3 ms·

Effectively no legal scholars or judges of merit support that belief: https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/09/how-birthright-citizenship-made-it-back-to-the-supreme-

• bill_joy_fanboy 11mo ago
  [flagged]
  • ivraatiems 11mo ago
    I'm sure you know better than them due to your many years serving on courts of note.
  • deleted 11mo ago
    [deleted]
  • IAmBroom 11mo ago
    Alright, how about this rebuttal: That the Earth is round is also debatable. It is considered so by rational and informed people, however.
• fl7305 11mo ago
  > Effectively no legal scholars or judges of merit support that belief And how did the "legal scholars or judges of merit" interpret the 2nd amendment in 1800? The same way as today? The constitution seems to have become a lot more flexible today than people should be comfortable with.
  • IAmBroom 11mo ago
    "We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is." NY Governor Charles Evans Hughes, 1907. No English sentence is without ambiguity in its meaning. If a controversy over meaning arises on a matter as important as law, we cannot function as a nation on the basis of, "Aw, everyone knows what they meant...". Whether the courts are currently too flexible is a matter of opinion, and unless you get nominated personally to the SCOTUS, an inconsequential one.
    • fl7305 11mo ago
      > we cannot function as a nation on the basis of, "Aw, everyone knows what they meant...". I guess that's fine when it comes to the 2nd, but not as fun when your opponents tries the same for the 14th?