Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is again warning of a growing threat to the nation. In her lone dissent in Chiles v. Salazar, Jackson observed that “to be completely frank, no one knows what will happen now.” The ominous tone stemmed from the fact that free speech had prevailed over state-imposed orthodoxy in a Colorado case. Eight justices, including her two liberal colleagues, ruled that Colorado could not prevent licensed counselors from “any practice or treatment” that “attempts or purports to change” a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity.
The win for free speech was catastrophic for Jackson and many on the left. Allowing counselors to discuss the causes and basis for sexual orientation changes, Jackson maintained, would “open a can of worms.” It would be far better for the majority to simply silence such dissenting voices in the name of science.
The dissent in Chiles is only the latest example of the chilling jurisprudence of Justice Jackson, including a pronounced dismissal of free speech values. Consider the holding of her colleagues that Jackson finds so horrific.
Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that the First Amendment “reflects … a judgment that every American possesses an inalienable right to think and speak freely, and a faith in the free marketplace of ideas as the best means for discovering truth … any law that suppresses speech based on viewpoint represents an ‘egregious’ assault on both of those commitments.”
What a nightmare.
Instead, Jackson would have declared the ban on anything deemed “conversion therapy” to be “conduct,” not speech. It is that easy. You simply impose an orthodoxy and then treat any dissenters as being regulated for their conduct, not their viewpoints.
Justice Elena Kagan could not withhold her frustration with her colleague, noting that “[b]ecause the State has suppressed one side of a debate, while aiding the other, the constitutional issue is straightforward.” She added that Jackson’s view “rests on reimagining—and in that way collapsing—the well-settled distinction between viewpoint-based and other content-based speech restrictions.”
Other countries have embraced Jackson’s permissive approach to speech curtailment. Recently, Malta failed to convict a man who was facing five months in prison for merely discussing his own abandonment of homosexuality due to a religious conversion.
Of course, we just went through a pandemic when censorship and orthodoxy were dressed up as science. Leading scientific figures were canceled and harassed. That was the case with Jay Bhattacharya, who co-authored the Great Barrington Declaration and was a vocal critic of COVID-19 policies. Bhattacharya was targeted due to his dissenting views on health policy, including opposing wholesale shutdowns of schools and businesses.
He and other scientists were later vindicated. European allies that did not shut down their schools fared far better than we did, including avoiding a national mental health and learning crisis. We simply never had that debate.
He was recently honored with the prestigious “Intellectual Freedom” award from the American Academy of Sciences and Letters. He is also now the 18th director of the National Institutes of Health.
Yet, years ago, the courts, the media, and politicians joined in treating dissenting views as “conspiracy theories.”
Some argued that the virus’s origin was likely the Chinese research lab in Wuhan. That position was denounced by the Washington Post as a “debunked” coronavirus “conspiracy theory.” The New York Times Science and Health reporter Apoorva Mandavilli called any mention of the lab theory “racist.”
Federal agencies now support the lab theory as the most likely based on the scientific evidence.
Likewise, many questioned the efficacy of those blue surgical masks and supported natural immunity to the virus — the government later recognized both positions.
Others questioned the six-foot rule, which shut down many businesses, as unsupported by science. In congressional testimony, Dr. Anthony Fauci later admitted that the rule “sort of just appeared” and “wasn’t based on data.” Yet not only did it result in heavily enforced rules (and meltdowns) in public areas, but the media further ostracized dissenting critics.
For years, pundits portrayed those who questioned gender reassignment surgeries and treatments as bigots. Now, leading medical associations and European nations have decided that such procedures should not be generally allowed.
All of it was orthodoxy masquerading as science.
Yet, Jackson sees the protection of dissenting scientific and professional views as a “can of worms” that the courts should avoid in favor of state and assocational imposed truths. She wrote that allowing such opposing views “ultimately risks grave harm to Americans’ health and wellbeing.”
Keep in mind that counselors can still be sued for any harm that they cause due to malpractice or negligence. Indeed, recently in New York, a jury awarded $2 million to Fox Varian, 22, over the double mastectomy performed on her while she was a minor.
State associations can also publish positions on such therapy and seek to convince both professionals and the public on the best practices for children.
None of that was sufficient for Justice Jackson or Colorado. Ironically, Colorado has now succeeded in dramatically strengthening free speech in its repeated failures to curtail it. The Democratic legislators have made the state arguably the most hostile to free speech in the nation.
Colorado’s Supreme Court sought to bar President Donald Trump from the ballot. Notably, while many of us viewed Trump’s views on the 2020 election to be protected speech, Colorado treated it as conduct and advocacy of insurrection.
It was Colorado that sought to force bakers, photographers, and web designers to produce work in favor of same-sex marriages despite their religious objections. Each effort was supported by the Tenth Circuit and each failed in spectacular fashion before the Supreme Court.
As many of us celebrate this victory for free speech, these advocates are denouncing the ruling in apocalyptic terms.
What is most chilling is that Jackson is now routinely called the model for new nominees, including the push to pack the Supreme Court with an instant liberal majority.
If so, Jackson’s radical views on constitutional interpretation could be replicated on a new packed Court. To paraphrase this decision, “to be completely frank, we know exactly what will happen then.”
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
This column appeared on Fox.com
Come on! We all know what she really means when she is uttering “…Unbridled Free Speech.” It is that N-word being uttered. It was supposed to have been buried by Al and Jesse but like a vampire it keeps coming back to Life. She fears us Whiteys using the Free Speech argument that allows us to say it. No… you do not have the Right to murder us for using it.
You enjoy the unqualified and absolute freedom of speech, including defamation, to use the n-word, but you will be censored, and you might be physically attacked, and you are afraid to do so.
You already have the right to say it, genius. You weren’t locked up ask the other times you said it.
OMG! Boys might grow up to be men.snd girls might grow up to be women. All because of free speech. The horror of it all.
I suppose if she were alive back in 1857 she would have supported suppressing dissent of the Dred Scott decision, because it was legal and established law. Thank God for free speach!
Phree speach! Yeah!
Yes, we know DO what will happen. The government will continue to cease to be able to censor us, and we will continue to make our own decisions. Before you vote in November, imagine an entire court comprised of Ketanjis. It is almost too absurd and juvenile to be discussing, but thanks to the modern left, we have to discuss it. And summarily reject it. She is a joke that represents a much larger joke to anyone with an IQ over 100, and these days, that is far too few.
That is what frightens the three liberal nut case women justices that wouldn’t recognize the Constitution if it bit them on the nose.
That image would make a good campaign poster: 12 black robed Ketanji Browns sitting in the SCOTUS with the inscription, “Dear Americans: Imagine if your votes did this.”
If that were to happen, James, the court would discuss who was in line 1st and did anyone give upsies. Upsies makes a difference. People in line should stand shoulder to shoulder and the ticket taker (whomever) should move about while blindfolded to ensure equal protection! YEAH!
KJB
Goomie Goo Goo
(See Eddie Murphy skit for clarity)
Who the —- is Eddie Murphy?
This is a free speech win, no doubt. It might not be a win for science, but that was not the issue to start. The Supreme Court gave a huge win for free speech and certainly did not take away the rights to sue for harm this may cause later and has said so in its decision. I do not see the end of the world Brown-Jackson always seems to see. Colorado is turning free speech rights into the New York and California of gun rights. Every time they go to curtail them, the rights are not only held up, but expand. Keep up the good work Colorado. For those that are worried about this type of therapy, just remember practitioners are not indemnified against litigation if harm is created.
TQM – I was thinking the same thing re Colorado being to 1A what NY is to 2A: the gift that keeps on giving.
One quibble: a win for free speech is a win for science, as Turley points out in the article today.
Yours,
Uncle Henry
So you think bringing young people back to their senses about their sex is some how harmful while mutilating their genitals as an underage child is somehow helpful?
These people can always change their sex when they are an adult. Before that point in their life is just evil.
Imagine if people suddenly started thinking that being is somehow a legitimate identification. A disabled child is a boon (to their finances?) and if a they find a surgeon to amputate a limb because the child identified as a disabled, one-armed, or one-legged, person. Should the counselor try to assist them in NOT cutting off a limb or would that be discriminatory? Should a surgeon who agrees to do so lose his/her/its license?
Darren Smith:
I am getting several responses to a comment I did not write, -from someone with the sign-in of “Lin” but the same color of logo/moniker/whatever you call it!
Would you please change the color of the other “Lin” and thank you in advance.
from lin with the little “l.”
lin — Just us a fake email address. I do.
lin — Just use a fake email address. I do.
Justice Jackson swore an oath “to support and defend the Constitution…” In too many cases, she seems totally ignorant of the document. If she isn’t going to uphold her oath, she should be impeached.
She is a radicalized and fully functions communist that lied when she swore an her oath, hates the Constitution, the nuclear family, and wants to destroy the Republic and what it stands for just like the people that nominated her in senile Joe Biden’s name.
“We are the only Country in the World STUPID enough to allow ‘Birthright’ Citizenship!” DJT today after listening to his disastrous attempt at getting rid of birthright citizenship.
So, can MAGA admit that trump flat out lied? More than 30 countries around the world allow birthright citizenship.
I’m sorry I posted that. I realize it has nothing to do with today’s article. But I have stage-4 TDS, and I just can’t help relating everything in the world to Trump. He lives in my head rent-free. Please, someone, tell me where I can get help for my condition!
Did trump lie?
Sorry, I keep talking to myself because . . . . ARGH TRUMP. MOMMY!!!
Help me, someone!
So even when trump tells an obvious lie, MAGA cannot come to admit their Dear Leader is a lier. Thank you for that admission.
Ugh, I keep talking to myself. I cannot stay on topic. Help me!
BAN FOR LIFE!
Uncivil Insolent Impudence!
The term birthright citizenship is shorthand for dozens of countries. The American standard is different than others. It is locked into its constitution, and some of the others have conditional rules.
Yesterday, I included a post demonstrating serious potential problems if correct. Potentially, it represents an army of our enemies who have the right to our shores at any time, whether individually or as a group. 750,000- 1,500,000 can be a potent army.
China’s abuse makes birthright citizenship a life-or-death choice for America
Peter Schweizer analyzed the results from decades of birth tourism — which brings pregnant Chinese women or other foreign nationals to our soil, including territories like our Northern Mariana Islands, for the express purpose of giving birth here and acquiring American citizenship for their offspring — in his book “The Invisible Coup.”
He estimated that “at least 750,000 and possibly as many as 1.5 million Chinese, who are also American citizens by virtue of being born here, are now growing toward adulthood in China.”
https://nypost.com/2026/03/31/opinion/chinas-abuse-makes-birthright-citizenship-a-life-or-death-ruling/?utm_campaign=nyp_postopinion&utm_source=sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_content=20260331&lctg=62680bbe38a279b1870b18c5&utm_term=NYP%20-%20Post%20Opinion
Any person who crosses a border illegally, and the fetus inside that person, are subject to the jurisdiction of their country of origin, which those countries acknowledge.
Reply
Mexican law, as does the law of many countries, considers children born in the U.S. to Mexican parents to be Mexican Nationals.
The basis of being a Subject or Citizen is allegiance.
A person simply cannot hold allegiance to two nations; a person cannot have legiance to two lieges.
Dual citizenship is contrived, nonsensical, and impossible; it is actionable as espionage.
Yes, the present laws, the way birthright citizenship is used, and dual citizenship create unnecessary problems and are dangerous.
Perhaps you should address your concerns about the dangers of dual citizenship to the Trump family and his biggest supporters.
Barron Trump, Trump’s son, holds a Slovenian passport and citizenship, as does Melania.
Not only is he a Slovenian citizen, he speaks fluent Slovenian, while English is actually his second language. He was raised in isolation from his father by Melania and his grandparents, who only ever spoke to him in Slovenian as a child. As a child he learned English but spoke with a Slovenian accent as was noted during an appearance with his parents on the Larry King show in 2010. He has been taking elocution lessons to lose the accent.
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/celebrity/articles/president-donald-trump-son-barron-221102028.html
Elon Musk holds South African, Canadian, and US citizenship.
Peter Thiel, who has contributed more than $50 million to Republicans holds German, US, New Zealand and Maltese citizenships.
Miriam Adelson, who has contributed more than $100 million holds Israeli as well as US citizenship.
David Sacks, a tech billionaire who donated over $12 million, was born in South Africa and holds dual US and South African citizenship.
It’s Ok, they’re actual Americans, you know, OURSELVES and OUR POSTERITY – “free white persons.”
You are really stupid. The discussion has nothing to do with your point. Do you know where your brain is? Find it.
SM, you are the one that suggested that dual citizenship is “dangerous”, but you did not explain why it is dangerous.
And I agree with you, and give an explanation of why it is dangerous.
I am simply pointing out some potential dangers, such as a president whose immediate family members have sworn allegiance to a foreign country, and major political donors who have allegiances to many other countries.
This is a very dangerous problem, as you say, and yet you call me stupid for agreeing with you.
If I am stupid for agreeing with you, then what does that make you?
You are stupid. Look at the earlier posts. They provide sme answers.
I’m smart, as are many on this blog, and many of us are proven products. You don’t sound smart. Adding your comment, you remain stupid.
Anyone who feels the need to proclaim that they are smart is not very smart. And by proclaiming that you are smart you make it obvious that you are quite aware that you are not smart. You are clearly very insecure about your lack of smartness.
Smart people are confident in their own smartness and have no compulsion to declare that they are smart. They simply know that they are smart.
You also seem to think that “many on this blog” are also smart but this assertion also proves that they are not smart. You believe that they are smart, but since you are not smart enough to understand that anyone who proclaims their smartness is not smart, then they must be equally lacking in smartness.
Having said that, let me repeat that my point is that you are the one who declared that dual citizenship is dangerous, and I agreed by explaining in more detail why it is dangerous.
I agree with you.
But apparently you are not smart enough to understand my point.
And apparently you are not smart enough to understand that I agree with you.
Thus proving that you are not smart.
Are you trying to squeeze Sigmund the Fraud out, or are you Sigmund the Fraud? Either way, you need treatment./
You are the one who called me stupid because you claim that my point has nothing to do with this discussion.
Let me point out, once again, that in this discussion that YOU started, you said that dual citizenship is dangerous. You started the discussion, and you said that it is dangerous. I responded by AGREEING with you and explaining in more detail why it is dangerous.
It is a discussion that you started, and I simply responded to a point that you made, by agreeing with you.
How then can my point agreeing with what you explicitly said have nothing to do with the discussion.
Once again you prove that you cannot be as smart as you claim, and that you are the one in urgent of treatment.
And who is Sigmund the Fraud. Judging by his name he may be someone who can help with the treatment that you so urgently need.
“You are the one who called me stupid”
Because you are stupid. There is no doubt of that.
I discussed birthright citizenship and dual citizenship. Are you unable to read what was written?
Make an appointment with Sigmund the Fraud, a grandiloquent fellow. You can pick up the calendar from your pocket and place your name there. Make it for three sessions, all at once. You will need the time based on your circular reasoning and persistent repetition.
You are absolutely correct.
I absolutely agree with you.
As you quite correctly state, you are the one that started the discussion about dual citizenship. I am perfectly capable of reading what you wrote. I simply agreed with your statement that dual citizenship is dangerous. Since you did not elaborate any details regarding how it is dangerous, I took it upon myself to agree with you and expand with some examples of exactly how it can be dangerous.
And yet you somehow believe that I am stupid for no other reason than the fact that I agreed with you.
The more I agree with you, the more you seem to think that I am stupid.
This is remarkably disturbed thinking, indicative of deep underlying mental illness.
What you are saying is that even the stupid can learn. Congratulations! You are now less stupid and a bit mendacious.
You appear to be hallucinating, hearing things that are not said, but nevertheless believing that they were said. A very bad prognostic indicator for someone as mentally ill as yourself.
Nowhere did I make any comment about the stupid being able to learn. If that is what you think I said, then you are simply confirming that you are experiencing auditory hallucinations, or paracusias. If any inferential conclusions are to be drawn from my comments it would be that your failure to understand my point indicates profound psychosis on your part, and that becomes even more apparent when you continue to fail to understand even when the point is explicitly explained to you.
The only valid conclusion is that the stupid and mentally ill are NOT capable of learning, and your comments are absolute, unequivocal evidence of that lack of ability to learn anything at all, thus proving your profound mental incapacitation.
Potential danger is NEVER a legitimate bases for laws.
All freedom is potentially dangerous.
But nearly all freedom is strongly NET good.
Legislating because of “potential harm” is immoral.
It is ALWAYS possible to imagine potential harm.
Sorry SM – but I disagree. The article we are commenting on is about Colorado restricting therapists from homosexual conversion therapy.
Colorado argues that such therapy is dangerous. And they are right – possibly in on in a million cases something bad may happen.
Almost nothing has ONLY good outcomes. Freedom in particular always produces SOME bad outcomes.
I likely agree with those that claim that China encourages birthright citizenship tourism to the US for potentially nefarious purposes.
But that does not mean with certainty 18 years form now that Child will be an asset for the CCP – or even that 18 years from now the CCP will still exist.
On the whole the myriads of different ways that people seek to come to the US to become US citizens are reflections of how great this country is.
And on the NET their efforts are GOOD for them and good for US and bad for their country – regardless of its intentions.
Regardless, you can ALWAYS argue that some future Harm resulting from freedom as a justification for restricting freedom.
Freedom NEVER is 100% good, but it is almost always strongly NET good.
“Sorry SM – but I disagree. The article we are commenting on is about Colorado restricting therapists from homosexual conversion therapy.”
John, tell that to Anonymous who started this OT thread.
Anonymous started this OT thread on birthright citizenship, but he made it clear that he did so to mock the way Turley distracts you MAGA morons from reality. He responded to his own comments in a manner designed to mock you MAGA idiots.
Despite this, you took his bait.
You felt compelled to respond with an absurd analysis by Schweizer about Chinese birth tourism, so you are the one that actually veered off into the realm of birthright citizenship.
“Anonymous started this OT thread “
At least you see what I responded to. Note, he made a stupid comment, and you did too.
If his comment was so stupid, then why did you feel compelled to respond.
Apparently, in your mind, it was not sufficiently stupid to be be ignored, which simply reveals your own stupidity in not recognizing that it was a stupid comment not worth responding to.
“If his comment was so stupid, then why did you feel compelled to respond.”
I respond to some stupid comments and some stupid people like I am doing now.
Thus confirming your own stupidity.
As Forrest Gump said, “Stupid is, as stupid does”
But what I am doing is a choice. I choose to feed some stupid people, and you choose to be stupid.
Thus confirming your inability to make wise choices, and further confirming your stupidity.
Only stupid people make stupid choices.
Subject to the jurisdiction and allegiance are not the same thing.
I have birth right citizenship. That’s a fact. I also have derivative citizenship, a fact. You see the problem? It’s a difficult problem because don’t touch my birth right. So its true. There is birth right citizenship.
Nothing in DJT’s EO is untrue.
S. Meyer
I am not at all persuaded by the Birth right tourism issue.
If there are 1M chinese with US citizenship – that is more of a problem for China than the US.
I doubt this is a deliberate strategy of the CCP – or other nations – like Russia where cbirth right citizenship tourism is common.
I think you will find that it is more a means the connected and powerful in represive countries use to protect their own children.
Getting permission to leave China is often incredibly difficult. US citizenship means you can go to any US embassy or consulate and you are now SAFE.
Additionally, I think that these same powerful, wealthy or connected people are again thinking of their children – not their country.
They are providing them the opportunity to choose to leave the CCP or other repressive regimes and immigrate legally to the US – to the land of the free.
Absolutely there are SOME instances of China sending LOTS of people to the US for the purpose of spying on the US.
And in rare instances China in particularly is immensely successful at that.
But mostly those programs are failures.
Ultimately the experience of most foreigners in the US SERVES US interests, China sending lots of students to the US for education – ultimately SERVES the US and he cause of freedom more than it harms us.
Very few things are black and white. Quite often the bad intentions of foreign nations do not pan out the way they hope.
The birth right citizenship Tourism argument is the WEAKEST of the arguments.
John say, “ Getting permission to leave China is often incredibly difficult. US citizenship means you can go to any US embassy or consulate and you are now SAFE.”
Huh? You must be thinking in 1950’s terms. Chinese citizens are free to travel anywhere they want. If they have a valid passport and/or visa they can visit other nations like the rest of us.
Yesterday’s arguments on Birth right citizenship turned out to be a bad bet for Trump. Unsurprisingly the argument was floated to Trump by none other than disbarred lawyer John Eastman.
John, while your point has merit, Schweizer’s perspective is equally compelling. The 14th Amendment was never intended to facilitate this practice; The present interpretation being fought in court is a distorted interpretation that requires correction.
My expectation regarding the Birth Right citizenship case is that Trump is going to lose. But SCOTUS is NOT going to settle the 14A birth right citizenship question.
My expectation is that the court will find that Trump’s EO is outside the executive powers. That citizenship issues are the domain of congress.
I also think that is the correct decision.
But that does NOT settle the question of if Congress passed laws barring citizenship to the children of illegal aliens would that be constitutional ?
With respect to Birth Right Citizenship Tourism – I think Congress absolutely – and possibly the president can stop that without offending the 14A.
Simply deny visa’s to women who are pregnant.
As I noted in another post – ultimately I think that is a bad idea. I think that Birth Right Citizenship tourism is actually on net a positive GOOD for the US
People with the resources to legally come to the US to give birth are likely to have children that should they decide as adults to come to the US would be assets to our country.
I am not concerning myself with whether or not Trump will win. The Court will have its say. I think birthright citizenship creates an improper atmosphere and has potential dangers.
You like open borders. We have seen what happens with that philosophy in the present world. I would prefer if the borders were kept shut and only illegals allowed in.
Approximately 30 to 35 countries, predominantly in the Americas, offer unconditional birthright citizenship (jus soli or “right of the soil”) to nearly anyone born within their borders, regardless of parents’ citizenship. Key nations include the United States, Canada, Mexico, Argentina, and Brazil. Restricted or Conditional Birthright CitizenshipSeveral countries offer birthright citizenship only if certain conditions are met, such as parent residency:Germany: Children born to non-German parents gain citizenship if at least one parent has a permanent residence permit and resided in Germany for at least five years.United Kingdom: Birthright citizenship applies if one parent is a citizen or settled in the UK.France: Automatic citizenship at birth is granted if at least one parent was also born in France.Ireland: Requires one parent to be an Irish citizen, British citizen, or legal resident with a permanent right to reside.No country in East Asia and very few in Europe offer unconditional birthright citizenship, as most rely on jus sanguinis (citizenship by descent).
Are they LEGAL persons or actionable criminals?
Stupid take. Are preggo’s flocking to those countries to claim their babies free citizenship?
Is there an entire birthright citizenship industry selling birthright citizenship visits to those countries like here in the USA?
Gee, I wonder why everyone wants to be a US citizen so bad? Something wrong with all those other free citizenship countries?
If the SC fails on this one, we will have plane-loads of foreign women giving birth while they’re parachuting down to our magic soil.
And-
“156 countries rely primarily on jus sanguinis, or citizenship by descent.
Another 50 nations blend both systems, adding residency or heritage conditions.”
https://ceoworld.biz/2026/03/31/the-shrinking-world-of-birthright-citizenship-and-why-it-matters-for-america/
Those other countries’ citizenship isn’t valuable like USA citizenship.
Most of them are so called s***hole countries.
Jackson’s “permissive approach to speech curtailment” and pursuance of other Leftist orthodoxies shouldn’t be surprising. She was put on the bench in the first place and later elevated to the Supreme Court on the expectations she would only vote the way the radical Left wants her to vote. She was not put there for any intellectual prowess (she has none) or even to interpret the Constitution in any particular way. She was put there to toe the Leftist line and only to toe the Leftist line.
The irony is that there are numerous highly competent black-female judges Biden could have chosen from, but he chose the dimmest bulb in the pack. Maybe that was by design, who knows.
You must feel so good calling a black woman who has been a lawyer for a very long time “the dimmest bulb in the pack”
So superior of you. Put that black woman back in her place.
Some people just are not intelligent. Justice Jackson is one of them. She demonstrates that publicly over and over. That’s a fact, and facts don’t care about your feelings.
“I’m no better than you. I’m a 960 SAT guy.”
– “Goofy” Gavin Newsom
KBJ’s place is not on the supreme court. That is the topic here. the evidence to support that position comes right from her dumb mouth. Any race she could possibly belong to is diminished in stature by her inclusion so it’s a shame she is black because no race deserves that association. That’s what you get with DEI, not the best, just the desired outer image and the implication that her race somehow makes her opinion ‘deeper’ than others could ever be. I have not heard anything I could consider deep from KBJ, she’s the Kamala of the SC. That is what we are discussing here. Since she has a lifetime license to make dumb statements publicly now, I look forward to hearing her losing side craziness in the future. ” been a lawyer for a very long time”? That is not the endorsement you seem to think it is.
Interesting exchange at today’s SCOTUS hearing on birthright citizenship between the fast talking, but slow witted, Solicitor General John Sauer and CJ Roberts.
Sauer: It’s a new world in which billions of people are now an air flight away from US.
Roberts: It’s a new world, but the same Constitution.
Any person who crosses a border illegally, and the fetus inside that person, are subject to the jurisdiction of their country of origin, which those countries acknowledge.
Mexican law, as does the law of many countries, considers children born in the U.S. to Mexican parents to be Mexican nationals.
The basis of being a Subject or Citizen is allegiance.
A person simply cannot hold allegiance to two nations; a person cannot have legiance to two lieges.
Dual citizenship is contrived, nonsensical, and impossible.
Kristi Noem rigging the property appraiser’s exam while governor so her daughter could get her license, killing a puppy, and giving her boyfriend a powerful job in govt while cheating on her cross-dressing spouse is not that unusual on the spectrum of Republican politician behavior.
Not to mention that between them, Trump and Musk have 19 children by 8 different women.
Wonderful examples of the Republican style of christian family values, don’t you agree.
Gee look at this shiny object that has nothing to do with Justice Jackson’s dissenting opinion or the article.
No, we’re not as dumb as you.
JFK, Monster
By Timothy Noah
“I knew that John F. Kennedy was a compulsive, even pathological adulterer, given to taking outlandish risks after he entered the White House. I knew he treated women like whores. And I knew he had more than a few issues with his father about toughness and manliness and all that. But before I read in the newspaper that Mimi Alford’s just-released memoir, Once Upon A Secret: My Affair With President John F. Kennedy And Its Aftermath, described giving Dave Powers a blow job at JFK’s request and in his presence, I didn’t know that Kennedy had an appetite for subjecting those close to him to extreme humiliation.”
“Clinton pays Paula Jones $850,000”
Associated Press
Wed 13 Jan 1999 13.15 EST
“WASHINGTON (AP) – Paula Jones is awaiting the arrival of an $850,000 cheque from President Clinton, bringing an official end to the four-year saga spurred by her allegations of sexual harassment.”
“FDR and His Women”
“… she was deeply wounded to discover that Franklin had been having an affair with her secretary, Lucy Mercer.”
Bill Clinton as enabled by Hillary Clinton
_______________________________
1. Eileen Wellstone (1969) Allegation: Sexual assault
2. Anonymous female student at Yale University (1972) Allegation: Sexual assault
3. Anonymous female student at the University of Arkansas (1974) Allegation: Sexual assault
4. Anonymous female lawyer (1977) Allegation: Sexual assault
5. Juanita Broaddrick (1978) Allegation: Rape
6. Carolyn Moffet (1979) Allegation: Sexual assault
7. Elizabeth Ward (1983) Allegation: Unclear
8. Sally Perdue (1983) Allegation: Unclear
9. Paula Jones (1991) Allegation: Sexual harassment
10. Sandra Allen James (1991) Allegation: Sexual assault
11. Christy Zercher (1992) Allegation: Sexual assault
12. Kathleen Willey (1993) Allegation: Sexual assault
Replying to yourself repeatedly is par for the course for the libtards interjecting here on issues that they are losing on.
Low effort, CCP type-tank gives you NO social credit points to redeem for valuable prizes.
if the SC holds to continue the current birth right you have to ask yourself what is the benefit to American citizenship? To be burdened with high taxation to pay for the up keep of illegals or to send your children off to war to protect illegals at home? Come one come all, have your spawn here and suckle off the teet of Americans.
Who knows, anon. This is the most important case ever and did you think the US would exist in h€ll? It speaks well of it.
Best wishes
What is it’s worth, anon? Harder to deport? But that’s offset by only citizens can be charged with treason and such.
Actually it’ll be a mixed opinion and it won’t solve every problem within immigration, migration, refugees, asylum, illegal, legal etc by immigration laws and other laws including executive powers in policy to secure national security.
Remember as the Justices consider the 14th in question we hold birth right citizenship and derivative and naturalization and our posterity, also. They must be oh so careful.
☺ Carpe diem
Darren is a fagg#t.
Enough!
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
– Declaration of Independence, 1776
It’s the Decoration of Dependence now. 😂
Perhaps you missed the fact that the good guys won this Supreme Court case.
You call that a Supreme Court?
I’m certain that foreign, low-information, DEI, affirmative action, outfit of Gangsta Disciples is precisely what the American Founders intended.
Jackson is the perfect justice, as far as leftwing fascists are concerned. Her vote on each and every issue is locked in, her mind is already made up, and she is a reliable vote for the most extreme leftwing positions. Every. Single. Time. Hitler never had to wonder how his judges would rule on any case. Neither do Democrats with Justice Jackson.
Yep, as long as they tell her what those positions will be beforehand. she gets confused easily so it’s not assured.
So far her crazy has been contained on the losing side of opinions.
The Founders took the American Colonies from Great Britain.
Certainly, genuine Americans are capable of taking America back from the communists…
…and providing non-Americans work permits or exit visas.
KBJ: ‘How Can A Law Be Unconstitutional If I Like It?’
WASHINGTON, D.C. — As the United States Supreme Court issued a decisive ruling on a controversial case in Colorado regarding conversion therapy for minors, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raised a pertinent question about the constitutionality of the law. The court handed down an 8-1 decision to strike down the law that sought to ban “conversion therapy” for minors, leaving Justice Jackson to question how a law could possibly be ruled unconstitutional if she liked it so much.
“If I like what it says, then that means it should be a law, right?” Jackson reportedly asked her colleagues on the court, according to transcripts. “I mean, laws are just things we like that we want to make everybody do, right? Is that what it means? So, like, if there’s something that I think is nice and I want everyone else to agree with me, I just say it’s a ‘law,’ right? That’s what I always thought. I don’t know. I don’t really remember them talking much about law stuff when I went to law school.” The court reportedly took a 15-minute recess during its deliberation so Jackson’s fellow liberal justices could give her a rudimentary explanation of what terms like “law” and “unconstitutional” mean. “It’s always a great learning opportunity for her,” said one court insider. “Every case brings up something else she doesn’t understand. Last month, we spent an hour telling her what a ‘court’ is.”
At publishing time, Justice Jackson had reportedly asked the other justices if it was unconstitutional for them to make her put away her iPad during oral arguments.
-The Bee
OT. 😂 Will SCOTUS say the 14th doesn’t apply to illegal aliens? I’ll bet a cup of coffee they will. It’s immigration law that’s violated. 😂 and something else in statute 🤐 . As policy and national security president may be right but is that before the court? 😂
No upsees
This case is ridiculous as it is completely unconstitutional. The Federal supreme court has zero jurisdiction in Colorado. an esteemed attorney such as Mr Turley should know that.
The Federal supreme court is to interpret what the Federal constitution meant to those who ratified it. The first amendment to the US constitution affects the federal government, not the States.
What does the State constitution of colorado say? The State Supreme court is the proper place to hear this case.
While Justice Brown may be a mental midget, the entire court should be ashamed for even taking this case. Did anyone ever read Dobbs?
The first amendment to the US constitution affects the federal government, not the States.
The First Amendment applies to state governments through the 14th Amendment’s due process clause. The Supreme Court is well versed in this area of the law, and Professor Turley knows what he’s talking about. If your argument is that the Supreme Court erred in applying the First Amendment to the states (Gitlow v. New York (1925)), you’d have to first get it to overrule its precedent in that regard, not argue that under the current state of affairs 1A doesn’t restrict Colorado.
The 14ths due process was for ex-slaves ensuring they’d have full and complete due process within states. Everyone else already had due process.
The much abused 14th. 1A or 2A with those negligible extra words such as shall not be infringed, shall make no law…meh
May states deny constitutional rights? Please explain that. The First Amendment freedom of speech holds supremacy over state laws via the Supremacy Clause. Through Fourteenth Amendment incorporation, the Supreme Court has ruled that state, local, and federal government entities are prohibited from violating free speech rights. Conflicting state laws are invalidated by federal courts.
Most civil rights cases are against some over-reaching governing body, though. That’s State, local.
You obviously don’t understand constitutional law.
Not sure which “anonymous” you are but you are badly mistaken. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. ALL state laws and constitutions MUST conform to it. That’s ConLaw 101. Otherwise that southern states could reinstitute Jim Crow laws with impunity by your definition .
Michael – I don’t mean to be pedantic, but 1A by its terms only limits the actions of Congress. The 14th Amendment, including its due process clause, was ratified about 80 years after the 1A came into existence. Then, beginning in the 20th century, the Supreme Court started interpreting the due process clause to mean that certain portions of the Bill of Rights apply to the states. This is the so-called incorporation doctrine. Not all facets of the Bill of Rights have been incorporated to the states, but many have, including 1A.
There are many stupid comments on this blog, but this has to be among the most ignorant and ill-informed.
Off topic – but timely.
There are hills worth dying on…
Yes, there really are. 😢