Outside the Beltway

At Least Four Members of SCOTUS Can’t Read English

Birthright citizenship barely survives.

Steven L. Taylor
25

Comments

So, just for the record, here’s what the Fourteenth Amendment says:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

For most of my life, a challenge over the meaning of this phrase would have resulted in a 9-0 ruling stating “It says what it says.”

That is no longer the case. While the Court ruled in favor of upholding the plain text and long-standing understanding, it was hardly the slam dunk it should have been. NBC News reports (emphasis mine):

The court, divided 6-3, ruled that the executive order Trump issued Jan. 20, 2025, the first day of his second term, was unlawful. Five justices said the order fell foul of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which has long been interpreted to bestow birthright citizenship on almost anyone born in the United States.

We are in perilous times, as it appears, at least back to the immunity ruling, the overturning of Chevron, and yesterday’s Slaughter case, that at least four, if not six, of the Court’s Justices think we have an elected autocrat.

I have more to say, but not now. I did want to provide a place for readers to react for now, at least.

I have also been doing some ranting on Blue Sky.

Categories

, ,

Tags

, , ,

25 responses to “At Least Four Members of SCOTUS Can’t Read English”

  1. Hal 10000 Avatar
    Hal 10000

    We need to stop calling this bench “conservative”. They are radicals, willing to completely rewrite the Constitution and the law to enable whatever policies they prefer.

    20
  2. Steven L. Taylor Avatar
    Steven L. Taylor

    @Hal 10000: I would argue that they are reactionaries, but regardless, they are clearly not conservative.

    10
  3. EddieInCA Avatar
    EddieInCA

    I posted on the other thread that it’s shocking to me that we have a 5-4 decision. I deleted it because some places are listing it 5-4 and others 6-3.

    Bottom line is that we’re living in a time where words don’t mean what they’ve meant historically.

    7
  4. Steven L. Taylor Avatar
    Steven L. Taylor

    @EddieInCA: 5-4 in the way that really counts, but 6-3 as it pertained to the EO.

    2
  5. Kylopod Avatar
    Kylopod

    In other news, SCOTUS just ruled 5-4 that the First Amendment does indeed apply to religions other than Christianity. What sober-minded, independent intellectuals we got on this bench!

    6
  6. Jen Avatar
    Jen

    While I am relieved at the outcome here, the vote split is OUTRAGEOUS.

    My flabber is gasted.

    @Hal 10000: Random question/observation: has your moniker increased exponentially? I seem to remember you as Hal 1000, not 10,000.

    ETA: Thanks EddieInCA! I wasn’t sure, my brain just didn’t process that extra zero previously, I guess!

    4
  7. EddieInCA Avatar
    EddieInCA

    @Jen:

    He’s always been 10000, going way back to when we sparred on the old blog “Right Thinking From the Left Coast.”

    That was 25+ years ago.

    4
  8. drj Avatar
    drj

    @Steven L. Taylor:

    The shamelessness with which they say down is up and up is down (and expect the rest of us to like it) gives me Marxist-Leninist vanguard party vibes.

    So while they are definitely reactionary in character, their methods appear very much revolutionary (in the overthrow-of-the-existing-order sense of the word).

    3
  9. Steven L. Taylor Avatar
    Steven L. Taylor

    @drj: Recognizing that this all gets to be overly academic, I would add that their revolution is a backwards-facing one, not one of progressing forward, but yes, it is an attempt to blow up the existing order.

    4
  10. Steven L. Taylor Avatar
    Steven L. Taylor

    @Jen: If it makes you feel any better, I think I thought it was 1000 as well!!

    2
  11. Jc Avatar
    Jc

    The Constitution says what it says. These “Justices” need to STFU and do their jobs. Do they teach English and Constitutional law at Yale? Bizarro world continues….chalk it up as another crack in the Republic….it is failing.

    2
  12. gVOR10 Avatar
    gVOR10

    @Hal 10000: @Steven L. Taylor: I’ll support Dr. T’s position, reactionary, and cite Corey Robin, The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Donald Trump. However, I would argue they are “conservative”. Robin argues conservatives have never met the dictionary, what’s-his-names fence, definition of conservative. They have always been radical reactionaries, as they are now. Sometimes they favor free enterprise, sometimes oppose. Sometimes they favor powerful government and sometimes weak. The only consent is what Wilhoit said.

    2
  13. Kylopod Avatar
    Kylopod

    @Steven L. Taylor: Mandela Effect. If you asked me yesterday, I probably would have told you 9000. Now excuse me while I curl up with the latest Berenstein Bears novel.

    4
  14. Kathy Avatar
    Kathy

    @Jen:
    @EddieInCA:
    @Steven L. Taylor:

    I’ve problems when I see the same digit repeated more than twice, and is not separated by commas. That said, the murderous computer in 2001 was HAL 9000 (three zeroes). A hypothetical follow on model* is mentioned in 2010 as HAL 10000 (four zeroes). given all this, HAL 1000 (three zeroes) simply makes no sense.

    *One should question the wisdom of improving on a murderous AI. The justification in 2010 that HAL was driven insane by conflicting orders, does not improve matters much.

    1
  15. Jen Avatar
    Jen

    The President has made his feelings on this topic known.

    1
  16. steve222 Avatar
    steve222

    This is one of the most clearly written of the amendments. It’s all too clear that the conservative part of the court are just finding ways to rule the way they want. If it’s a narrow reading of one section of the law while ignoring what the writers said about the law they wrote that’s great if it gets where they want. If it’s necessary to find something in the historical record, even if you have to be selective about your history, to support the ruling you want that’s also great.

    Steve

    8
  17. Kylopod Avatar
    Kylopod

    @Kathy: One of the problems in discussions about AI as depicted in sci-fi versus what we apply the name to in the real world is a tendency to get distracted by the whole philosophical can of worms on whether the machine is “really thinking.” All we need to observe is that our AIs can arrive at conclusions we don’t expect, which can have serious negative consequences for those who rely on them. There’s no need to examine that further, at least not presently.

    P.S. For fun, try giving a contradictory or nonsensical prompt to one of the image generators, like “A shirtless man wearing a red shirt that is solid blue,” or “A 6-dimensional cube inside a lollipop someone is sucking on.” It may not drive the program insane, but the results may be…interesting.

    P.P.S. Is this too much of a thread-jack?

    1
  18. Kathy Avatar
    Kathy

    @Kylopod:

    P.P.S. Is this too much of a thread-jack?

    I believe it is. I’ll continue it in the open forum.

    @Jen:

    He seems intent on getting congress to pass legislation to codify his executive order into law. I wouldn’t be surprised if majorities in his party complied. Except it won’t ever get past the senate filibuster (nor can it be passed through reconciliation, as far as I know). And based on today’s decision, it should be found to be unconstitutional anyway.

    The latter should be taken with a grain of salt the size of the Jupiter. Four of the fixers would find it more constitutional than the constitution, and the other two might grab onto the flimsy pretext that a law is different.

    1
  19. Daryl Avatar
    Daryl

    @Jen:
    He now wants Congress to pass a law, without a Constitutional Amendment, which by definition would be unconstitutional. The stupidity is palpable.

    7
  20. DK Avatar
    DK

    @Daryl:

    which by definition would be unconstitutional.

    Maybe not. The “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” part of the Amendment might give Congress some wiggle room to place limitations, excluding birth tourists or illegal immigrants. Maybe.

    But, yes, those who want that debate should push legislation in Congress. The king president cannot rewrite the 14th Amendment himself, alone, by fiat. It’s wild there are “conservative” justices, led by Uncle Thomas’s lazy dissent, pretending not to know this.

    And it’s incoherent for other “conservative” justices to understand the constitution and the Congress have primacy here, but somehow, magically, must cede their authority in legislating how the executive agencies created by Congress are run. The majority and concurring opinions contradict what the John Crow Court just told us yesterday about congressional vs executive power. They just know most Americans are either too uneducated, distracted, busy, or lazy to notice or care.

    The Federalist Society hacks are all over the place because their judicial philosophy is fake garbage, so they can’t even agree with each other. As steve222 says, they’re just making it up for preferred outcomes on any given day. Which is whatever, all judges do that. But the rightwing legal establishment needs to stop pretending to be against partisan judicial activism and to be for originalism, textualism, or judicial restraint. Their phony, more-rational-than-thou, balls-and-strikes act is kin to gaslighting.

    11
  21. Eusebio Avatar
    Eusebio

    @Daryl:
    He seems unable to accept that fact that the Court didn’t merely find the EO in violation of the law and pass on the issue of constitutionality.

  22. Kathy Avatar
    Kathy

    @DK:

    Many of the sheep in his party are already bleating mad about the court’s decision. Pile of Jell-O Lidnsey Graham said “…I am determined more than ever to put an end to this major magnet for illegal immigration and birth tourism.” I’m trying to find out what “more than ever” means in Jell-Oish.

    I’m sure the Taco party will try. I’m not sure how hard.

  23. Hal 10000 Avatar
    Hal 10000

    @Jen:

    I’ve used that alias since the early days of dial-in billboard systems. I was a huge fan of 2001 so named myself after Hal 9000 as Hal 10000.

    I also refer to my kids as Sal 11000 and Hal 11000 Beta (because he’s still under 18).

    4
  24. Ken_L Avatar
    Ken_L

    These observations by Thomas were particularly idiotic:

    “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.”

    He did not explain what “other homeland” babies born today in the US have, or to which foreign power they “owe allegiance”.

    The MAGA arguments, if upheld, would require a forensic examination of every non-citizen birth in America to determine whether the mother (or both parents?) were genuinely “residing” in the country. When did they enter the country? Why? Do they sincerely intend to stay? God knows who would undertake these investigations, or on what authority they would issue their decisions. Thousands of professional Birthright Judges, perhaps? “Yep, this one’s a citizen. This one, no. Not a citizen. No I don’t know what other country they’re a citizen of, but they’re not one of ours.”

    It would create an entirely unworkable situation which could only be fixed by amending the constitution to insert a new definition of citizenship.

    4
  25. Ol' Nat Avatar
    Ol’ Nat

    I happened past the Federalist Society website to look at their mission statement.

    Is all of what they do just bull——?!
    “the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution”
    “place a premium on … the rule of law.”

Latest Posts