No it really isn’t. Immigrants are clearly subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. As Wong Kim stated the only way not to be is if the government has given you permission to be here without being under jurisdiction like a diplomat or if you’re part of an invading force. Every other person in the us is expected to follow us laws. Just because they don’t doesn’t mean the us doesn’t have jurisdiction.

▲ ventana 2 days ago | parent [-]

Were you so sure yesterday that the Court would decide the way it did? I'm sure that with a different set of justices, the result could've been different.

A "clear" law would likely not result in a 6:3 vote. There are enough cases in the Supreme Court that get 9:0, those can probably be called "clear".

▲ Arodex 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Every court before the Supreme Court completely dismissed the attempt to kill the 14th amendment.

The Supreme Court is more and more packed with dishonest, racist Republican political hacks who try to twist words to overturn centuries of precedent.

	▲	ventana 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		> more and more packed with dishonest, racist Republican political hacks I'm not sure I see where the "more and more" is coming from. Out of the three justices nominated by Trump, two (Barrett and Kavanaugh) voted in favor of birth citizenship rights; does it qualify them as dishonest racist Republican political hacks? The other two who dissented, Thomas and Alito, have been serving for 35 and 20 years respectively, so it's hardly about packing. Also, while 3 of the 4 newest justices were indeed appointed by a Republican president and 1 by a Democrat, before that, we got 2 new justices appointed by Obama (Sotomayor and Kagan). Unless the Congress actually increases the number of justices, I would say the current system works just as designed.

▲ HDThoreaun 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I was sure that Thomas would come up with some bullshit that is completely divorced from the text and history of the constitution. The other 3 doing the same is a disappointment but not a huge surprise.

▲ SauciestGNU 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲ ventana 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

The problem is that the other half of the country will probably have something to say about activist leftist justices with their agenda. This is just not the constructive way of arguing.

Disclaimer: I'm a legal immigrant myself, and of course I appreciate the today's ruling in favor of jus soli.

▲ rootusrootus 2 days ago | parent [-]

What is the activist leftist agenda, anyway? Civil rights for everyone? Universal healthcare? The right wing activist agenda seems both better organized and universally punitive. One wants to force the government to help me, the other to punish me. And yet only the leftists are a danger to our country?

	▲	ventana 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Just for the record, I was responding to the (now flagged) comment which used some similar meaningless name calling towards the dissenting justices, to which I responded that this name calling game can be played by both sides.
	▲	andrekandre 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		`> And yet only the leftists are a danger to our country?` its more like a danger to capital interests (restricting what businesses can do, universal programs reducing markets etc)... and alot of people associate that freedom as fundamental as anything (i'm not arguing either way btw, just my understanding)

▲ ycdeebs 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Aaaaand, there it is. If I disagree with a ruling, or with the politics of the president that appointed a judge that made a ruling, then the rulings are “illegitimate”.

	▲	SauciestGNU 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, justices who take bribes or whose spouses help to organize a coup and an insurrection against the United States are not legitimate (Thomas, Alito). I'm more apt to listen to Gorsuch, even though he was in the dissent here, because he seems like a legitimate thoughtful jurist.