Post

fact that SCOTUS even agreed to take it up deserves a bunch of legal journalism

Garrett Epps calls it "Da Vinci Code Originalism" which I think is just right

I think you’re right. 5-4 birthright citizenship stands.

Constitution changes w/technology. Ultrasound now has light meters to assess skin darkness of fetuses. Like 1935 Nazi laws, calipers measure fetal skull & if mother was vaccinated thus autistic. Since inferior races of dyslexic Antifa muslims have less allegiance, can decide birthrights prenatal.

I cannot come up with a non-terrifying reason.

I would like to believe this is correct. But I have no faith in this court’s majority to that.

It is ridiculous and horrifying that the Supreme Court is debating this.Shutting the gates is one thing, retroactively doing it goes against everything the US is built on.90% of America is descendent from immigrants.The entire point of America was to gather those from other nations as the #1 country

BUT MY MECHANIC HAS AN ACCENT THE FRAMERS WOULD HAVE FOUGHT 10 MORE WARS

Contemporary media’s commitment to the myth of “fair & balanced” two-sides neutrality will be its undoing. There are rarely only two sides to any given issue; sometimes there is only one. Either way, always presenting two is a self-defeating credibility-eroding strategy.

Oh, don’t worry. I’m very sure news programmes will be happy to frame it as “raising interesting legal questions”. MSNOW is an expert at that.

bsky.app/profile/juli...

Because if they did then they, and their readers, would have to come to grips with the fact that there is no peaceful way to deal with the Right, as their bad faith arguments are just dominance & subjugation based around ethnic & tribal lines.

I suspect this may resonate with you: theconversation.com/no-youre-not...

Unbelievable how kind lawyers are to other lawyers. And the courts writ large. All are accorded the imprimatur of “justice” and “officers of the court” no matter how overripe for disbarment they stink up the joint.

This case poses the complicated question of whether the Constitution means what it says.

The "argument" of the corrupt, thieving, lying gangsters (which will get at least 4 votes): "The amendment does not mean what it says."

What is wrong with writing what you wrote? Maybe the problem is with legal journalism in general & not in covering this case.

Brilliantly said

Essential challenges for journalists across the board these last couple of decades

it’s been morbidly fascinating to discover the extent to which our decrepit institutions simply refusing to recognize and name fascism is a huge advantage for fascism these institutionalists put more work into rationalizing and sanewashing fascism than the fascists themselves do

This doesn't seem that challenging at all, honestly.

Succinctly put

That’s hardly fair. The counterargument also includes “The founding fathers and amendment drafters were racist. So we have to interpret the Constitution to enshrine racism as law regardless of its actual wording. Also, this is your fault for calling us racist.”

The Supreme Court cannot overturn the Constitution. Not even parts of it. They can, however, engage in absurd “interpretations,” as they have with the 2nd amendment. I expect at least one or two justices (Alito and Thomas, who are utterly unprincipled) will do so. But I doubt the other seven will

The amount of sheer time and money this regime has squandered doing shit does not get talked about enough. 🤬

Consider: the attack on birthright citizenship is not about the “birth” part and more about the “right” part. If citizenship is not a right, then it can be downgraded to a privilege granted by the govt. to the individual, one that can be withdrawn at any time, for any reason, by the executive.

Maube it's time to get our pitchforks out

The "bzzzt wrongo" doctrine

It's not just the supreme court, I feel the same applies to i.e. politicians as well. Since it is R v. D, both sides must be afforded a presumption of regularity, even if one sides argument is that brown are sub human or drink bleach.

Sounds like the default framework, and defaulting to it inappropriately, is the problem. Not super hard to simply not do that

But the world isn’t flat regardless how the debate goes. If the SCt says no birthright citizenship, then it doesn’t exist. Even if that’s the “wrong” result.

And yet, we are all on the edge of our chairs

Great just say that, and then interrogate why the process is proceeding as it is regardless of these facts. Voilà, story!

The traditional SC press corps will never acknowledge that the SC itself is broken because, as you described in your excellent article from 2021, legal journalism is broken, too.

Yeah but Dahlia Lithwick et al have admitted your whole profession was WAY to deferential for WAY TOO LONG.

See?!

When I talk about “legal journalists” here, I’m referring to the handful of people who have been employed by a legacy media outlet for 40 years and have all the justices’ cell numbers. If bloggers like me were more influential, Supreme Court media coverage would be much better, possibly perfect.

Well, we seem to be a country with more common sense thinkers than deniers. But it also seems there are too many deniers charged with making common sense decisions. And rulings. #ExpandTheCourts #TermLimits #SCOTUS

I thought NPR video by Nina T was okay up until her chummy exchange with Daniel Epstein of the America First inst, when she said "so, a mess" She didn't distinguish clearly enough for me between policy disagreement and clearly bogus RW efforts to enable royal prerogative by ignoring clear text

They keep telling us this will be the most consequential decision in decades. That could only be the case if SCOTUS actually gives Trump a win.

Right, very lawful argument 'nuh uh'. What a crock!

It's only a challenge if said legal journalists value access over accuracy.

Rachel Maddow’s presentation of how birthright citizenship applied during the WW2 incarceration of Japanese nationals breaks through the “eyes glaze over” response to legal arguments.

Well since this court LOVES precedent /s ....

The 1A doesn’t do much nowadays so what’s a 14A worth?