“The Supreme Court, however, allowed district judges to grant universal relief for class action lawsuits.”
Imagine that!
“Democracy is the most demanding of all forms of government in terms of the energy, imagination, and public spirit required of the individual." - Thurgood Marshall
A 5-4 decision affirming birthright citizenship is not a victory. It is a warning of just how corrupt and unhinged four SCOTUS justices are and how textualism is -- what it always has been -- an excuse to allow hyper-partisan, agenda-driven justices to pretend that a justice's vote is based on more than a simple expression of what that justice wants the Constitution to say. The 14th Amendment is absolutely clear about birthright citizenship. Yet, somehow, the clear meaning of the text of that Amendment escapes the comprehension of justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, who somehow managed to get through law school without being able to read and understand words written English.
The late justice Scalia explained what textualism is and its limits. Justices, Scalia explained, were bound by the actual wording of the text. What they thought the author's might have intended, might have thought, or may have expressed clumsily or unintentionally were all irrelevant. All that mattered was what the words as written meant according to their definitions at the time they were written. No justice should rule based on what they think today the authors really meant. Since we can't ask someone who died in the 19th century what he was really trying to say, all we have to rely on is the words on the page.
The votes of Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch were simply dishonest and corrupt. Kavanaugh managed to include gross stupidity in his vote. According to Kavanaugh, the wording of the 14th Amendment does not mean that anyone born within the territory of the United States is automatically a citizen with the exception of the children of diplomats and others who might not be subject to the laws of this country. Nope. Kavanaugh somehow magically ignores those words and decided that a later law passed by Congress and signed by the president trump the Amendment and bestow citizenship on those specified in the Amendment. What, one might ask Kavanaugh, was that law based on? Did it come out of thin air? Or maybe, just maybe in the greatest coincidence in world history did the legislators base that law on the 14th Amendment itself and was then a reaffirmation of the Amendment, possibly meant to reemphasize its meaning. (I can say that because I'm not a textualist, but justices can't according to the godfather of originalism and textualism, Scalia, though he may or may not have been the first to express them.)
In "Self-Reliance," Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote "A false consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." That was an argument against false consistency, not a statement that hypocrisy wasn't something to generally sss be avoided. "False" does all the work there as far as I am concerned. The six justice majority has carried hypocrisy to a point that is shocking and is more about corruption and dishonesty than it is about never changing one's mind. It has become obvious that so many of the SCOTUS' decisions are about what they want and not what the Constitution requires. I don't think that all the Trump-pleasing decisions are about the justices being afraid of Trump or wanting to make him happy. Rather, I think they simply don't believe in democracy or even rudimentary fairness. With the recent decision to let Trump go ahead with his ballroom was a signal that they want the president to be able to ignore the Constitution, law, and Congress and it doesn't matter what the Constitution says. People will say that the same license that they are giving Trump will apply to future Democratic presidents. Maybe, except that so many of their decisions are aimed at making it more difficult for Democrats to win elections. It won't matter what powers a hypothetical Democratic president will have if there aren't any Democratic presidents. If those justices allow Trump to kill or greatly hamper mail-in voting, that will be, in my opinion, the final nail in the coffin of democracy and and a firm statement to that effect that five or six justices are committed to ensuring its death.
An obscure but interesting (to me, anyway) question. Diplomats assigned to embassies have full diplomatic immunity and so are clearly not under U.S. jurisdiction. But diplomats assigned to consulates have a narrower “consular immunity” that protects them only in their professional work and certain other narrow circumstances (such as unbroken travel between home and work). Are children born to them in the U.S. citizens?
John, this is fascinating and should answer your question:
"The diplomatic exception itself is narrow and depends on the parents’ exact legal status when the child was born. It covers foreign sovereigns on official visits and accredited diplomatic officials such as ambassadors, ministers, chargés d’affaires, counselors, agents and secretaries of embassies, and attachés and other staff attached to an embassy. It also reaches people with comparable diplomatic status and immunities who are assigned to the United Nations or the Organization of American States, or who otherwise hold comparable status under international agreements. In practice, the key question is whether the parent’s accredited title appeared on the State Department’s Diplomatic List, known as the Blue List, at the time of the child’s birth. Only Blue List officers, who enjoy full diplomatic immunity, fall within the regulatory definition of “foreign diplomatic officer” for this purpose. Not all A or G nonimmigrants are on the Blue List or have full immunity. Many consular officers and staff, for example, have more limited protections and are not on the Blue List. Their U.S.-born children are generally citizens at birth because those parents are treated as subject to U.S. jurisdiction."
That seems to be the core explanation, but there is a lot more at the link below:
What I found most interesting in that explanation is the status of those who are not automatically entitled to citizenship, but have a seemingly straightforward path to legal status and eventual citizenship. That was a surprise to me and I would imagine to most Americans. I have never heard anyone in the Trump administration discuss this, but I would assume it is something Trump-Miller would want to shut down if they haven't already done so or have at least tried to do..
Thank you. That’s very illuminating and answers my question. As for the Trump people, I doubt they’re aware of any of this (and that’s good). If the matter were ever litigated, I could see it as a fairly knotty issue, as it deals with officials partly but not fully under US jurisdiction.
Hurrah!! Nice to get some big good news tonight - thanks, Adam!! 🕊️
Wonderful! Thank you Adam for breaking the news with Good News! :-)
Thank you, Adam.
“The Supreme Court, however, allowed district judges to grant universal relief for class action lawsuits.”
Imagine that!
“Democracy is the most demanding of all forms of government in terms of the energy, imagination, and public spirit required of the individual." - Thurgood Marshall
Yessss🙌🏻🙌🏻
A 5-4 decision affirming birthright citizenship is not a victory. It is a warning of just how corrupt and unhinged four SCOTUS justices are and how textualism is -- what it always has been -- an excuse to allow hyper-partisan, agenda-driven justices to pretend that a justice's vote is based on more than a simple expression of what that justice wants the Constitution to say. The 14th Amendment is absolutely clear about birthright citizenship. Yet, somehow, the clear meaning of the text of that Amendment escapes the comprehension of justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, who somehow managed to get through law school without being able to read and understand words written English.
The late justice Scalia explained what textualism is and its limits. Justices, Scalia explained, were bound by the actual wording of the text. What they thought the author's might have intended, might have thought, or may have expressed clumsily or unintentionally were all irrelevant. All that mattered was what the words as written meant according to their definitions at the time they were written. No justice should rule based on what they think today the authors really meant. Since we can't ask someone who died in the 19th century what he was really trying to say, all we have to rely on is the words on the page.
The votes of Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch were simply dishonest and corrupt. Kavanaugh managed to include gross stupidity in his vote. According to Kavanaugh, the wording of the 14th Amendment does not mean that anyone born within the territory of the United States is automatically a citizen with the exception of the children of diplomats and others who might not be subject to the laws of this country. Nope. Kavanaugh somehow magically ignores those words and decided that a later law passed by Congress and signed by the president trump the Amendment and bestow citizenship on those specified in the Amendment. What, one might ask Kavanaugh, was that law based on? Did it come out of thin air? Or maybe, just maybe in the greatest coincidence in world history did the legislators base that law on the 14th Amendment itself and was then a reaffirmation of the Amendment, possibly meant to reemphasize its meaning. (I can say that because I'm not a textualist, but justices can't according to the godfather of originalism and textualism, Scalia, though he may or may not have been the first to express them.)
In "Self-Reliance," Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote "A false consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." That was an argument against false consistency, not a statement that hypocrisy wasn't something to generally sss be avoided. "False" does all the work there as far as I am concerned. The six justice majority has carried hypocrisy to a point that is shocking and is more about corruption and dishonesty than it is about never changing one's mind. It has become obvious that so many of the SCOTUS' decisions are about what they want and not what the Constitution requires. I don't think that all the Trump-pleasing decisions are about the justices being afraid of Trump or wanting to make him happy. Rather, I think they simply don't believe in democracy or even rudimentary fairness. With the recent decision to let Trump go ahead with his ballroom was a signal that they want the president to be able to ignore the Constitution, law, and Congress and it doesn't matter what the Constitution says. People will say that the same license that they are giving Trump will apply to future Democratic presidents. Maybe, except that so many of their decisions are aimed at making it more difficult for Democrats to win elections. It won't matter what powers a hypothetical Democratic president will have if there aren't any Democratic presidents. If those justices allow Trump to kill or greatly hamper mail-in voting, that will be, in my opinion, the final nail in the coffin of democracy and and a firm statement to that effect that five or six justices are committed to ensuring its death.
An obscure but interesting (to me, anyway) question. Diplomats assigned to embassies have full diplomatic immunity and so are clearly not under U.S. jurisdiction. But diplomats assigned to consulates have a narrower “consular immunity” that protects them only in their professional work and certain other narrow circumstances (such as unbroken travel between home and work). Are children born to them in the U.S. citizens?
John, this is fascinating and should answer your question:
"The diplomatic exception itself is narrow and depends on the parents’ exact legal status when the child was born. It covers foreign sovereigns on official visits and accredited diplomatic officials such as ambassadors, ministers, chargés d’affaires, counselors, agents and secretaries of embassies, and attachés and other staff attached to an embassy. It also reaches people with comparable diplomatic status and immunities who are assigned to the United Nations or the Organization of American States, or who otherwise hold comparable status under international agreements. In practice, the key question is whether the parent’s accredited title appeared on the State Department’s Diplomatic List, known as the Blue List, at the time of the child’s birth. Only Blue List officers, who enjoy full diplomatic immunity, fall within the regulatory definition of “foreign diplomatic officer” for this purpose. Not all A or G nonimmigrants are on the Blue List or have full immunity. Many consular officers and staff, for example, have more limited protections and are not on the Blue List. Their U.S.-born children are generally citizens at birth because those parents are treated as subject to U.S. jurisdiction."
That seems to be the core explanation, but there is a lot more at the link below:
https://blog.cyrusmehta.com/2026/05/the-diplomatic-exception-to-birthright-citizenship-paths-to-permanent-residence-and-naturalization.html
What I found most interesting in that explanation is the status of those who are not automatically entitled to citizenship, but have a seemingly straightforward path to legal status and eventual citizenship. That was a surprise to me and I would imagine to most Americans. I have never heard anyone in the Trump administration discuss this, but I would assume it is something Trump-Miller would want to shut down if they haven't already done so or have at least tried to do..
Thank you. That’s very illuminating and answers my question. As for the Trump people, I doubt they’re aware of any of this (and that’s good). If the matter were ever litigated, I could see it as a fairly knotty issue, as it deals with officials partly but not fully under US jurisdiction.
ALOHA. From the COCONUT WIRELESS, island of Fire and ice ... .....................................