S.I.

@CorkYou @mattvanswol @MaryLTrump 🙄

@Invisibleman817 @mattvanswol @MaryLTrump LMAO, nice spin

My grandfather was an anchor baby. It turns out the best case against birthright citizenship is Donald.

@CorkYou @mattvanswol @MaryLTrump I was addressing the failed attempt by Mary to make some legal gotcha about the President … you know what forget it you can’t seem to keep up with the thread you responded to.

@Invisibleman817 @mattvanswol @MaryLTrump They can’t change birthright citizenship

@CorkYou @mattvanswol @MaryLTrump The Constitution is the source of laws but it doesn’t mean Congress can’t legislative further on immigration. 🤦🏻‍♂️

@Invisibleman817 @mattvanswol @MaryLTrump No, the constitution does and has.

@CorkYou @mattvanswol @MaryLTrump 🤦🏻‍♂️ The laws and all court decisions governing the status of children of illegal immigrants. It was Mary Trump who tried to make a legal argument based on it.

@Invisibleman817 @mattvanswol @MaryLTrump Do you don’t know? Shocker

@CorkYou @mattvanswol @MaryLTrump 🤦🏻‍♂️

@Invisibleman817 @mattvanswol @MaryLTrump What law?

@CorkYou @mattvanswol @MaryLTrump What? Write better. Deciphering your garble There’s an immigration law pertaining to what is popularly called anchor babies. I’m not saying the phrase is found in the law you big dummy.

@Invisibleman817 @mattvanswol @MaryLTrump The immigration law is no one is an anchor baby, dumb ass.

@CorkYou @mattvanswol @MaryLTrump I didn’t say it was legal you moron. I’m talking about the immigration law behind the notion of an anchor baby she was trying to make to score a political point. Try to keep up dummy.

@Invisibleman817 @mattvanswol @MaryLTrump There’s nothing legal about anchor baby, dumb ass.

@CorkYou @mattvanswol @MaryLTrump It’s not about knowing the family. It’s about knowing the law. She doesn’t understand what being an “anchor baby” means. She is misunderstanding or misrepresenting it to try and score a political point. Epic fail.

@mattvanswol @MaryLTrump So you know more about her family than she does?

@SaintLaurant @MaryLTrump You are a very special kind of stupid.

@MaryLTrump Trump's two immigrant wives, and four anchor babies. Case closed. trump loses again.

@ClarenceMaximus @CollinFredricks Let me clarify. Dred said they still owed allegiance to the United States.

@Invisibleman817 @CollinFredricks If anything that seems to imply LESS allegiance?

CT is not the easiest Justice to read at OA, but I think all the people saying he’s siding with the admin are jumping to conclusions based off of pretty much nothing. Sauer’s arguments get dangerously close to something that is completely non-negotiable for Thomas: permitting Dred Scott. That was his opening question to Sauer, and that’s a question that makes sense if he’s leaning against the admin. He likely has doubts that Sauer can make his case while affirming that 14a makes Dred Scott impossible.

@chammond510 @willchamberlain @RandyEBarnett @neoavatara Their asking the court to correct a decision they think is wrong isn’t them asking it to be an activist court. They are arguing on originalist grounds not asking the court to update understanding of the language.

@willchamberlain @RandyEBarnett @neoavatara The briefs filled with “quirky exceptions”? It’s hard for your side to argue on this point that you’re not asking this Supreme Court to be an activist one.

Note one thing: On birthright citizenship, it is TRUMP/MAGA that are the liberals. They are the ones that want a living Constitution, to overrule the common understanding from the time of the passage of the amendment to this very day. They are not the conservatives here.

@ClarenceMaximus @CollinFredricks Ok so it should have be can not cannot in your original comment. They did by citing Dred itself which said that even slaves owed allegiance even if they are not citizens. They were brought forcefully whereas illegal aliens came here voluntarily.

@Invisibleman817 @CollinFredricks My point is that for the administration’s theory to work for Thomas, they need to be able to lay down a rule that explains why children of slaves have allegiance but children of immigrants don’t, and they haven’t done that.

@NinaDrgm @FAFOmyfriend @RyanSaavedra We have all the standing to lecture. ICE is killing lunatic leftists like you who interfere in the lawful process of arresting people. You’re a mental patient.

@Invisibleman817 @FAFOmyfriend @RyanSaavedra You have zero standing to lecture anyone ... ice is killing people in cold blood inside your borders and trump is the biggest most demented terrorist the world has ever seen.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio gives an excellent explanation on why the U.S. needed to strike Iran It's less than 2 minutes and is worth the watch

@ClarenceMaximus @CollinFredricks Can you clarify your wording? “The problem is their theory…cannot” easily be converted…” Do you mean can be? Otherwise you statement doesn’t sound right. Wouldn’t you say cannot be converted to children of slaves <and> children of immigrants?

The problem is their theory of “allegiance” cannot easily be converted into a rule of law that applies to children of slaves but not children of immigrants. They actually do some pretty shoddy work dealing with that issue in their brief. Aside from the opening, they barely mention Dred Scott. That’s the concern.

@EWErickson @RobGeorge Oh STFU tough guy. You are the last one to lecture anyone you emasculated little pigmy.

I find the whining about Justice Barrett to be ridiculous. She regularly sides with you, but not in the precise way you want, and may actually not give you everything you want, so you cry. Put on your big boy britches, please.

@brklynmind @carney So have I and your still fantasizing. I don’t claim to know what or how he would have decided but it probably would have been much closer to Trump’s position. He made a brief comment in Hamdi where he questioned the citizenship of Hamdi despite being born here.

@Invisibleman817 @carney I know it because I have studied his judicial philosophy. There is no textual argument for what you want. Scalia would have told you to pass an Amendment

Forecasting based on oral arguments is a fool's errand. But it's the day for that. So here goes. I think we have four Justices against the birthright EO: Jackson, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Barrett. Two votes for it: Thomas and Alito. Too hard to tell: Roberts, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch.

@MZHemingway Mollie let’s not get too optimistic. Sauer did a great job but like with anything he can’t control the outcome and I don’t see the votes.

I attended today's oral argument and while I'm not sure how it will go, it seemed to me the justices engaged seriously with Sauer's arguments. I'd be surprised if they said the 14th Amendment or Kim Wong Ark support today's radical birthright citizenship regime.

@brklynmind @carney You don’t know that. That’s just your anti Trump fantasy.

@Invisibleman817 @carney Scalia would have voted against Trump and it isn't even a close call

@Pro__Trading I’m not too sure about Gorsuch. I think he’s a big maybe.

Alito is a yes Thomas is a yes Gorsuch is a yes Kavanaugh is a yes Everything comes down to Amy Coney Barrett.

@FAFOmyfriend @NinaDrgm @RyanSaavedra That was the recent unfortunate attack that was not purposely targeted but based on bad targeting information. How about the killings by Iran of its own citizens? The executions that are purposely aimed at executing Iranians?

@Invisibleman817 @NinaDrgm @RyanSaavedra What? We killed 150+ schoolgirls! Can you imagine if Iranians destroyed a school full of girls here in the US - they would have already been nuked.