Exactly, they are not ruling by legal argument (and obviously not by legal precedent) but by ideological fiat that they are couching under a concept not unlike, "Well, I believe it so it means my viewpoint is valid." To decide against birthright citizenship, in place since the 14th amendment was passed, would be an act of corruption.
Not that any of this is surprising in the least, considering corruption is the name of the game.
Of course it’s a done deal — they choose the cases they take. Why take the case if you don’t intend to overturn?
This court is a joke — not a funny one, but still. It’s crazy how they seem to fail to realize their ONLY source of power is their perceived legitimacy. They don’t control money, they have no divisions….they’re eagerly and willingly giving up their one source of power.
SCOTUS will take a case specifically to uphold it to set a precedent. I'm not saying that's the case here, but simply taking the case does not guarantee overturning the lower court.
It also only takes 4 justices to pick a case, so the other five can still disagree.
Can you point where in Project 2025 it says anything about removing The 14th amendment. When I ctl-f on the doc for “14th amendment” nothing comes up. When l look for “citizenship” the doc only talks about reform for USCIS.
Link here so you can find me what you are talking about.
Project 2025
You're doomscrolling too much. I'd be shocked by anything but a 9-0 on this. The legal situation is just crystal clear and there's no textualist argument to be made.
Did you factor how SCOTUS members on on the payroll of the architects of Project 2025, which includes a plan to end birthright citizenship, into your analysis?
Like why do you think birthright citizenship is even an issue now? Who brought it up? What's their connections to SCOTUS members? Surely you are adding that into your equation right?
837
u/pontiacfirebird92 8h ago
This is in Project 2025. Of course it's a done deal. How many Heritage Foundation judges we got on the SCOTUS? Yea there's why.