Latest Breaking News

bluestarone

(22,158 posts)

3. With THIS court?

Sun Mar 29, 2026, 05:20 PM

22 hrs ago

I'm thinking only 3 bursting out laughing and maybe 2 more that won't laugh but vote against it. (i hope) This court could be 6-3 decision or even 5-4?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

2 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

dave99 IbogaProject

43 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Looking to limit birthright citizenship, Trump turns to an 1884 Supreme Court ruling against a Native American man [View all] BumRushDaShow 22 hrs ago OP

Can't wait to hear the arguments before the court. Fiendish Thingy 22 hrs ago #1

With THIS court? bluestarone 22 hrs ago #3

My guess, 7-2 against. Nt Fiendish Thingy 19 hrs ago #8

I know for sure bluestarone 19 hrs ago #10

Wow, had not seen your response but mine was exactly the same..."With this court?" Escurumbele 7 hrs ago #32

Weak sauce. bucolic_frolic 22 hrs ago #2

Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 nullified Elk v Wilkins Historic NY 21 hrs ago #4

Since the SCOTUS doesn't care about "stare decisis" BumRushDaShow 21 hrs ago #6

But this isn't stare decicis Fiendish Thingy 19 hrs ago #9

Have you forgotten BumRushDaShow 19 hrs ago #11

Haven't forgotten at all Fiendish Thingy 19 hrs ago #12

"if birthright citizenship is revoked, can the reinstitution of slavery still be off limits?" BumRushDaShow 19 hrs ago #13

All the more reason why we must only elect Dem senators willing to kill the filibuster and expand the court Fiendish Thingy 18 hrs ago #15

Roe was focused on enforcement of the PRIVATE right for women to choose what to do with her own body BumRushDaShow 10 hrs ago #30

And that horrific ruling will continue to stand Fiendish Thingy 5 hrs ago #36

That was the hope in 2022 BumRushDaShow 4 hrs ago #37

That's because Biden wanted to wait on the report from the bipartisan commission on court reform Fiendish Thingy 2 hrs ago #42

Not exactly. Ms. Toad 17 hrs ago #17

Birthright citizenship is also a law LeftInTX 17 hrs ago #23

It is the interpretation of the constitution that is at issue. Ms. Toad 16 hrs ago #24

I disagree Fiendish Thingy 16 hrs ago #25

"If the constitution says two term limit for a president, it doesn't mean three" BumRushDaShow 6 hrs ago #33

But the Constitution doesn't say two terms for a p president. Ms. Toad 6 hrs ago #34

Two means two, not three Fiendish Thingy 5 hrs ago #35

Again, you are reducing a paragraph to a single word. Ms. Toad 4 hrs ago #38

At this time, it's probably a moot point Fiendish Thingy 2 hrs ago #43

Except that the US constitution does NOT Farmer-Rick 15 hrs ago #27

Article III of the constitution and Marbury v. Madison. Ms. Toad 3 hrs ago #39

In that Supreme Court ruling Farmer-Rick 3 hrs ago #41

I'll see Elk v. Wilkins, cloudbase 21 hrs ago #5

The funny thing is, Wong Ark was decided in 1898 NickB79 17 hrs ago #18

Trump would have required both parents to be wnylib 19 hrs ago #7

Doesn't seem relevant Renew Deal 18 hrs ago #14

So at that time territories weren't considered "The US"? Callie1979 17 hrs ago #20

That's the way I'm reading it Renew Deal 17 hrs ago #22

I Think They Are Talking About Indian Territories DallasNE 14 hrs ago #28

If thats the story then it would seem to have zero meaning to today's case. Callie1979 9 hrs ago #31

What total bullshit. Another argument of convenience. Scalded Nun 18 hrs ago #16

Sounds like a "3/5ths" argument; seen as lesser individuals. Callie1979 17 hrs ago #19

This case in an interpretation that is consistent with how the provision has always been interpreted. Ms. Toad 17 hrs ago #21

I'm not buying that argument Bayard 16 hrs ago #26

Call DHS Immediately! Nasruddin 12 hrs ago #29

pedo and his henchmen should move to Tx or Fl and let the rest of us get our country back Marthe48 3 hrs ago #40