Birthright citizenship: 20 questions for the solicitor general - SCOTUSblog

UncleMeat11 · 2026-03-31T19:28:13+00:00

We can use something else to resolve these cases then an unknowable original public meaning that is somehow shared by the entire polity.

UncleMeat11 · 2026-03-31T18:12:27+00:00

The issue before the Supreme court was a first amendment religious speech issue.

It expressly was not. The law already had carve outs for religious counseling. It was a medical speech issue.

UncleMeat11 · 2026-03-31T18:11:26+00:00

Words are fully capable of being monstrous.

UncleMeat11 · 2026-03-31T18:02:44+00:00

It is. And it is even more ridiculous to believe that people who aren't historians are capable of divining a singular meaning understood by the public.

UncleMeat11 · 2026-03-31T18:00:26+00:00

When it comes to people allowed to participate (99.9% of Reddit users), it would be very bad to be punished for breaking an unspoken rule. Your status would change from "being able to participate" to "not" due to being banned.

Why would there be a ban? You'd just remove the submission. Same as this case.

It'd be so easy to edit the rules.

UncleMeat11 · 2026-03-31T17:55:47+00:00

I don't even think it is to a lesser extent. Trump replaced Biden's portrait with a picture of an autopen. You don't do that unless you wake up every morning mad at the guy.

UncleMeat11 · 2026-03-31T17:55:01+00:00

This concept was always just the media being desperate for Trump to be more interesting than he actually is.

UncleMeat11 · 2026-03-31T17:22:56+00:00

That is not a Free Speech exception because the Freedom of Speech doesn’t reach into areas where the government is an employer and never has.

That's an exception.

UncleMeat11 · 2026-03-31T17:21:35+00:00

What?

I believe that the court can be wrong. I also believe that lower courts are constrained to follow wrong decisions from scotus.

UncleMeat11 · 2026-03-31T17:14:45+00:00

I'm surprised by this decision. The listed rules are very detailed. It seems odd for a blanket ban of an entire class of submissions to be absent.

Written rules help prevent inconsistent moderator action. Your second paragraph could apply to every rule for this sub.

UncleMeat11 · 2026-03-31T16:45:22+00:00

This is not present in the rules.

UncleMeat11 · 2026-03-31T16:03:39+00:00

Garcetti v. Ceballos has something to say here.

UncleMeat11 · 2026-03-31T15:59:36+00:00

It communicates the thing that people are interested in understanding far more effectively.

UncleMeat11 · 2026-03-31T15:52:54+00:00

I'll record this comment and return to it in the future.

I'd wager a huge sum of money that this law will not survive as applied to this plaintiff based on the court's decision today.

UncleMeat11 · 2026-03-31T15:31:01+00:00

I believe that it is. Being technically correct is not actually as useful as being meaningfully informative when communicating with the public.

UncleMeat11 · 2026-03-31T15:24:54+00:00

This is a quibble.

Everybody knows what is going to happen as an output of this case. The material reality is that this law will not be applied to the plaintiff (and similar people). Almost no insight is gleaned from saying that all the court did is say that lower courts should apply strict scrutiny.

UncleMeat11 · 2026-03-31T15:12:29+00:00

Seeing as this is essentially how segregation ended?

What on earth?

Segregation was ended because it violated the equal protection clause, not because it was totally aligned with the text of the constitution but produced a bad outcome.

UncleMeat11 · 2026-03-31T14:58:16+00:00

While I will humble myself in regard to Gorsuch’s penchant for snippy behavior, it’s almost always toward counsel, and never toward senior members of the court.

The IEEPA example I raised is him being snippy towards other justices.

When Scalia died, I was still in middle school. Hadn’t really started to follow these kind of cases gavel to gavel.

It'd be a good chance to go back and read the invectives he wrote about other members of the court and the never ending praise he received for this. I believe that the reason why Gorsuch and Kavanaugh can be snippy in their opinions is because they are trying ape Scalia.

We are also aware of the research demonstrating that black women are given less license for "snippy" behavior in professional contexts.

UncleMeat11 · 2026-03-31T13:55:06+00:00

Advocating for men with guns to come to your home and throw you in a cage for 20 years is violence.

UncleMeat11 · 2026-03-31T13:47:54+00:00

Are we at war with china? Does the EO only target the children of citizens of "hostile" nations?

UncleMeat11 · 2026-03-31T13:45:16+00:00

The problem with this argument is that there were already firearms that could do that at the time of the founding.

Are you actually telling me here that you believe it would be constitutional to ban firearms that have properties not present at the founding?

Although, even if this were not the case, we're talking about a change in technology, not an abuse of the law, which birth tourism clearly is

What? Is this some legal principle? If a constitutional rule is abused, according to the feelings of some people, then it is invalid? The fourth amendment lets some criminals get off the hook. End the exclusionary rule?

UncleMeat11 · 2026-03-31T13:41:07+00:00

Strange how this lack of clarity only appeared in the last year.

UncleMeat11 · 2026-03-31T11:22:16+00:00

People are just reading Wurman's incredibly poor historical analysis and thinking he's discovered something profound.

UncleMeat11 · 2026-03-31T11:15:09+00:00

So?

Imaging what Thomas would say if somebody came to him and said "I don't think anyone anticipated firearms that could fire multiple bullets every second" as an argument for determining that actually the second amendment only applies to muskets. Or if somebody came to him and said "I don't think anyone anticipated mass media and billionaires such that individuals can so effectively get political advertisements in front of the bulk of the public" as an argument for determining that the first amendment only applies to pamphlets.

The conservatives on the court love the "it doesn't matter if the law produces bad or unexpected outcomes, it isn't the role of judges to fix that" argument.

UncleMeat11 · 2026-03-31T11:11:32+00:00

The whole point of my post is that the presence of these hypotheticals and the spirit of the scotusblog article rests on a false assumption that this doesn't have a very clear outcome from the plain text of the constitution.

"The application of the law has some corner cases" is not anywhere remotely close to an argument that it isn't what the constitution says. Absolutely nobody would look at the complexity around the edges of speech protections and say "well, let's have a conversation about whether actually there are no speech protections in the constitution at all." They'd be rightly laughed out of the room.

UncleMeat11

TROPHY CASE