Advertisement
SCOTUS to Hear Case Challenging Birthright Citizenship
The US Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case on whether some children born in the US have a constitutional right to citizenship.
Menu
Front Page Breaking News Comments Flagged Comments Recently Flagged User Blogs Write a Blog Entry Create a Poll Edit Account Weekly Digest Stats Page RSS Feed Back Page
Subscriptions
Read the Retort using RSS.
RSS Feed
Author Info
REDIAL
Joined 2009/01/04Visited 2025/12/07
Status: user
MORE STORIES
Fighting Breaks Out Between Pakistan and Taliban (18 comments) ...
New US security strategy aligns with Russia's vision (5 comments) ...
SCOTUS to Hear Case Challenging Birthright Citizenship (32 comments) ...
Lewzer's Kenedy Center (1 comments) ...
New Architect for White House Ballroom (15 comments) ...
Alternate links: Google News | Twitter
The birthright citizenship case could bring back the country's dark history of inherited status.[image or embed] -- Mother Jones (@motherjones.com) Dec 6, 2025 at 8:00 PM
The birthright citizenship case could bring back the country's dark history of inherited status.[image or embed]
Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.
Records suggest I am also eligible for UK citizenship.
Not as valuable after Brexit, but any port in a storm, as sailors say.
The Titanic is sinking.
Can it founder for three more years? Until the midterms? Why not get on a lifeboat now.
#1 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-12-05 11:52 PM | Reply
This means they're ignoring the constitution again and going Trumps way. Otherwise, they wouldn't even hear this case.
#2 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2025-12-06 01:51 AM | Reply
Seriously, go read the 14th Amendment. Though, it wouldn't be the first time SCOTUS ignored it for Trumps benefit.
US is gone.
#3 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2025-12-06 01:52 AM | Reply
Question, if an illegal alien is not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" then by what jurisdiction can that person be prosecuted for crimes committed "thereof?"
#4 | Posted by et_al at 2025-12-06 02:10 AM | Reply
You've just thought about this deeper and longer than Roberts. The fix is in. I hope I'm wrong.
#5 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2025-12-06 02:16 AM | Reply
Posted by et_al at 2025-12-06 02:10 AM | Reply
If SCOTUS rules in Trump's favour. What's the chance of doing away with birthright citizenship for Trump's perceived enemies?? Ours aren't safe and secure either.
#6 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-12-06 02:39 AM | Reply
Just in time to inject uncertainty into upcoming elections and supress the vote. And for Trump to declare the results null and void.
#7 | Posted by censored at 2025-12-06 04:07 AM | Reply
GOP suppression of the naturalized citizens vote.
#8 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2025-12-06 06:11 AM | Reply
GOP suppression of the naturalized citizens vote. #8 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis
If only it ended there.
The GOP will use this to disenfranchise and discourage from voting everyone who might vote against them.
You want to vote? Prove to us that your parents were here legally, and their parents, and their parents' parents...
Disenfrachisement of all voters who oppose them was always the GOP's endgame. Just as it is with voter ID.
#9 | Posted by censored at 2025-12-06 08:46 AM | Reply
Just as it is with voter ID.
#9 | Posted by censored at 2025-12-06 08:46 AM | Reply | Flag:
Yeah, we should do away with all IDs passports, drivers licenses, State/Fed ID cards
No one should have to show an ID to vote! or travel, or drink alcohol, or drive, or buy firearms etc....
#10 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2025-12-06 06:30 PM | Reply
Yeah, we should do away with all IDs passports, drivers licenses, State/Fed ID cards No one should have to show an ID to vote! or travel, or drink alcohol, or drive, or buy firearms etc.... #10 | Posted by lfthndthrds
Which one of the above are absolute rights protected by the Constitution, deprivation of which would block you from exercising your right to change laws through your elected representative?
After Alabama Enforces Voter ID, Shuts Down DMVs In Black Communities
#11 | Posted by censored at 2025-12-06 07:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1
@#10 ... No one should have to show an ID to vote! ...
I disagree.
Here in Connecticut, as I have stated many times before, I have to show an ID in order to vote. And I have also stated that I support that policy.
The deflective rant of your current trolling alias misses the point.
It is not the need to show the IDs that is being questioned.
It is more the difficulties of obtaining those IDs being put into place for those people who do not usually vote for Republicans. It almost looks like a plan.
Why are Republicans closing down DMV offices in areas that usually vote against Republicans, making it more difficult for those people to obtain the necessary ID to vote?
Then there are things like this ...
=========
U.S. Appeals Court Strikes Down North Carolina's Voter ID Law (2016) www.npr.org
...The appeals court noted that the North Carolina Legislature "requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices" -- then, data in hand, "enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans." The changes to the voting process "target African Americans with almost surgical precision," the circuit court wrote, and "impose cures for problems that did not exist." The appeals court suggested that the motivation was fundamentally political -- a Republican legislature attempting to secure its power by blocking votes from a population likely to vote for Democrats....
The changes to the voting process "target African Americans with almost surgical precision," the circuit court wrote, and "impose cures for problems that did not exist."
The appeals court suggested that the motivation was fundamentally political -- a Republican legislature attempting to secure its power by blocking votes from a population likely to vote for Democrats....
#12 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-12-06 07:53 PM | Reply
Voting isn't a right.
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State..." based on "x".
If the law only allows people to vote that are registered furries, it would be Constitutional.
#13 | Posted by Petrous at 2025-12-06 09:46 PM | Reply | Funny: 1
Total coincidence. No one could have seen that coming.
#11 | Posted by censored at 2025-12-06 07:11 PM | Reply | Flag:
Alabama also gave them the opportunity to go into county register's office and have a photo ID made that would qualify them to vote.
#14 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2025-12-06 09:56 PM | Reply
#5 Posted by Alexandrite
There is no way to know Roberts' thoughts on this. Cert votes aren't disclosed and it only takes four to grant. Granting cert does not even remotely suggest how the Court will rule.
Also, how do you know it wasn't a liberal block that voted to grant knowing they have a majority or better merits vote? I could see that block wanting to write a definitive contemporary opinion that slaps the current crop of idiots up side the head.
#15 | Posted by et_al at 2025-12-06 11:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1
Alabama also gave them the opportunity to go into county register's office and have a photo ID made that would qualify them to vote. #14 | Posted by lfthndthrds
gave
It's cute how you call a requirement an "opportunity."
Did Alabama give them an Uber to the county registrar's office?
Did Alabama give them compensation for time off work to visit the registrar's office?
Alabama didn't give them anything other than more hoops to jump through.
Can you be honest and acknowledge that?
Probably not. Honesty has never been your strong suit.
#16 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-12-06 11:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1
Must have one parent who is here legally, according to Trump.
That would prevent people from exploiting the birthright law.
#17 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-12-07 12:23 AM | Reply
#17
Would not a more direct and effective method be denying tourist visas' to pregnant people?
Presence subjects one to the "jurisdiction thereof," if not then by what jurisdiction can that person be prosecuted for crimes committed "thereof"?
#18 | Posted by et_al at 2025-12-07 12:34 AM | Reply
Must have one parent who is here legally, according to Trump. That would prevent people from exploiting the birthright law.
Then they can break the laws of this land with impunity. Because you can't have it both ways.
#19 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-12-07 12:45 AM | Reply
#16 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2025-12-06 11:18 PM | REPLY | FLAG:
I can acknowledge that you're an emotionally disturbed, child most of the time and rely on your emotional tantrums to "prove" your arguments.
No one took anyone's voting rights away in AL. They actually made work around for people who would lose their county DMV.
#20 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2025-12-07 05:33 AM | Reply
No one took anyone's voting rights away in AL. #20 | Posted by lfthndthrds
Sure they did. You're lying. Everyone who didn't go jump through the hoops lost their right to vote.
Last year, Alabama began enforcing a controversial voter ID law that disenfranchised hundreds of otherwise eligible voters who lacked the proper documents. archive.thinkprogress.org
#21 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-12-07 09:58 AM | Reply
#20 Apparently, Left Hind Turds completely forgot about this:
Nuns with dated ID turned away at Ind. polls About 12 Indiana nuns were turned away Tuesday from a polling place by a fellow sister because they didn't have state or federal identification bearing a photograph. www.nbcnews.com
About 12 Indiana nuns were turned away Tuesday from a polling place by a fellow sister because they didn't have state or federal identification bearing a photograph.
www.nbcnews.com
They've been trying to take away Americas' right to vote for some time now.
Your insistence on the bullexcrement of "no one is taking away voting rights" sounds a lot like the insane postings of Major DEI Boazo about how there's absolutely no democracy in America.
#22 | Posted by A_Friend at 2025-12-07 10:05 AM | Reply
Birthright citizenship was for black slaves, but of course liberals have perverted it's use.
Like they do everything else.
#23 | Posted by boaz at 2025-12-07 12:21 PM | Reply
#17 | POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON
Because only the Mad King gets to exploit loopholes in the law.
#24 | Posted by donnerboy at 2025-12-07 12:27 PM | Reply
#17 | Posted by BillJohnson
According to Trump?
Trump's an idiot. And apparently so are you.
Constitutional amendments CANNOT be repealed by executive order.
Only a combined effort between Congress and state legislatures can repeal an amendment and, even then, the process is long and complicated. Repealing an amendment requires a two-thirds majority in Congress and a three-fourths majority of ratification by the states. Another waste of taxpayer money.
Good luck with your ILLEGAL ORDERS MAGA maroons.
You will be held accountable.
#25 | Posted by donnerboy at 2025-12-07 12:36 PM | Reply
Maybe they can if SCOTUS says so. They are the Gods of Olympus and all.
#26 | Posted by REDIAL at 2025-12-07 12:39 PM | Reply
Its not a repeal, its an interpretation.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof (United States), are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
The correct interpretation is that a child born in the US is only a US citizen if there is no other claim (jurisdiction).
If a child is born from a parent/family line, then the child is of family line nationality. The purpose of this caveat is to allow people from familyline nationality laws to have children here, and keep them that nationality. Its not controversial, you just need to understand english.
This would mean a child born of Mexican national parents would be a US citizen. Whereas a child born from parents in China (my daughters) would be Chinese citizen only. Today she holds both US and Chinese citizenship, this is very common here.
#27 | Posted by oneironaut at 2025-12-07 12:57 PM | Reply
#23 Only black slaves, Major DEI Boazo?
Well, the "black" part certainly leaves you out, right?
#28 | Posted by A_Friend at 2025-12-07 12:58 PM | Reply
About 12 Indiana nuns were turned away Tuesday from a polling place by a fellow sister because they didn't have state or federal identification bearing a photograph. www.nbcnews.com
I don't see the problem.
#29 | Posted by oneironaut at 2025-12-07 12:58 PM | Reply
#27 Since when were you confirmed to the SCOTUS, onepigironheadedsmoothbrainaut?
#30 | Posted by A_Friend at 2025-12-07 12:59 PM | Reply
#29 Of course you don't onepigheadedsmoothbrainaut.
#31 | Posted by A_Friend at 2025-12-07 01:00 PM | Reply
"Birthright citizenship was for black slaves"
You'd prefer if the descendants of slaves were never considered equal to whites.
We get it.
#32 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-12-07 02:41 PM | Reply
Post a comment The following HTML tags are allowed in comments: a href, b, i, p, br, ul, ol, li and blockquote. Others will be stripped out. Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed. Anyone can join this site and make comments. To post this comment, you must sign it with your Drudge Retort username. If you can't remember your username or password, use the lost password form to request it. Username: Password: Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy
The following HTML tags are allowed in comments: a href, b, i, p, br, ul, ol, li and blockquote. Others will be stripped out. Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.
Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy
