SCOTUS Upholds Birthright Citizenship

But they also ruled that men cannot compete with the ladies, so it's not all bad.

SCOTUS struck down Trump’s executive order ending Birthright Citizenship in a 5-4 decision. The five amigos (Roberts, Barrett, and the three leftist musketeers: Sotomayor, Kagan, and KBJ) agreed. Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissented, while Kavanaugh tried to split the difference.

Roberts wrote the opinion for the majority. He referenced England’s practice of birthright citizenship (Jus Solis - Right of Soil), which was changed in 1983. English law now requires at least one parent to be a UK citizen for the child to be considered a natural-born UK citizen. He argued that a previous case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), established the only exemptions to the 14th Amendment, which are, ironically, primarily focused on children born to non-citizens, such as diplomats and members of sovereign Native tribes. His whole argument boiled down to ‘this is how we’ve always done it.’ This attitude from the 5 Amigos is the complete opposite of their attitude from yesterday’s Mail-in Ballot ruling, where they declared that just because we’ve always considered election day to be a federal deadline doesn’t mean it has to stay that way. So which is it? Does historical precedent matter or not?

Justice Jackson’s entire concurrence is meant to be a lecture about race aimed at Clarence Thomas. It reads like a lecture I’d get from some blue-haired liberal arts major.