Supreme Court hears arguments on Birthright citizenship

[soap box]

The discussion so far is totally different than the way we've been discussing this issue here on DP. So far the government has focused on lower courts making universal injunctions

Rule 23
Article 3
Claims of harm, test of standing.

It sounds chaotic that some states would accept Birthright citizenship while others don't. At the moment, I don't see how they can rule in the government's favor without extensive BS.

Happening right now.

 

[Integrityrespec]

The discussion so far is totally different than the way we've been discussing this issue here on DP. So far the government has focused on lower courts making universal injunctions

Rule 23
Article 3
Claims of harm, test of standing.

It sounds chaotic that some states would accept Birthright citizenship while others don't. At the moment, I don't see how they can rule in the government's favor without extensive BS.

Happening right now.

Most western nations do not have "birthright citizenship" in the same way the U.S does. Most require that at least one parent was a citizen at the time of birth of the child. Two illegal immigrants who came here for no other reason than to leech off the U.S. social welfare program should no longer be allowed. Proper immigration law would easily correct this while also providing a reasonable asylum process as well as admitting those who truly wanted to enter the U.S. and become productive and contributing U.S. Citizens who embrace American culture. Become an American, not just live here, but do it by legal means. It doesn't make sense to reward people doing things illegally.

 

[soap box]

They're spending most of the time discussing universal injunctions, the government is claiming Article 3, Sotomayor suggests that their argument will end class action lawsuits.

Not much so far about the merits.

 

[hooligan]

Most western nations do not have "birthright citizenship" in the same way the U.S does.

So what? Most western nations don't have our Constitution. Rules are rules.

Every western nation except for the US has universal healthcare - you going to stay consistent with your argument? I'd happily trade the current laws around birthright citizenship for universal healthcare. Make it at least 1 citizen parent and implement single-payer. Done.

 

[soap box]

Most western nations do not have "birthright citizenship" in the same way the U.S does. Most require that at least one parent was a citizen at the time of birth of the child. Two illegal immigrants who came here for no other reason than to leech off the U.S. social welfare program should no longer be allowed. Proper immigration law would easily correct this while also providing a reasonable asylum process as well as admitting those who truly wanted to enter the U.S. and become productive and contributing U.S. Citizens who embrace American culture. Become an American, not just live here, but do it by legal means. It doesn't make sense to reward people doing things illegally.

Interesting to me that the court is not discussing any of that.

 

[anatta]

They're spending most of the time discussing universal injunctions, the government is claiming Article 3, Sotomayor suggests that their argument will end class action lawsuits.

Not much so far about the merits.

for some reason the Orals are mostly about ending "universal injunctions" or fast tracking appeals to Circuit and SCOTUS
It's a critical issue for Trump now, but Article II in general

 

[hooligan]

They're spending most of the time discussing universal injunctions, the government is claiming Article 3, Sotomayor suggests that their argument will end class action lawsuits.

Not much so far about the merits.

How on earth could you have a federal judicial decision only apply to the district the decision was made in? Different applications of FEDERAL law, depending on what area of the country you're in? Doesn't sound much like a federation, honestly.

 

[soap box]

There is absolutely no constitutional way to stop an executive order that was a clearly unconstitutional act

Agree or disagree?

Oh! Sauer, Senator Trumbull, 14th amendment, Sauer claims the 14th was only written for children of slaves. I've seen DP members post that too.

 

[dmpi]

It's like the all-you-can-eat-buffet. It was OK until opportunist from all over the world started abusing it. It didn't help that (D) supported and encourage it. This is why we can't have good things. The few will ruin it for the many.

 

[ElChupacabra]

Most western nations do not have "birthright citizenship" in the same way the U.S does. Most require that at least one parent was a citizen at the time of birth of the child. Two illegal immigrants who came here for no other reason than to leech off the U.S. social welfare program should no longer be allowed. Proper immigration law would easily correct this while also providing a reasonable asylum process as well as admitting those who truly wanted to enter the U.S. and become productive and contributing U.S. Citizens who embrace American culture. Become an American, not just live here, but do it by legal means. It doesn't make sense to reward people doing things illegally.

This assumption already makes your premise a load of tosh.

 

[soap box]

How on earth could you have a federal judicial decision only apply to the district the decision was made in? Different applications of FEDERAL law, depending on what area of the country you're in? Doesn't sound much like a federation, honestly.

The idea sounds like it's loaded with unintentional consequences of people crossing state lines to skirt the law and in general, confusing and primitively regressive.

 

[Master Debator]

Interesting to me that the court is not discussing any of that.

The appeal to the ruling that stayed Trumps executive order on birthright citizenship, which stayed his order nation wide, was made along the lines of nation wide injunctions being unconstitutional. Its basically them trying to overturn the ruling on a technicality rather than the merits of the case itself.

 

[Torus34]

It will be interesting, should the constitutional right to birth citizenship be overturned, to see if President Donald Trump's citizenship is affected.

His father was born in Germany.

Regards, stay safe 'n well . . . informed.

 

[Rexedgar]

Too much vague language in the the old document, imo.

 

[Rexedgar]

Good thing RFK isn’t involved in this hearing, Sauer is hard enough to listen to.

 

[soap box]

Kagan and Sotomayor drilling down on the inherent problems with a ruling for the government. Roberts tossing softballs to help Suaer complete his thoughts.

 

[The AntiDonald]

Most western nations do not have "birthright citizenship" in the same way the U.S does. Most require that at least one parent was a citizen at the time of birth of the child. Two illegal immigrants who came here for no other reason than to leech off the U.S. social welfare program should no longer be allowed. Proper immigration law would easily correct this while also providing a reasonable asylum process as well as admitting those who truly wanted to enter the U.S. and become productive and contributing U.S. Citizens who embrace American culture. Become an American, not just live here, but do it by legal means. It doesn't make sense to reward people doing things illegally.

Here's the thing, while you may be correct here, the president can't change the constitution with an EO. As usual, the court is side stepping the real issue here. Sauer is the Trump lawyer who won the immunity case. No doubt in my mind, the court sides with Trump on this one.

I could be wrong.

 

[vanceen]

There is absolutely no constitutional way to stop an executive order that was a clearly unconstitutional act

Agree or disagree?

Oh! Sauer, Senator Trumbull, 14th amendment, Sauer claims the 14th was only written for children of slaves. I've seen DP members post that too.

The 14th probably was principally intended to apply to former slaves and their children, or more precisely, to clarify their legal status a citizens.

However, the implications of the language regarding anyone born in the US was clear to everyone at the time, and was discussed and debated at length. Birthright citizenship is not a principle that sort of accidentally dropped out of the 14th. It was clear before ratification.

 

[Hamish Howl]

Most western nations do not have "birthright citizenship" in the same way the U.S does.

We're not most Western nations.

 

[Napoleon]

The Supreme Court is not hearing the question of birthright citizenship. The only question before the Court is whether or not the lower courts should be allowed to issue nationwide/universal injunctions when the case has only 1 plaintiff.

 

[soap box]

Universal Injunctions are giving relief to non-parties.

Agree or disagree?

 

[soap box]

Alito asks if the court should rule on standing, suggests not peeking at the merits?

 

[Napoleon]

Universal Injunctions are giving relief to non-parties.

Agree or disagree?

100% agree and it’s bigger than that. The design of the Judicial Branch is that there are geographically-based co-equal tiers of courts which rule within their own jurisdictions and a Supreme Court which settles their differences and applies decisions nationwide. It doesn’t make any sense to allow a District Court judge to impose nationwide injunctions.

Not only does that inherently grant relief to non-parties, but also to people who aren’t even in their jurisdiction. If people from multiple jurisdictions want to seek relief then the remedy is for them to go through the legal process of forming a class and filing a class action lawsuit. It is not for a lower court judge to use a single-plaintiff case as a launching pad for nationwide class action relief.

This practice of ignoring jurisdictional lines has created chaos for the courts, plaintiffs, and defendants alike. The government did a good job illustrating this in its example of a case in which an injunction was imposed and no sooner had the Appeals Court lifted it than a district court judge all the away across the country imposed it again. People aren’t supposed to have to run around the country playing whack-a-mole in the nation’s courts. That was the point of designing the Judicial Branch the way it is in the first place.

 

[soap box]

100% agree and it’s bigger than that. The design of the Judicial Branch is that there are geographically-based co-equal tiers of courts which rule within their own jurisdictions and a Supreme Court which settles their differences and applies decisions nationwide. It doesn’t make any sense to allow a District Court judge to impose nationwide injunctions.

When a district appellate judge decides on a ruling, and if they judge that it would apply to the country, it would allow us to halt harmful actions before they happen.

Citizenship should depend on crossing State Lines? Like someone -yes they are a US citizen in Minnesota, but not a US citizen in Texas.

And for non parties, have you honestly suffered from anything related to this? Preventing this is at a cost. A district appellate judge who issues a nationwide injunction will have citations of laws and the Constitution as their basis.

Not only does that inherently grant relief to non-parties, but also to people who aren’t even in their jurisdiction. If people from multiple jurisdictions want to seek relief then the remedy is for them to go through the legal process of forming a class and filing a class action lawsuit. It is not for a lower court judge to use a single-plaintiff case as a launching pad for nationwide class action relief.

If the government wins this, no one will be left that's able to stop illegal executive orders.

"Every court that has considered the case has ruled that it was unlawful."

Someone said to the court right in front of them today.

But on the technically that the government presented claiming article III, it is a citizenship stripping scheme. I wonder if the government might pull this off and win.

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

Most western nations do not have "birthright citizenship" in the same way the U.S does.

The also don't have the American Constitution. You know, THAT document that Conservatives used to point to as akin to the Bible. What happened to Conservatism when suddenly parts of the Constitution don't count any more?