedents require a very different approach … than the one the majority follows today,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her dissent. …

The liberals contended that the high court should have just stuck with West Virginia plaintiff Becky Pepper-Jackson’s concession that “sex” under the Title IX statute means “biological sex” assigned at birth, and not decided the constitutional question.

The article states that 27 states have similar bans. It also states this, which I believe is incorrect:

In West Virginia, Pepper-Jackson’s mother fought against the state’s Save Women’s Sports Act after her child underwent gender reassignment surgery during the third grade, prior to going through male puberty.

A lot of minors have undergone “gender reassignment surgery” while still underage. But I have never heard of anyone having it as early as third grade, and Pepper-Jackson did not, either. Pepper-Jackson was treated initially with puberty blockers and then with female hormones, the common practice for males who identify as trans females and want to avoid puberty. I’ve written about this several times; the idea is that once boys undergo male puberty it is very difficult to “pass” as female on matter how much they try (unless they are naturally quite small and slight), but it’s much easier when male puberty is avoided. This has enormous costs, among them the tendency to not be able to experience sexual fulfillment. I consider it a form of child abuse by the medical establishment.

However, the argument is that without having undergone male puberty, a male doesn’t have the testosterone advantage in sports and therefore it would be okay for that person to compete against women. Not so, says this group of pediatricians. The gist of the article – which is long – is that many of the differences between males and females which favor males in athletics occur prior to puberty and do not go away if puberty is blocked and female hormones administered.

SCOTUS issues ruling on birthright citizenship

The New Neo Posted on by

The case for restricting birthright citizenship was and is a good one, in my opinion. But it always seemed like it would be a stretch for SCOTUS to limit it by excluding babies of tourists and illegal aliens, because that would represent a huge change in the traditional interpretation of the 14th Amendment. I joined most prognosticators in predicting it wouldn’t happen.

And it hasn’t happened. Roberts and Barrett (no surprise there) joined the liberals in saying that birthright citizenship will stand much as before. The ruling was broad:

Roberts Opinion, joined by Barrett and the liberal block, fully embraces birthright citizenship for all. Children born to women illegally or temporarily in the country “are citizens at birth.”

I think that’s a bad outcome politically – in particular, I think that tourist citizenship is ludicrous and could not have been what the framers of the 14th Amendment intended. But I’m unsurprised at the general result of upholding the interpretation as it has come to be implemented.

I do think the ruling could and should have been more narrow. The Court could have just ruled that an executive order was not the way to clarify the meaning of the amendment, and left open the chance that Congress could clarify the 14th by passing a law. This was what Justice Kavanaugh said in his opinion:

In my view, the Executive Order does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. But the Order does contravene a federal statute, 8 U. S. C. §1401(a). Congress could—consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment—amend §1401(a) or otherwise enact new legislation establishing exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country. But Congress has not yet done so.

However, it seems to me that the majority opinion has closed off that avenue, at least until the Court hears the issue again (if it ever does). Yes, the Court has indeed “fully embraced” birthright citizenship no matter how bizarre the results and no matter that those who passed the amendment almost certainly did not and could not envision tourist birthright citizenship, in which pregnant women come here briefly for that exact purpose and leave shortly after, conferring citizenship rights on children who have nothing to do with the US and have never lived here except for a few days or weeks as infants, and whose parents have no connection to the US either. It is a travesty, in my opinion. But it stands, and now it seems to me that the only way to change it is through a constitutional amendment.

Actually, I’ve thought for a while that’s what would probably be required. I wrote this post in April, saying as much. I also wrote that such an amendment was unlikely to succeed in being passed, and I still think that is the case – unfortunately. Perhaps if it was explained to the American people, the vast majority would want to ban tourist citizenship. But to get 3/4 of state legislatures to do so? I just don’t see it happening.

This is from Justice Thomas’ dissent, which was joined by Gorsuch:

Blacks were entitled to citizenship because they were Americans. They had no other homeland, owed no allegiance to any foreign power, and were subject to no other authority…. The same could not be said for the children of foreign temporary visitors. Foreign temporary visitors were attached to their home country, lacked similar bonds to this country, and would not be called upon in time of war….

The Court today takes the extraordinary step of holding facially unconstitutional the President’s Order excluding from citizenship the children of foreign temporary visitors and illegal aliens. In doing so, the Court adds to the sad history of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was designed and understood to secure equal rights for the freed blacks but has instead been repurposed for political projects that the Reconstruction Congress did not support.

I agree. And this is from Justice Alito:

in my judgment, the Court has made a serious mistake. As interpreted by the Court today, the Fourteenth Amendment confers citizenship on virtually everyone who happens to be born in this country, including the children of “birth tourists,” women who come here solely for the purpose of giving birth to a child and then promptly return home. Careful analysis of the text of the Fourteenth Amendment and the process that led to its adoption shows that it does not degrade the concept of United States citizenship in this way. Instead, the Fourteenth Amendment confers citizenship on only those children who, at birth, owe allegiance solely to this country….

As a result of the events of the past 50 years, the United States now has a huge contingent of people who entered or remained in this country illegally, as well as a large group of people who were born here to such parents. The Court’s interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment makes all the members of this latter group citizens. Many of those who have grown up here now have a strong moral claim to be allowed to remain, but that is a matter that the Fourteenth Amendment, when properly interpreted, leaves to Congress.

It’s a bad decision but an unsurprising one. I am in complete agreement with Justice Alito on this: “we should not adopt an erroneous interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment out of fear of the consequences of ‘rocking the boat’ or as a reaction to current immigration policy.” I believe that’s exactly what occurred with Roberts and Barrett – they were afraid of rocking the boat, and they found a way to avoid doing so. For the three liberal justices, their position was a foregone conclusion for political reasons, although of course they justified it with legal arguments.

Much more in this post at Ace’s, which is especially full of quotes from the opinions. The post also adds this from Senator Eric Schmitt:

The Supreme Court’s birthright citizenship decision is wrong, dangerous, and disastrous for American sovereignty and the American people. If we can’t fix it with ordinary legislation, then we must do what the Constitution commands in moments of national crisis: We must amend the Constitution and restore American citizenship. We must again put “We the People” first.
The Supreme Court’s decision constitutionalizing unlimited birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens and temporarily present aliens is wrong–and disastrous for our sovereignty and the future of our republic.

The decision exposes America to grave national security risks and threatens to erode the integrity of the core of American self-government: citizenship.

I wish him luck.

NOTE: As to the recurring question of why justices who start out seeming as though they will be conservative sometimes end up becoming more liberal as time goes on – well, I don’t think Justice Roberts was ever conservative in the first place. But the more general reason is that it takes very strong adherence to conservative principles of jurisprudence – a commitment to originalist interpretation, for example – to resist the siren call of power. For the most part, justices are smart, and they can find the reasoning to back up the result they want, and they become seduced by power over time.

ADDENDUM: Kurt Schlichter has this optimistic take on the decision.

Also please note my comment here.