Re: Nationwide injunctions and birthright citizenship cases

On 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.

Nationwide injunctions, qualified immunity, and birthright citizenship all
need to be shit-canned.

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. 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".