Below is my column in the New York Post on the controversial dissenting opinion of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in the injunction ruling in Trump v. CASA on Friday. The opinion seemed to fan the flames of “democracy is dying” claims of protesters, suggesting that basic limits on injunctive relief could result in the collapse of our core institutions. It was a hyperventilated opinion better suited to a cable program than a Court opinion. The response from Justice Amy Coney Barrett was a virtual pile driver of a rebuke. What was notable is that a majority of the justices signed off on the takedown. It could indicate a certain exasperation with histrionics coming from the left of the Court in recent years.
Here is the column:
For most citizens, the release of Supreme Court opinions is about as exciting as watching paint dry, particularly in a case dealing with the limits of district courts in issuing universal injunctions.
Yet Friday’s Trump v. CASA case included a virtual slugfest between Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
The decision was one of the biggest of the term. The Court moved to free the Administration from an onslaught of orders from district judges seeking to block the President in areas ranging from the downsizing of government to immigration.
However, it was the departure of the normally staid court analysis that attracted the most attention.
The tenor of Jackson’s language shocked not just many court watchers, but her colleagues. It seemed ripped from the signs carried just a couple of weeks earlier in the “No Kings” protests.
The Court often deals with issues that deeply divide the nation. Yet it tends to calm the waters by engaging in measured, reasoned analysis — showing the nation that these are matters upon which people can have good-faith disagreements.
But that culture of civility and mutual respect has been under attack in recent years.
Not long ago, the Court was rocked by the leaking of the draft of the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade. That was followed by furious protests against conservative justices at their homes and an attempted assassination of Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
There was also a change in the tenor of the exchanges in oral argument and opinions between the justices.
Recently, during the argument over the use of national injunctions in May, Chief Justice John Roberts was clearly fed up with Justice Sotomayor interrupting government counsel with pointed questions and commentary, finally asking Sotomayor, “Will you please let us hear his answer?”
This hyperbole seemed to border on hysteria in the Jackson dissent. The most junior justice effectively accused her colleagues of being toadies for tyranny.
It proved too much for the majority, which pushed back on the overwrought rhetoric.
While the language may seem understated in comparison to what we regularly hear in Congress, it was the equivalent of a virtual cage match for the Court.
Some of us have argued that our system is working just as designed, particularly as these issues work through the courts. The courts have ruled for and against this Administration as they struggle with the difficult lines of authority between the branches.
Liberals who claim “democracy is dying” seem to view democracy as getting what you want when you want it.
It was, therefore, distressing to see Jackson picking up on the “No Kings” theme, warning about drifting toward “a rule-of-kings governing system”
She said that limiting the power of individual judges to freeze the entire federal government was “enabling our collective demise. At the very least, I lament that the majority is so caught up in minutiae of the Government’s self-serving, finger-pointing arguments that it misses the plot.”
The “minutiae” dismissed by Jackson happen to be the statutory and constitutional authority of federal courts. It is the minutiae that distinguish the rule of law from mere judicial impulse.
Justice Barrett clearly had had enough with the self-aggrandizing rhetoric. She delivered a haymaker in writing that “JUSTICE JACKSON would do well to heed her own admonition: “[E]veryone, from the President on down, is bound by law.” Ibid. That goes for judges too.”
She added, “We will not dwell on JUSTICE JACKSON’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this: JUSTICE JACKSON decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.”
In other words, the danger to democracy is found in judges acting like kings. Barrett explained to her three liberal colleagues that “when a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.”
The last term has laid bare some of the chilling jurisprudence of Justice Jackson, including a certain exasperation with having to closely follow the text of laws. (In an earlier dissent this term, Jackson lashed out against the limits of textualism and argued for courts to free themselves from the confines — or shall we say the “minutiae” — of statutory language). In this opinion, Barrett slams Jackson for pursuing other diversions “because analyzing the governing statute involves boring ‘legalese.'” Again, what Jackson refers to as “legalese” is the heart of the judicial function in constraining courts under Article III.
Untethered by statutory or constitutional text, it allows the courts to float free from the limits of the Constitution.
For many, that is not an escape into minutiae but madness without clear lines for judicial power.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and the best-selling author of “The Indispensable Right.”
N.B.:this column is slightly longer than the one that appeared in the NY Post.
OT but interesting.
Maybe even the Autopen forgery is a forgery within the forgery.
Jill rather than Joe may have provided the signature the Autopen repeated.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/06/constitutional-crisis-researcher-suggests-bidens-autopen-signatures-may
A thorough and comprehensive assessment and investigation must be done.
It would appear that Jill, Bernal et al. literally stole the government from Mr. Magoo.
The woman who used the autopsy doesn’t know by whose authority. No kidding.
I have been wondering who would emerge as the rhetorical heir to Antonin Scalia… We now know.
Turley: everyone knows that you are paid to write something, anything, to defend Trump and Republicans, to attack anyone who disagrees with them, and to spin every situation as some kind of “win” for Trump. BUT what you and the majority on the SCOTUS failed to address is the merits–the unconstitutionality of Trump’s illegal Executive Order that attempts to circumvent the 14th Amendment right enshrining birthright citizenship. You don’t address it because YOU KNOW YOU ARE WRONG AND YOU ARE PAID TO SAY POSITIVE THINGS ABOUT TRUMP and to attack Democrats. Your attack on Justice Jackson is literally pathetic, and Barrett is just plain wrong.
The right-wing radical majority on the SCOTUS should have addressed the core issue, but what they have done, deliberately, is to make it harder for birthright citizens to vindicate their rights. So, the class action has been filed, but there is lliterally not much someone could do if an undocumented mother AND her citizen child were grabbed up by the Trump goon squad and carted off to who knows where without the benefit of counsel or a hearing. HOW would such people vindicate their rights if this happened, because they would already be disappeared–THAT is the reason for the nationwide injunctions that have been around and utilized in federal courts for over 100 years–because the Executive Order IS unconstitutional and because Trump does have a goon squad of losers, headed up by a fat, bald racist loser.
But, MAGA media, to which you have chosen to sell yourself, have to spin this atrocity as a “win” for the fat one. You don’t have to be a lawyer to understand how or why it is wrong to put roadblocks in the way of people seeking to vindicate rights guaranteed by the Constitution. But the radical conservatives, none of whom belong on the SCOTUS for reasons previously explained, but mostly because they LIED to get on the bench, are there to play politics–they like to try to sell themselves as “originalists”, but that only applies when they want to take away Constitutional rights and reverse case precedents. What the SCOTUS SHOULD HAVE DONE is simply say that persons born in the United States are citizens because that’s what the 14th Amendment says and that Trump’s Project 2025–drafted Executive Order is unconstitutional and cannot be enforced. Now, there will need to be costly and time-consuming peacemeal litigation. Justice is suppsed to be speedy and not unduly expensive, but Kavanaugh, Barrett, Gorsuch and Alito don’t care about that–unless it affects some dimbulb right wing group that wants to shove their religion down others throats and/or have taxpayer money to fund their religious schools or some other bunch of bible thumpers who hate LGBTQ people.
Wow. There is no way to reason with the mentally deranged.
And BTW, that is not what the 14th Amendment says. Next term it will be explained to you.
Why next term, WOL?
NOT Wise old lawyer. Here’s what Cornell University’s Legal Information Institute quotes as the 14th Amendment:
“Amendment XIV
Section 1.
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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
AND, what part of the Constitution says that a right guaranteed by the 14th Amendment can be abrogated by an Executive Order? AND, if you’re going to try some lame argument that children of migrants are not subject to the jurisdiction of the Unted States,–that won’t fly, either. Here’s what the Constitutional Accountability Center says about that:
“Does the Citizenship Clause apply to the children of immigrants?
Yes. The language of the Citizenship Clause is unequivocal—it applies to “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” All means all. Where a person’s parents were born and whether they are citizens is irrelevant.
Why does the Citizenship Clause only apply to those “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States?
The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States simply exempts from the Clause’s coverage individuals such as the children of foreign diplomats who are immune from prosecution. All other persons born in the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and are thus citizens under the Clause.
Can Congress or the president, on their own, end birthright citizenship?
No. Neither Congress nor the President can end birthright citizenship because it is guaranteed by the Constitution. The only way to end birthright citizenship would be to amend the Constitution.”
Mucho poo
@Anonymous
Yaaaawn. 🥱🥱🥱 Oh, did you say something?
Mentally Deranged Anonymous: did you have this kind of moral outrage, this kind of soul-killing hurt, when the Biden Administration heartlessly did not show up for: 1) the victims and so many killed, ruthlessly burned-out in Lahaina, or 2) for those gravely harmed by the east Palestine, Ohio, train/chemical derailment, or 3) for those killed and those who lost EVERYthing in the hurricane directed at North Carolina???
Again, leave “religion” and “religious schools” out or your imbalanced diatribe, and stick to the topics raised. This discussion is about Jackson’s DEI-hire incompetence, not a forum for your TDS-hate-fest.
How do you explain Sotomayor and Kagan, Ms Bec?
they have to carry talc when they lay down together to find each others pink spot
^^^^ this made it passed the editor and some of my stuff is deleted?
There’s an editor?
Tom: people like you are just plain trash.
Sotomayor and Kagan—Cancer of the Court: “Untethered by statutory or constitutional text….”
So many junk left wing talking points, not enough time to bother with it. Your rage is misdirected, you need to look inward to determine why you and your ideology are such total failures.
Jonathan: Today was the memorial for slain former Minnesota Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband. They were killed by right-wing anti-abortion zealot Vance Boelter. The services for the Hortmans were held at the Basilica of St. Mary in Minneapolis. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris attended. Gov. Tim Walz gave the eulogy and called Melissa Hortman “the most consequential speaker in Minnesota history”. Father Daniel Griffith, who led the eulogy, said “our nation is in need of deep healing…Here in Minnesota, we have been the Ground Zero place, sadly, for racial injustice, the killing of George Floyd just miles from our church today. And now, we were the Ground Zero place for political violence and extremism. Both of these must be decried in the strongest possible terms…”
What is remarkable is that DJT never bothered to call Gov. Walz after the murder of the Hortmans and severe wounding of the Hoffmans to express his condolences. He didn’t bother to attend the services at the Basilica today. He was too busy playing golf. He apparently doesn’t want any “deep healing”. What is abundantly clear is that DJT has not one ounce of sympathy for the suffering of others. He has a beating heart but it’s the heart of a sociopathic narcissist who sees every event or tragedy as something to be exploited for his own self interest. Just sitting next to Joe Biden and Kamala would not serve his self interest so he refused to attend.
Americans were horrified and appalled by the brutal gunning down of the Hortmans and severe injuries to the Hoffmans. Not DJT. He would rather be on the golf links today. What makes it even worse is that DJT is the President of the United States for the next 31/2 years!
You still here? I thought I told you to go get your own blog, instead of dirtying up the comments here with your worthless brain droppings.
Mentally Deranged McIntyre: YOU TOO, did you have this kind of moral outrage, this kind of soul-killing hurt, when the Biden Administration heartlessly did not show up for: 1) the victims and so many killed, ruthlessly burned-out in Lahaina, or 2) for those gravely harmed by the east Palestine, Ohio, train/chemical derailment, or 3) for those killed and those who lost EVERYthing in the hurricane directed at North Carolina???
Also there is plenty of profound political ambiguity around the Hortman killer: clearly established research shows that he and his wife worked for Walz, for many years! You have no way of knowing how or what DJT “felt” about this crime, unless you are also the perfect psychic. Stop spreading your hate-filled disinformation.
You (in Minnesota) are “ground zero for “political violence because you invite and inspire it, like flies on dead meat. Take responsibility!!!
Did it occur to you (as it has to the rest of the thinking world) that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris were EXPLOITING their deaths by showing up for the funeral? Those two scumbag politicians never did anything unless it was entirely for their political benefit. Not once. Not ever. Period.
“What is abundantly clear is that DJT has not one ounce of sympathy for the suffering of others”
Oh really?
Did you hear the African journalist tell President Trump that she and others had contacted President Biden numerous times, over years, pleading for help in settling the Congo/Rwanda brutal war?
She said the Biden admin ignored all requests for help and attention to the war in these two long-suffering African nations.
Repeat: Biden and Democrats IGNORED, for years, the pleas for help to end the bloodshed and war in DRC and Rwanda — to no avail.
That is, until President Trump actually did something to broker PEACE.
Peace has come to this war. Finally. Because of Trump’s efforts and attention to it.
And of course the fake news framed the story as “Trump wants credit.” Hey fake news? GFY.
Oh and Democrat party? GFY, too.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-heralds-us-brokered-peace-deal-drc-rwanda/story?id=123277316
And who murdered them?
That was a Democrat hit.
What struck me was the fact that Barrett’s comments re: Jackson were in the “opinion of the court” section not a separate concurring opinion. So it wasn’t just a spat between justices, it was an institutional rebuke. This is not the first time there has been criticism of the three left wing justices but I don’t recall any of those being outside of a concurring opinion, I may be wrong on that though.
Potentially, 50 million Mexicans et al. will not be able to prove that their illegal alien mothers were “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and will then be subject to deportation as illegal aliens.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
14th Amendment, Section 1
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.
Few people focus on the words: “and of the State wherein they reside.”
This means that the subject person (and mother) must “reside” in a state at the time of birth.
residence is a legal status which, depending on the state, has requirements. Tourists and illegal aliens do not “reside” in any state.
Wiseoldlawyer
I very much doubt that you are a lawyer.
If you really are a lawyer, you should turn in your license.
Your focus on the phrase “and of the State wherein they reside.” is obviously absurd and a deliberate attempt at deflection and obfuscation.
You try to make the point that individuals must somehow meet the various state requirements for legal residency of that state in order to be considered as citizens.
This is a red herring that you are falsely and deliberately injecting into the argument.
The plain text of the REST of the 14th amendment says as follows:
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”
This clearly prevents any state from imposing any further restriction on birthright citizenship, beyond the clear statement that ” All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States”
Any reasonable person, and especially any lawyer with any understanding of the Constitution, would realize that the subsequent phrase, “and of the State wherein they reside.” was intended to PREVENT any state from trying to impose a restriction on an individual’s citizenship beyond the Constitutional definition of birth anywhere in the United States. It was not intended as a requirement that must be met in order for birthright citizenship to be granted.
The phrase “and of the State wherein they reside.” means the exact opposite of what you claim.
It is NOT a requirement.
It was intended to PREVENT states from imposing their own requirements that would abrogate the Constitutional right to citizenship.
You also seem to think that the mother of the subject person must be a state resident in order for the child to be considered a citizen.
Nowhere does the 14th amendment say anything about the status of the parents.
You are simply making sh!t up.
You are an idiot.
Turn in your license if you really have one.
“Citizens of the United States” and “citizens of the state” are equivalent, making them irrelevant in this discussion.
The person born in the U.S. must be “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” which would be conferred by a mother who was “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” and would then be a citizen.
An illegal alien mother would not confer to her child the status of being “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
Both the mother and the child must then be deported.
This comment is even more idiotically insane than that of Wiseoldnotreallyalawyer.
“subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means subject to the jurisdiction of US law.
Everyone physically present in the US, whether such presence is legal or otherwise, is subject to the jurisdiction of US law, except for diplomats and their families in possession of A-class visas.
As everyone knows, foreign diplomats have diplomatic immunity to prosecution for any crimes committed in the US, unless their home government waives that diplomatic privilege.
Everyone else physically present in the US is subject to the jurisdiction of US law and can be prosecuted for crimes regardless of citizenship or whether they are here legally.
If, as you claim, people present in this country illegally are NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the US, then this leads to the absurd conclusion that they can not be prosecuted for any crimes that they may commit.
Your understanding of the meaning of “jurisdiction” is absurd.
You do understand this is after the civil war and the free slaves had no nationality at all? It’s a hard thing to say. It’s a hard thing to think about.
All illegals are nationals of another nation. Mexican nationals aren’t giving up their Mexican citizenship nor many other nationals.
So what !!!!!
What you say is completely and utterly irrelevant to the granting of birthright citizenship.
EVERYONE physically present in the US is subject to the jurisdiction of US law regardless of who they are or how they got here.
The 14th amendment says nothing about citizenship of other countries.
The 14th amendment says nothing about the citizenship of the parents of a child born here.
They are subject to the jurisdiction, not if they are present, but if they can be summoned for jury duty.
Summon an illegal alien for jury duty.
If that is all “jurisdiction” means, then it is redundant and unnecessary. One of the most basic rules of statutory construction is that all of the subject law must be given meaning.
They are subject to the jurisdiction, not if they are present, but if they can be summoned for jury duty.
Summon an illegal alien for jury duty.
Native Americans, anon? Yes the minutiae matters.
Yet another completely irrelevant red herring.
All Native Americans were granted US citizenship by the Indian Citizen Act of 1924.
And prior to the passing of that particular act?
Dannyboyo2
The attempt by the MAGA mob to use the status of Native Americans in the past as justification to deny birthright citizenship is completely absurd. It is a deliberate attempt to mislead and muddy the waters.
Having said that, you really do not seem to understand the position of Native Americans before the Act of 1924.
The purpose of the Act was to clarify the status of ALL Native Americans.
At the time, some, but not all Native American reservations were regarded as sovereign nations that were not part of the US. As such the 14th amendment correctly denied them US citizenship, because technically they were not part of the US.
Other officially recognized tribes, who did not live on sovereign reservations, were regarded as US citizens at birth.
The status of Native Americans was a mess, which the Act was intended to clarify.
The Act of 1924 was intended to put all Native Americans on an equal footing regardless of whether they were born on a sovereign reservation.
If anything the situation of the Native Americans before the Act provides support for birthright citizenship rather than providing a means to deny it, as you falsely claim.
If a Native American from a sovereign reservation, who at the time was not a US citizen, happened to give birth to a child outside the reservation, then that child was a US citizen by birth, even though the parents were citizens of a sovereign tribe.
That is exactly the situation now with regard to a citizen of Mexico who gives birth in the US.
So you see, your stupid invocation of the situation of Native Americans in the past actually provides a valid argument to contradict your absurd claims.
Unfortunately, rational thought is not a strong point in the MAGA cult.
Touched a vulnerable spot, did I?
We shall see, of course. We know how you think, and we already know how the 3 Lady Lefties think, but using the word “think” with respect to them is only aspirational. The other 6 have yet to be heard from.
BTW, I was sworn in to the bar of my first Court, of many thereafter, including the U.S. Supreme Court (nominated by the Honorable Thurgood Marshal), in August 1962.
Guess you just knocked off one class action.
Is a piece of pavement with a tent a residence? I know, a utility bill in your name suffices, a PO Box perhaps?
Very good wise old… the process will remain illegal entry? Illegal overstay doesn’t speak to letters of good moral character. No rap sheet suffices?
Looking ahead to Birthright Citizenship 2.0 (the class action lawsuit), will it be argued that it is a form of injury to be born with Brazilian nationality vs. US? This has never been asserted in any court of law. Also, per today’s ruling,
the plaintiff group cannot include those who lack injury and standing, which rules out prospective babies not yet born.
It is satisfying to see many are now having a conversation about our judicial monarchy, because that is what they have made themselves and it will continue to be so unless challenged intelligently. Rather than copy and paste ideas, you can read it directly on JudgeYourself.org.
20 million people don’t understand the Constitution + 3?
I’m not falling for it. It’s the pretense that’s so repellent.
20 million people should never be allowed to vote.
Oh sure, right.
Allowed? You’re a kid, right? Right
Allowed? It’s an honorific, a privilege, nearly a requirement, it’s better than DL and an honor as is the conscription card.
The real reason Democrats are pissed off at Trump is that Trump treats Democrats, the way Democrats treat Republicans like Romney or Bush. Democrats expect Republicans to be be browbeat in public, by Democrats, and stand there and take the beating. Now that the shoe is on the other foot they are not happy.
Anon– “The real reason Democrats are pissed off at Trump is that Trump treats Democrats, the way Democrats treat Republicans”
Close, but Trump hasn’t tried to throw them in prison on bs charges.
Democrats are “p—– off” because they will soon be forced to obey the law.
“Liberals who claim “democracy is dying” seem to view democracy as getting what you want when you want it.” And here is the left’s best example of political- immaturity masked as virtue, represented by Jackson…..
The Junior-Judge, at best, wrote an editorial for an extreme-leftist newspaper. Her lack of decorum in cultivated argument, in favor of popular sloganeering, shows that her professional credibility (of which she had no major publications) was always suspect, befitting the new (and low) DEI standard, which she met with flying colors. The Supreme Court has been debased.
ICYMI, the American Founders established a severely restricted-vote republic, distinctly not a one-man, one-vote democrazy.
One-man, one-vote democracy is communism—an insuperable demand for largesse, bestowal, and charity by parasites.
Turnout was 11.6% in 1789; voter qualifications, by state, were generally male, European, 21, and 50 lbs. Sterling/50 acres.
Democracy has been of the restricted-vote variety since its inception in Greece and perpetuation in Rome and America.
The judicial branch, no matter the vote, was intended to keep America squarely on the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Karl Marx and Abe Lincoln took America off of that epochal document of self-governance.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
“the people are nothing but a great beast…
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value.”
– Alexander Hamilton
_________________________
“The true reason (says Blackstone) of requiring any qualification, with regard to property in voters, is to exclude such persons, as are in so mean a situation, that they are esteemed to have no will of their own.”
“If it were probable that every man would give his vote freely, and without influence of any kind, then, upon the true theory and genuine principles of liberty, every member of the community, however poor, should have a vote… But since that can hardly be expected, in persons of indigent fortunes, or such as are under the immediate dominion of others, all popular states have been obliged to establish certain qualifications, whereby, some who are suspected to have no will of their own, are excluded from voting; in order to set other individuals, whose wills may be supposed independent, more thoroughly upon a level with each other.”
– Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, 1775
_____________________________________________________
“[We gave you] a [restricted-vote] republic, if you can keep it.”
– Ben Franklin
_________________
You couldn’t.
___________________________________________________________________
“We the People of the United States…secure the Blessings of Liberty TO OURSELVES and OUR POSTERITY, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
– Preamble
______________
You didn’t.
She doesn’t know what a woman is so she can hardly be expected to know what the Constitution is.
@brian
Oh, they know. They simply don’t care as they march in lockstep. And their fatal mistake is they presume that we don’t know, such is their disdain for our intelligence. Nice to see them finding out the hard way that actually they are the insular ignoramuses, on every level.
I have repeatedly said the Politicians in Black Robes are more concerned with protecting the institutions of government than they are reading the Constitution. Roe v Wade was a bad ruling and everyone knew it. For five decades the Court repeatedly backed into another corner until they realized they were in checkmate. Only then did they finally state, what everyone knew from the begining, this was a State matter and had no business in the Federal Court.
Chevron was another instance in which the Court continually tried to protect the Bureaucrats’ authority.
The Court really does not have a difficult job. Read the Constitution and the ratifying documents to understand what was understood by ‘The People’ at the time it was ratified. It really isn’t difficult to understand the difference between ‘necessary’ and convenient, for example.
If the Court stuck to the Constitution it would limit government (if they followed clear opinions which they are not inclined to do). A limited government solves so many of these problems because we are a republic and these questions belong in the states and not in a centralized control structure.
“AN INJURIOUS TENDENCY”
Now you know why the American Founders would never have admitted this affirmative action project to become a citizen, much less a magistrate of any sort.
Abraham Lincoln high-criminally presided over the most egregious mass illegal immigration campaign in American history on January 1, 1863, when immigration law consisted of the Naturalization Act of 1802, which was in full force and effect, and when reprehensible slavery must have been abrogated and its long-suffering victims compassionately repatriated.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798, and 1802 (four iterations for maximal clarity)
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof….
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Are there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale against the advantage expected by a multiplication of numbers by the importation of foreigners?”
– Thomas Jefferson
_______________________
“To render the people of this country as homogenous as possible, must tend as much as any other circumstance to the permanence of their union and posterity.”
– Alexander Hamilton
_________________________
“The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.”
– Alexander Hamilton
Rather than take a stand for strict ethnocentrism, why not focus on a slow, measured process of post-racial immigration? When you seriously confront global demographics, America as a pure, Euro-white society would be hopelessly outnumbered by Asians. However, if we can master a post-racial meritocracy with similarly populated allies, it will be the Han Chinese who find themselves isolated, outnumbered and incompatible 30-50 years on.
In other words, societies built around ideas that are universal (not limited by ethnicity) have enormous growth potential. Those which cling to ethnic, genetic purity are headed for the dustbin of history.
These are things our Founders could not possibly see well from where they stood. The North Americans of the 1600s-1800s mixed blood from Euro, African and Indigenous. By the time the US was founded, there was already substantial mixing. By the time of the Civil War, that gene-pool was ever more blended. Today, pure ethnic lineages are becoming the exception rather than the rule.
You can’t turn the clock back. The best we can do is impart America as an idea, one based on universal humanistic values of freedom balanced with responsibility, self-governance, and preserving English as the common language. Then, we benefit from post-racial, post-ethnic social and genetic mixing as the “growth factor” that prevents being overwhelmed by larger, more ethnocentricly-pure populations like the Chinese. Is there a better choice?
“EVERY PERSON ON THE PLANET IS AN AMERICAN-IN-WAITING, WAITING FOR HIS FAIR SHARE OF “FREE STUFF” AND “FREE STATUS”
Nice try, Karl. Oil and water do not mix. The political emulsifiers of communism are required for your “strange brew”—affirmative action, quotas, grade inflation, financial assistance, mortgage assistance, food stamps, etc. Those comprise communism. Communism is antithetical and unconstitutional, not to mention unproductive and, well, just plain incoherent in a rational circumstance. The whole idea was freedom, endeavor, “the pursuit of happiness,” sacrifice, and success. Oh, and as the Founders said, “Homogeneity.” Not coddling, “wet-nursing,” and charity, which are reserved for Sunday, something you comrades are woefully unfamiliar with, right?
Thank you Good-Anon! This post is on fire!!!
While we, citizens respect and revere the profound words and wisdom of our founding fathers, those who have “influxed” illegally could care less about Jefferson and Hamilton, as long as they get their SNAP. Allowing these illegals to enter without civic allegiance to this country is to foolishly balkanize it for overthrow.
Wait! A woman with sense? That’s “Toxic Femininity!” I LIKE it!
Catherine Cassidy says:I have known Justice Sotomayor for 25 years. She served in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York, and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals prior to her appointment to the Supreme Court.
That would be the misandrist, racist wise Latina woman who pronounced that she was far wiser than any white male judge could be? How’s your appreciation for her snarky comments made while on the bench. Or are The Wise Latina Woman’s snarky comments different?
Reading Sotomayor’s contributions to the decisions of SCOTUS since joining that bench, she is actually an idiot, despite earlier outward appearances and job performance before that when you watched her. Or she’s deliberately dishonest while serving on the bench, her one single goal being to promote Democrat platforms and legislate from the bench where possible.
Or perhaps a combination of both is most accurate for the self describing and self promoting Wise Latina Woman.
https://babylonbee.com/news/supreme-court-legalizes-trump-presidency
“This is what happens when you send an Autopen Hire to the Supreme Court”
Jonathan: In your attacks on Justice Jackson and her pointed dissent with Justice Barrett’s opinion in the Trump v. CASA case you missed the forest for the trees.
First, nationwide injunctions have been around since the early 20th century. In 1913 the SC issued a nationwide injunction itself. During the rest of the century lower courts have issued similar injunctions. They have never been questioned. During the Biden administration GOP state AGs and other right-wing groups ran to an obscure federal judge in Texas to get nationwide injunctions against Biden’s policies. Biden never appealed. So Republicans loved nationwide injunctions when they went their way.
But now the shoe if on the other foot. Courts around the country have issued nationwide injunctions against DJT. Why? Because almost all of DJT’s EOs and other actions are illegal and unconstitutional. Take the birthright citizenship EO that is clearly unconstitutional under the 14th amendment as was found so by courts in three different jurisdictions. The gangster-in-chief didn’t like being rebuked by the courts–hence his challenge in the CASA case in which the pro-DJT majority on the SC ruled against nationwide injunctions. But the story doesn’t end there and that’s the part you missed in your own “hysteria” about Jackson’s dissent.
In his concurrence Justice Kavanaugh and Sotomayor in her dissent pointed out that parties in the earlier successful litigation still have the option of filing there cases as class actions against DJT’s unlawful EO. Within 48 hours that is what is exactly what has happened. The plaintiffs have now filed to convert their there challenges into class actions. If successful in getting class certification that means potential class members of thousands and maybe millions in the three jurisdictions involved.
The upshot? The litigation to strike down DJT’s unconstitutional EO is not over. The majority in the CASA case never addressed the merits of DJT’s EO. That decision will have to wait for another day. But it is highly unlikely that even the right-wing majority on the Court will want to find the 14th Amendment unconstitutional. In the meantime, litigation against DJT’s EO will proceed. In fact, it has only begun!
That’s a whole lot of words to say not much at all. You could have just pasted “orange man bad” over and over again for the same effect. Get your own blog and stop spamming this one with your junk analysis.
Ah yes, the class certification loophole. “The plaintiffs have now filed to convert their challenges into class actions. If successful in getting class certification….”
“If successful” is the key ….
What will the class be? Every baby born after Trump’s EO? Even the unborn? Will the unborn have rights too? ….How about every ‘birthing person’?
Gonna get interesting for sure….
Note, that one of the plaintiffs is a Venezuelan woman due to give birth in August. So there is no baby available yet to whom a passport can be issued. No standing to sue right there. Case closed, right? How about NJ as a co-plaintiff. Since when NJ is entitled to have passport issued by the Feds?
blah blah blah. How’s that Russia collusion stuff going?
WAR CRIMES
All Officers, Agents, Clerks, Judges, Administrators, and Actors of the Corporations Doing Business as the STATE OF CONNECTICUT, STATE OF DELAWARE, and the GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
PUBLIC NOTICE & JUDICIAL NOTICE:
THE SUPREME COURT AND CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO ADJUDICATE, GOVERN OR LEGISLATE AS THEY ARE “AT WAR WITH THE U.S. CONSTITUTION” AND “ENGAGE IN ACTS OF TREASON”. THE SUPREME COURT AND CONGRESS ARE AN “ENEMY” OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE EXECUTING “SEDITIOUS CONSPIRACY”, “DOMESTIC TERRORISM”, “RACKETEERING”, AND “TREASON” BY WILLFUL VIOLATIONS OF THEIR “OATH AND DUTY”.
CHARGES & CLAIMS:
The “ENEMY” (Title 50 US Code 2204) seized by “SEDITIOUS CONSPIRACY” (Title 18 US Code 2384), and weaponized the US Judicial Branch from top to bottom executing “DOMESTIC TERRORISM” (Title 18 US Code 2331) upon the “We the People” of America through pirated power affirmed by “ENEMY” Courts. Plus, violation of the Justice for Victims of War Crimes Act & Geneva Conventions.
LEGAL MAXIM:
The government is to be subject to the law, for the law makes the government.
AUTHORITY:
As a living-breathing American Man, one of “We the People”, the Owners of Our Government, I, Andrew Hamilton Pritchard, Sui Juris, have the authority to address any felony that I witness firsthand (CGS 54-170 Arrest without Warrant).
You also have a right to take any properly prescribed medication.
Why did such a bogus and monumentally flawed push piece op ed have to get even one word longer than the trash published by the Post, Turls???
Shut up and go away gigi. Nobody cares about your opinion on anything. You’re just a louse on this blog’s body.