Re: Nationwide injunctions and birthright citizenship cases

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

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.

The president, who is not a king but an ordinary civilian to whom law
applies, cannot decree parts of the Constitution inapplicable or unenforceable.
Yes, I know. There are numerous Biden examples -- student loan debt
forgiveness, all-encompassing immigration parole -- but that doesn't
make Trump get to cut clauses out of the Fourteenth Amendment.

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

Heh. I don't think qualified immunity will be raised, and you forgot
civil asset forfeiture.

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.

And that law was immediately found unconstitutional by a Supreme Court
still similar in makeup to the Court that wrote Dred Scott, hence the
need to spell it out in the Fourteenth Amendment. Even then, the
Civil Rights Cases cut the privileges and immunities clause out.

If you seriously argue, like Sauer, that the Fourteenth Amendment was a
grant of liberty to the freed men and no one else, then we lose the
entire notion that the Constitution and civil rights law was written in
colorblind language. We lose the entire line of reverse discrimination
cases starting with the tax law case that Ruth Bader Ginsburg famously
took to the Supreme Court to more broadly apply the neutral language "on
the basis of sex" to her client, a dude. We lose Bakke. We lose those
university admission cases just decided two years ago.

Please tell me you still believe that the Constitution's language is
neutral.

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".

Yes I know.

Every time you bring up that case, I ask you how the newborn baby
himself violated the Immigration and Nationality Act, even if presuming
his mother did?

You always ignore the fundamental question. Ju Toy cannot possibly apply
to the unborn foetus.