Meridian

Justice Alito: Would you agree citizenship test in 14th Amendment is same as test in 1866 Civil Rights Act? Respondents: Words are obviously different. What Wong Kim Ark and debates tell us is that Congress was trying to do same thing with both. They wanted to encompass Common Law exception and Indian exception. Alito: Do they mean the same thing? Respondents: Framers were trying to do the same thing with the language in both. Alito: 1866 is more straightforward. "Not subject to any foreign power" is pretty straightforward. So if a boy is born here to an Iranian father who has entered illegally. That boy is automatically an Iranian national at birth. He has a duty to provide military service to Iranian government. Is he not subject to any foreign power? Respondents: No, what framers meant was referring to ambassador exception. If it meant not subject "of" foreign power, than lawful permanent residents -- Alito: Ordinary meaning would certainly encompass that boy, wouldn't it? Respondents: Shift to language of 14th Amendment clears up ambiguity. Alito: What I said of boy born to Iranian father is true to children born to nationals of other countries -- Russian parents, etc. Sure seems like that makes them subject to a foreign power. Respondents: That would've meant children of Irish, Italian, other immigrants -- which Wong Kim Ark and Framers allude to -- wouldn't count either. No foreign nationals' children would get citizenship. Alito: Difference is children could be naturalized when parents were naturalized in those cases.

9% of of all the babies born in the USA getting citizenship, based on either birth tourism - mostly from the CCP - or whose mother smuggled herself into this country illegally, is not ok and no way to secure a healthy future for Americans. If the Supreme Court doesn't restrict birthright citizenship, then Congress must -BEFORE the midterms. This is what the citizens of the United States want and require.

Last year, Justice Jackson dissented in the U.S. v. Skremetti case-- in which she argued that states have no right to ban gender transitions on minors. Today, she was the lone dissent on Chiles v. Salazar, writing that "there is no right to practice medicine which is not subordinate to the power of states." So, states have no right to pass laws banning children from changing their sex-- but states DO have the right to ban counselors from telling boys they are not girls. You truly can't make it up.

Rare Kagan-on-Jackson fire in Chiles v Salazar

8-1. U.S. Supreme Court rules against Colorado ban on ‘conversion therapy’ for LGBTQ kids.

such a loser mentality my sister dates a pro athlete. her ex/bd is 5'6", 40, broke (why they split). he lives in the USA & still has a new hot young gf every time I see him. pisses my sister off

This is hilarious ngl

The point here is simple: Human capacities really are finite. A lot of the traits that show up as things modern women expect for marriage are a) traits they themselves do not possess and b) traits that large shares of both sexes do not possess "Men should up their game" doesn't work for that

Figure AI CEO on "Firing" OpenAI: "We just got like no value out of the whole relationship." Figure founder Brett Adcock brought a Figure 03 to Shawn Ryan's podcast, where he went into detail about the startup's early relationship with OpenAI that dissolved a year after it started. Adcock, who previously founded Archer Aviation, said the arrangement was useful for fundraising at first but not much else. "We just found that the team we had internally. We just ran like kind of circles around them like every day," he said. The breaking point came when he learned that OpenAI planned to restart its robotics program. That meant Figure's engineers would essentially be teaching a competitor. “We’re like teaching you how to do robot learning… you’re seeing our progress," he said. "There’s no way we’re going to teach you how to do this stuff anymore.” It was Adcock's first appearance for a podcaster who's not a Figure AI investor since the split. It was recorded around the time First Lady Melania Trump welcomed the $39 billion startup's third-generation robot, the Figure 03, at the White House for a summit on technology and education. Figure AI has developed its own vision-language-action model called Helix.