This late June flurry of cases got me wondering "who does the Supreme Court ultimately serve" - the people of the US, lawyers, themselves, academics, no one? Whoever they serve, did we really need 190+ pages of opinions on this case? "More" is not always helpful or clarifying.
Since the dissents thought the 14th amendment didn't convey birthright citizenship in certain cases, it was unclear why the President would get to define the exceptions in an EO. Wouldn't it fall to Congress to pass a law to codify the exceptions the President wanted?
Lastly, and maybe I'm reading too much into this, but it seemed a little weird that the dissenters, who seem very committed to text, are reading in a bunch of text about parents and domicile that are not in the amendment. They also read "tariffs" into the law in the tariff EO Court struck down. Since the dissenters are often striking down other laws or precedent or limiting rights that they claim are not clear enough, why are they so willing to be "text generous" in a case like this or tariffs?
Did I miss something? Even if the dissent’s reading of the 14th Amendment is correct, why is this something that can be achieved through an executive order rather than requiring congressional action?
Great episode, but I came away a little unclear on exactly why Will was so sure the Chief was right and Thomas was wrong. He seemed to acknowledge that ‘jurisdiction’ is a term that’s had lots of meanings. I, not having studied this issue in the past much but always assuming that the majority position was true, was pretty surprised to see much more historical evidence for some connection between domicile and jurisdiction than I would have expected. So why the certainty Thomas was wrong? My takeaway from Thomas/Gorsuch was how small the gap between their position and the majority is. Really, it all comes down to whether the constitution guarantees birthright citizenship to the children of temporary visitors.
I also agreed that Jackson’s dissent was a bewildering misfire. It almost had me wondering if Thomas had initially come out with a decision that came down harder against domicile for unlawful aliens, but maybe tempered it to peel Gorsuch off the majority. That doesn’t seem like a very Thomas move, but Jackson’s opinion so clearly seemed aimed at an opinion that Thomas didn’t write, I couldn’t help but wonder. The most noteworthy part of her decision, which the professors didn’t mention at all, was when she basically accused Thomas of trying to resuscitate Dred Scott. That struck me as way out of line over what seemed to me to be a relatively minor gap between the two position.
This late June flurry of cases got me wondering "who does the Supreme Court ultimately serve" - the people of the US, lawyers, themselves, academics, no one? Whoever they serve, did we really need 190+ pages of opinions on this case? "More" is not always helpful or clarifying.
Since the dissents thought the 14th amendment didn't convey birthright citizenship in certain cases, it was unclear why the President would get to define the exceptions in an EO. Wouldn't it fall to Congress to pass a law to codify the exceptions the President wanted?
Lastly, and maybe I'm reading too much into this, but it seemed a little weird that the dissenters, who seem very committed to text, are reading in a bunch of text about parents and domicile that are not in the amendment. They also read "tariffs" into the law in the tariff EO Court struck down. Since the dissenters are often striking down other laws or precedent or limiting rights that they claim are not clear enough, why are they so willing to be "text generous" in a case like this or tariffs?
Did I miss something? Even if the dissent’s reading of the 14th Amendment is correct, why is this something that can be achieved through an executive order rather than requiring congressional action?
Great episode, but I came away a little unclear on exactly why Will was so sure the Chief was right and Thomas was wrong. He seemed to acknowledge that ‘jurisdiction’ is a term that’s had lots of meanings. I, not having studied this issue in the past much but always assuming that the majority position was true, was pretty surprised to see much more historical evidence for some connection between domicile and jurisdiction than I would have expected. So why the certainty Thomas was wrong? My takeaway from Thomas/Gorsuch was how small the gap between their position and the majority is. Really, it all comes down to whether the constitution guarantees birthright citizenship to the children of temporary visitors.
I also agreed that Jackson’s dissent was a bewildering misfire. It almost had me wondering if Thomas had initially come out with a decision that came down harder against domicile for unlawful aliens, but maybe tempered it to peel Gorsuch off the majority. That doesn’t seem like a very Thomas move, but Jackson’s opinion so clearly seemed aimed at an opinion that Thomas didn’t write, I couldn’t help but wonder. The most noteworthy part of her decision, which the professors didn’t mention at all, was when she basically accused Thomas of trying to resuscitate Dred Scott. That struck me as way out of line over what seemed to me to be a relatively minor gap between the two position.
That's surprising. I found Justice Jackson's writing to be very clear and cogent, particularly in comparison to Justice Thomas's 90-page nonsense.