this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2026
508 points (99.2% liked)
Political Memes
12115 readers
2231 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
1) Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
2) No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
3) Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
4) No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
5) No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The fact that this was even a case they heard indicates a failure of the system. The text of the amendment is unambiguous and unmisinterpretable. The fact that these four decided they should rule based on what they think the Constitution should say instead of what it literally says should be reason enough to have them removed from their positions.
Imagine a future Supreme Court deciding that the founding fathers would have wanted guns banned if they knew what modern weapons looked like, or that they meant to have the government endorse the Catholic church. Literal text of the document be damned, the Supreme Court rules based on what they want it to say. Tantamount to treason, and they ought to be tried as such.
Hold up there, while I agree that birthright citizenship is pretty clear cut, interpreting words is literally the essence of the law. The methodology is similar to all studies of the arts, be it theology, philosophy or the law. You argue and discuss your interpretation by looking at the system of the law, the history of when it was written and explanations to why it was written as well as what the writers intended for the law to mean. That naturally changes over the years
Sure thing.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. There is absolutely no room for interpreting these words. Children of illegal immigrants are subject to our jurisdiction, and are therefore citizens.
Like I said, in this case it is very clear. I was just opposing the statement that interpreting the law would be unlawful
The irony is that Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas are (in)famous for being the most textualist of the judges, where they pride themselves on not interpreting the words, and instead follow the law as it is written.
Except for the clear cut case of birthright citizenship.
Ah I see, well to be fair us legal doctrine is not really much more than fancy word juggling in my opinion anyway
In on your side friend just looking for more citations
For bad scotus decisions or something more specific?
All of it friend
I haven't read this yet, but the dude's a friend and he's usually right on the money with his legal analyses reading it right now actually
is that what you were looking for?
Nah
Don't know how to help you if you don't ask
You good but preachin to the choir
Cool. Take care dude. You need anything else let me know