Post

Jay Willis
@jaywillis.net

It’s genuinely a challenge for legal journalists to cover the birthright citizenship case, because one side’s argument is “the Fourteenth’s Amendment intent and text and a century of uninterrupted Supreme Court precedent all support birthright citizenship,” and the other side’s argument is “nuh-UH”

Jay Willis
@jaywillis.net

The traditional Supreme Court press corps is used to framing cases as “here are two possible answers to a hard, novel legal question.” Not a ton of room in that framework for “this case is just thirsty law professors recycling dogshit arguments because they want the racist president’s attention”

Jay Willis
@jaywillis.net

The Supreme Court’s birthright citizenship case is roughly analogous to holding a scientific debate, in 2026, about whether the earth is round or flat. Yes, sure, there are people who will put on a straight face and argue each side. And also, there is NO doubt which one of them is correct.

80 reposts454 likes

Jay Willis
@jaywillis.net

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.

Edith Horwitz
@eeheli.bsky.social

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