And the dissent that four of the justices signed onto yesterday was about as intellectually dishonest as it gets. I read through Thomas's dissent and the claims he makes that the 14th amendment assumes the parents of the child are legal residents of the US are not textually supported by the wording of the 14th amendment. His argument is an outright lie.

I personally am on the fence about broad birthright citizenship. But the only path to changing it would be a constitutional amendment.

Mark
Portland, ME · 6m ago

Occam's Razor. This isn't surprising. Six ultra-right-wing justices were appointed to legislate unpopular laws from the bench because the Heritage Foundation knows that it's otherwise politically impossible. What was shocking was that any of them dissented.


Stephen N
Toronto, Canada · 9m ago

The six to three decision was really five to four, since Kavanaugh ruled against the president on statutory grounds, agreeing with the dissenters on the crucial constitutional issue.

Two conclusions may be drawn from the decisions handed down by the conservative bloc in Trump's second term. First, the conservative majority is overtly partisan. Trump is shown a deference not extended to his democratic predecessors. Second, the majority is bent on regime change --the transformation of American politics and government --through the creation, by judicial fiat, of what is best described as the monarchical presidency.

That the bloc split over the question of birthright citizenship should not be taken to mean that principle still carries weight with at least two of the conservative Justices. More likely, allowing President Trump to eliminate birthright citizenship by executive fiat was seen as a bridge too far by Justices Roberts and Coney Barrett. Unlike the voting rights cases, there was no way to disguise a vote in Trump's favor as upholding precedent. And stripping tends of millions of Americans of their citizenship would have caused a furor inimical to the majority's ultimate goal of regime change.


E
Nyc · 14m ago

Based not just on this decision but a host of others, it is pretty clear that Alito & Thomas will vote with Trump regardless of the issue and find some argument or other to support what he wants. So those are not surprises. The surprises here were Gorsuch and the half-hearted concurrence of Kavanaugh who said the order isn't valid due to Federal law, not the constitution. Apparently illegal immigrants and those on a tourist visa are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US. So if you want to put out a hit on someone, hire one of them.


mcm
New Orleans · 17m ago

Of course, there are six bought and paid for political hacks on the court. Working for corporate interests to establish a permanent, plutocratic, (vaguely) theocratic overclass. The constitution is in the way of that, even if, occasionally they follow it.


Amateur Critic
Philadelphia · 19m ago

Let’s turn the argument around. If SCOTUS had decided that people born here of parents here illegally are not citizens because they are not under the jurisdiction of the U.S. government, then would the government have any legal means of deporting them?


James C.
Maryland · 19m ago

That the birthright citizenship decision was so close shows again that the so-called Supreme Court is dominated by extreme right, political hacks such as Alito and Thomas. The very clear language of the 14th Amendment says that all people born or naturalized in the US are citizens. To state otherwise makes no sense. If the Court had allowed Trump to void birthright citizenship, every person born in the US could have had their citizenship challenged and they could have been required to submit proof of citizenship. How would you like to have your proof of citizenship reviewed by someone thinking like Alito, Thomas or Stephen Miller?


J.F.
Chicago · 28m ago

It's disturbing how close this Constitutional amendment
came to being overturned.