5 ms·

This is a response to the supreme court ruling on birthright citizenship. They're using the levers they do have, since that was removed. Anyone who agrees with

This is a response to the supreme court ruling on birthright citizenship. They're using the levers they do have, since that was removed. Anyone who agrees with the ruling should really read justice Thomas' dissent.

deleted 23d ago
[deleted]
Terr_ 23d ago
What is this "lever" you claim already existed and then got "removed", precisely?
cosmicgadget 23d ago
No one should be subjected to a Thomas dissent. Especially that one.
- DaSHacka 22d ago
  Right, because they might find themselves agreeing with it! Can't have that, democracy thrives in darkness with a closed and restricted 'marketplace of ideas'.
  - cosmicgadget 22d ago
    I definitely said we should make his (law clerks') dissents inaccessible.
samiwami 23d ago
it’s a cut and dry constitutional amendment, it doesn’t matter if Thomas thinks the people that were in mind when it was drafted are not the same people it applies to now. if they want to change it, go ahead and get the states to ratify a new amendment. Supreme Court doesn’t get to throw out an amendment because it’s old.
- enraged_camel 23d ago
  It's also amusing that you won't ever hear conservatives like Thomas making the same argument when it comes to, say, the 2nd amendment.
  - bradhe 23d ago
    I was just thinking the same thing lol. 2A is such a divisive topic.
  - andrewla 23d ago
    You also won't find Thomas making this argument for birthright citizenship because he didn't make that argument for birthright citizenship. The post you are replying to is incorrect, this was not his argument.
- knorker 23d ago
  It was one vote away from going Thomas's way, so I wouldn't say it doesn't matter what he thinks. As a non-american, I would have enjoyed the precedent that the logical conclusion had to be that I would not be subject to the laws of the US, when visiting. The Thomas interpretation must logically have given diplomatic immunity to anyone on an ESTA too.
- padjo 23d ago
  The funny thing is I bet ending birthright citizenship is an amendment that could actually be passed. You don't have to be a virulent racist to think the context has changed when you can get almost anywhere in the world in about 24 hours. (I'm not sure where I stand on it but I can at least see an argument for revisiting the question)
  - buellerbueller 23d ago
    passed, over the objections of a majority of the country due to how states are gerrymandered and the specific rules for ratifying amendments.
  - aveao 22d ago
jmyeet 23d ago
No, it's not. This seems to be Stephen Miller's baby and the efforts to limit legal immigration (see my other comment) predate the birthright citizenship case and pretty much started day 1 of the administration. Birthright citizenship is really part of that.

deleted 23d ago

[deleted]

Terr_ 23d ago

What is this "lever" you claim already existed and then got "removed", precisely?

cosmicgadget 23d ago

No one should be subjected to a Thomas dissent. Especially that one.

DaSHacka 22d ago
Right, because they might find themselves agreeing with it! Can't have that, democracy thrives in darkness with a closed and restricted 'marketplace of ideas'.
- cosmicgadget 22d ago
  I definitely said we should make his (law clerks') dissents inaccessible.

samiwami 23d ago

it’s a cut and dry constitutional amendment, it doesn’t matter if Thomas thinks the people that were in mind when it was drafted are not the same people it applies to now. if they want to change it, go ahead and get the states to ratify a new amendment. Supreme Court doesn’t get to throw out an amendment because it’s old.

enraged_camel 23d ago
It's also amusing that you won't ever hear conservatives like Thomas making the same argument when it comes to, say, the 2nd amendment.
- bradhe 23d ago
  I was just thinking the same thing lol. 2A is such a divisive topic.
- andrewla 23d ago
  You also won't find Thomas making this argument for birthright citizenship because he didn't make that argument for birthright citizenship. The post you are replying to is incorrect, this was not his argument.
knorker 23d ago
It was one vote away from going Thomas's way, so I wouldn't say it doesn't matter what he thinks. As a non-american, I would have enjoyed the precedent that the logical conclusion had to be that I would not be subject to the laws of the US, when visiting. The Thomas interpretation must logically have given diplomatic immunity to anyone on an ESTA too.
padjo 23d ago
The funny thing is I bet ending birthright citizenship is an amendment that could actually be passed. You don't have to be a virulent racist to think the context has changed when you can get almost anywhere in the world in about 24 hours. (I'm not sure where I stand on it but I can at least see an argument for revisiting the question)
- buellerbueller 23d ago
  passed, over the objections of a majority of the country due to how states are gerrymandered and the specific rules for ratifying amendments.
- aveao 22d ago

jmyeet 23d ago

No, it's not. This seems to be Stephen Miller's baby and the efforts to limit legal immigration (see my other comment) predate the birthright citizenship case and pretty much started day 1 of the administration. Birthright citizenship is really part of that.