SCOTUS

[The_Tick]

Ok Matt Walsh

Am I wrong though? Because I could post 100 videos of examples of politicians and professionals, in front of congress mind you, try to word salad their way around answering it.

[Jeff Lebowski]

How many of those on SCOTUS would be able to tell us what the definition of a woman is?

"Can you define what a woman is?" to a liberal politician (or SCOTUS candidate I guess) is exactly the same thing as "Was the 2020 election stolen?" to a MAGA politician. In both cases, they 100% know the answer, but they can't muster the courage to say it because of the blowback they would get from their tribe. So they stutter and stammer and mutter something that everyone knows is complete BS. What a time to be alive.

[frank ryan]

"Can you define what a woman is?" to a liberal politician (or SCOTUS candidate I guess) is exactly the same thing as "Was the 2020 election stolen?" to a MAGA politician. In both cases, they 100% know the answer, but they can't muster the courage to say it because of the blowback they would get from their tribe. So they stutter and stammer and mutter something that everyone knows is complete BS. What a time to be alive.

Unfortunately a lot of people believe that election bullshit

The Illusory Trust effect is a real thing:

The illusory truth effect, also known as the illusion of truth effect, validity effect, truth effect, or the reiteration effect, is the tendency to believe false information to be correct after repeated exposure.^[1] This phenomenon was first identified in a 1977 study at Villanova University and Temple University.^[2][3] When truth is assessed, people rely on whether the information is in line with their understanding or if it feels familiar. The first condition is logical, as people compare new information with what they already know to be true. Repetition makes statements easier to process relative to new, unrepeated statements, leading people to believe that the repeated conclusion is more truthful. The illusory truth effect has also been linked to hindsight bias, in which the recollection of confidence is skewed after the truth has been received.

In a 2015 study, researchers discovered that familiarity can overpower rationality and that repetitively hearing that a certain statement is wrong can paradoxically cause it to feel right.^[4]Researchers observed the illusory truth effect's impact even on participants who knew the correct answer to begin with but were persuaded to believe otherwise through the repetition of a falsehood, to "processing fluency". The illusory truth effect plays a significant role in fields such as advertising, news media, political propaganda, and religious indoctrination.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_truth_effect

[Jeff Lebowski]

Unfortunately a lot of people believe that election bullshit

The Illusory Trust effect is a real thing:

Oh brother.

Do you think elected politicians truly believe that? Come on.

[frank ryan]

Oh brother.

Do you think elected politicians truly believe that? Come on.

I'm surprised you don't.

[falafel]

I haven’t read any actual opinions. That would be way too boring and useless for me. I’ve read plenty of summaries and opinions including non partisan podcasts and analysis. People are putting way too much of their own biases and politics into their own opinions of the court.

Including you!

Funny that you find these opinions boring and not worth your time, but you are happy to opine on how well SCOTUS is doing. Seems a little inconsistent.

[falafel]

I think the fact that even Gorsuch took issue with this should give critics pause.

I think the outcome was right, but the other side had a better argument than a lot of people give it credit for.

Okay, so where does that get us? I am missing your point here. You have issues with birthright citizenship on a Constitutional level? What are those concerns, please? What was not credited.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Okay, so where does that get us? I am missing your point here. You have issues with birthright citizenship on a Constitutional level? What are those concerns, please? What was not credited.

Not to speak for him, but I think the argument is that the original intent for birthright citizenship was for a much more limited scope than how it is applied today. For example, what does "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" mean? Or if someone is a temporary visitor (on a tourist visa for example), should that apply to their children. Another argument is that based on the timing of the original amendment, it was explicitly meant to grant citizenship to newly freed slaves.

Etc.

It is not as simple an argument as you would think. (FTR: I am fine with the ruling)

[Jeff Lebowski]

Btw, anyone see that recent case in Florida where an attorney was running a business explicitly tailored to bring pregnant women here just to have their babies in the US? I mean, that was the entire pitch of all of his advertising. Helped them get a tourist visa, line up a doctor, etc.

[All-American]

Not to speak for him, but I think the argument is that the original intent for birthright citizenship was for a much more limited scope than how it is applied today. For example, what does "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" mean? Or if someone is a temporary visitor (on a tourist visa for example), should that apply to their children. Another argument is that based on the timing of the original amendment, it was explicitly meant to grant citizenship to newly freed slaves.

Etc.

It is not as simple an argument as you would think. (FTR: I am fine with the ruling)

That’s the main gist of it.

The point of the 14th was to make former slaves citizens. It is basically undisputed that nobody who wrote the clauses in question had in mind how it would be made to apply to children of undocumented immigrants, much less that this would someday be a question that mattered. Most arguments against birthright citizenship have something to do with that underlying point, and I think the point is legitimate.

In the end, though, the words mean what they mean, and that is what has to control. So, I agree with the decision. But it is not as clear-cut as many believe, and I don’t think the fact that multiple justices saw it the other way is troubling. If you’re looking for a case that shows the Court is losing its credibility, I would keep looking.

[LVAllen]

That’s the main gist of it.

The point of the 14th was to make former slaves citizens. It is basically undisputed that nobody who wrote the clauses in question had in mind how it would be made to apply to children of undocumented immigrants, much less that this would someday be a question that mattered. Most arguments against birthright citizenship have something to do with that underlying point, and I think the point is legitimate.

In the end, though, the words mean what they mean, and that is what has to control. So, I agree with the decision. But it is not as clear-cut as many believe, and I don’t think the fact that multiple justices saw it the other way is troubling. If you’re looking for a case that shows the Court is losing its credibility, I would keep looking.

They had it in mind that it would apply to everyone, except the specific people over which the system could not exert its sovereignty. People who had been born here enslaved? Citizens. People who had been illegally imported as slaves? Citizens. Texans? Citizens. Children of former Mexicans living in Texas? Citizens. Children of poor people? Citizens. Children of rich people? Citizens. Children of diplomats, who would be said to be born "near" the US, and not within it? Noncitizens. Children of natives, who by treaty belonged to their own sovereign tribe regardless of their geographic location within the boundaries of the US, and who had not willingly subjected themselves to taxation? Noncitizens. Everyone else born here or naturalized here? Citizens.

The argument against birthright citizenship is a sham, confined until recently to the most extreme fringes, until this administration, as it has with so many other repugnant ideas, decided to take it out for a spin to satisfy its racist urges.

[dabrockster]

I haven’t read any actual opinions. That would be way too boring and useless for me. I’ve read plenty of summaries and opinions including non partisan podcasts and analysis. People are putting way too much of their own biases and politics into their own opinions of the court.

I find this statement rather amusing. Conservatives and legislatures are going ballistic on district judges stepping out of their judicial authority and being activist judges. While liberals applaud them for doing what they think is right. All the while, liberals gnash their teeth at SOCTUS for being too political and activist judges in their own views while Conservatives applaud SCOTUS.

[Moliere]

I find this statement rather amusing. Conservatives and legislatures are going ballistic on district judges stepping out of their judicial authority and being activist judges. While liberals applaud them for doing what they think is right. All the while, liberals gnash their teeth at SOCTUS for being too political and activist judges in their own views while Conservatives applaud SCOTUS.

Exactly. Liberals want to read the plain English of the text in regards to birthright citizenship but want to be activists in regards to the second amendment.

[All-American]

Exactly. Liberals want to read the plain English of the text in regards to birthright citizenship but want to be activists in regards to the second amendment.

In fairness, when they drafted the 14th they didn't think about modern immigration; when they drafted the 2nd they didn't think about modern weapons; and when they drafted the 19th they didn't think about modern women.

[Jeff Lebowski]

In fairness, when they drafted the 14th they didn't think about modern immigration; when they drafted the 2nd they didn't think about modern weapons; and when they drafted the 19th they didn't think about modern women.

Haha.