Birthright Citizenship: Three Liberal Justices Stuck Together And Won While Conservatives Splintered
5-Justice majority on core constitutional ruling included three liberals: “And as much as we kind of expected this would be the result, to see it come out with that configuration is, I think, very demoralizing and disheartening”
The Supreme Court’s Birthright Citizenship ruling today was a full-throated constitutional endorsement that the children of mothers here illegally or temporarily are “citizens at birth.”
No doubts there.
It was conventional wisdom that birthright citizenship would be upheld, but what was so shocking is that it was done on the backs of the three liberal members of the court who stuck together while the so-called conservatives splintered in numerous directions. So on the core constitutional endorsement, it was 5-4 with the majority being the three liberals (Sotomayor, Kagan, KBJ) plus CJ Roberts and Barrett. (Kavanaugh would have found the Trump EO invalid because it conflicted with an immigration statute, but he rejected the constitutional holding.)
Think about it. The three liberals prevailed on ideological core of the single biggest case of this term, one that defines who were are as a nation and whether we have sovereignty or are at the mercy of people who sneak across the border, overstay visas, or are here as birthright tourists.
“Disheartening” and “demoralizing” is how I described it in an appearance on the Tony Katz live stream today, but perhaps “infuriating” would be a better term.
The core constitutional decision was that children born here to illegal parents, who are here illegally or temporarily, are citizens at birth under the 14th Amendment. That’s the core. And there were five votes for that reading. And only two of those five votes on that court, the sweeping constitutional ruling, were so-called conservatives, Coney Barrett, and the Chief who wrote the opinion joined by the liberal block.
And I thought that that was very interesting, that such a sweeping decision on the Constitution in a supposedly conservative Supreme Court, that most of those were the liberal justices.
Now, Kavanaugh would have overruled the executive order on a completely different ground. He said he did not agree with the constitutional ruling, but he felt that the executive order violated one of the immigration statutes.
The core constitutional ruling as to what the 14th Amendment means was a five to four decision. And it was the three liberals and the two so-called conservatives, which I think is extremely disheartening. And as much as we kind of expected this would be the result, to see it come out with that configuration is, I think, very demoralizing and disheartening….
And so, you know, at one level it’s disheartening. They weren’t bold enough to step out of that.
At another level, it hasn’t changed anything. We’re basically where we were yesterday, which is if you can sneak across the border or overstay your visa or get on a tourist flight here when you’re eight months pregnant, … if you can somehow get here, you are going give birth to an American citizen. That’s what it was yesterday. That’s what it is today.
But it’s disheartening, particularly in the light of the absolute invasion of our country that took place under the Biden administration….
And now it’s almost like a feeling of a loss of sovereignty that we were hoping to regain some of our sovereignty by enforcing the 14th Amendment as we think it reasonably should be interpreted. And we failed at regaining some of our sovereignty. And that’s what I think, when I say disheartening, I think that’s what’s so disheartening, is we had a chance to start to correct the direction of the ship….
VIDEO
*
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Pregnancy tests , given by women at the airport before entry
End of story
Any woman that’s here on a visas also.
Don’t admit women at all. In fact, just have the State Department stop issuing visas altogether.. Why was it not illegal for Biden to allow 30 million people to cross the border illegally but Trump’s EO on birthright citizenship is?
Nowhere near enough.
Literally anyone coming here legally or illegally can just stay long enough to have a baby, the baby is automatically a citizen and then the parents can stay forever also. With chain migration, the rest of the clan eventually comes also.
You would literally have to block all women, even infant girls, from ever coming here on any VISA.
Oh, and then a D gets elected POTUS and literally everything you’ve tried to do gets swept aside on inauguration day.
Just remove the parents. If they want to take their citizen offspring with them that’s their choice. Don’t allow citizens to sponsor parents.
Just stop all entry into the US for now. Require woman and tranny woman since we can’t discriminate and give them a pregnancy test if we’re going to allow people on vacation and visas into the country.
Force those who love this ruling or even made the ruling to look at the consequences of this.
If a woman is here and she’s about to drop a kid revoke her visas and send her home.
Just write executive order after executive order slowing down anyone coming to the country.
I honestly can’t quite bring myself to read this garbage ruling, as noted above I’m disheartened enough for now. But if Congress can enforce the 14th amendment (and they can because that i did read), then why can’t they define all those who enter the country without a visa as not subject to the political jurisdiction of the US? The children of ambassadors, I assume, are still not citizens. If we can do it in that case, why not others. Whether by statute or treaty, a new status should be defined for other aliens. Of course, we need to elect a Congress that actually cares about US sovereignty. Easier said than done.
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
Reading this in light of the instant decision, it seems that there can’t be an exemption to citizenship even for the children born here to foreign diplomats. The decision finds no distinction in the amendment between those here legally and illegally*, and finds no exemption due to a child’s split allegiance (due to bi-nationality, having inherited citizenship in the US by birth here and to a foreign nation by birth to foreign nationals). Given the court’s reading of the text, how can the children of foreign diplomats be excluded from birthright citizenship either by statute (which would be unconstitutional) or by tradition (overturned by a new paradigm written into the Constitution)?
*I have not read the decision, only read about it. If it does make a distinction, it concocts one that is not evidenced in what is otherwise the court’s understanding of the text (which applies generally and has no exceptions). It makes no logical sense to draw a distinction (not expressed in the text), that excludes children born to certain foreign nationals here legally, but includes (that is, rewards with a boon) the children of those here illegally.
What are you talking about? Diplomats are not subject to US jurisdiction. They can’t be arrested, they can’t be sued, they can’t be compelled to testify, and they don’t have to pay any taxes.
“Indians not taxed”, when those existed, were the same. They were citizens of foreign nations that existed within the US borders, and were thus outside US jurisdiction. They paid no taxes, couldn’t be sued or prosecuted, or made to testify. They could choose to leave their tribes and join the USA, and any children born to them after that were birthright US citizens. If the parents wanted to be citizens they’d need to be naturalized, because they weren’t born under US jurisdiction.
There was a case a few years ago, about a woman who was born in the USA to a former foreign diplomat. At the time of her birth her father’s government had fired him, but the state department had not yet got around to removing him and the family from the immunity list. The court found that the only thing that matters is whether the family had immunity at the moment of birth, and since it did she was not born a citizen. So it’s all about the immunity.
Because it’s a question of fact, not of what you call things. The only way to “define” them as not subject to US jurisdiction would be to make them actually not subject, i.e. to give them immunity just like diplomats have, and like Tribal Indians used to have. And you don’t want to do that!
Yes, because they have immunity from US law.
Most decidedly no, Milhouse, it is NOT a question of fact, it is a question of law. Just as laws, statutes/treaties, define the status of diplomats, they can define the status of foreigners traveling from those countries on visas. And indians, incidentally, were NEVER immune from criminal prosecution. In facit , Congress expanded criminal jurisdiction soon after the 14th was enacted. No one every believed that made their offspring citizens. That happened in about 1924(or maybe 1922) with the Indian citizenship act. All this suggests 2 things: one, the S.Ct., like the 19th century version that gave us Dred Scott, is still full of it. And 2, congress can redefine alien status in the context of the 14th amendment.
Whether someone is subject to US jurisdiction is a matter of fact. Either they are or they are not. Congress can’t say someone is not under US jurisdiction and then continue to exercise that jurisdiction over them!
And yes, Indians were, at the time the 14A was ratified, immune from prosecution. As you note, Congress began to change that soon afterwards, very controversially at the time, and that gradually did start to make their children citizens. 1924 was when Congress abolished the category of Indians not subject to US jurisdiction altogether, and said all Indians must pay taxes, obey the law, and can be sued and prosecuted in court, and therefore that automatically made their children born after that citizens; Congress also extended that to the parents as well.
Milhouse, I’m afraid you are a little confused. The status of diplomatic immunity, as well as the conditions under which someone is issued a visa, depend on laws, treaties and statutes. It is established by LAW. It is only a question of fact regarding whether that status exists in a particular circumstance. But the creation of the status itself is an entirely legal matter that Congress can absolutely address.
And you are also wrong on the question of Indians. Before the 14th Amendment, they were generally subject to prosecution for crimes committed outside reservations in federal court. And in 1885, the major crimes act subjected them to prosecution in federal court for crimes committed on a reservation. There is no principled way to reconcile the expansive views of “subject to the jurisdiction” with the status of Indians as understood before and immediately after the enactment of the 14th amendment. The S.CT. is just wrong, as they have been on so many other occasions. And, like those other times, their error will do great harm to this country.
Congress can change the legal definition without granting them immunity. They have that power.
No, they do not have that power. Either someone is subject to US jurisdiction, or they are not. Congress can’t say they’re not and then continue to exercise it!
And who do you think defines “jurisdiction” in this context? Let me help you out. That would be Congress.
Official transcript from the US Senate on May 30, 1866. Senator Jacob Howard, who introduced the 14th Amendment:
“This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens…”
SCOTUS got this ruling 100% wrong. A total travesty.
Idiots in robes.
All if the above comments are true., Historically, the USA has been the most welcoming nation on the planet. You come here legally, play by US rules, study our system, apply for citizenship and get it, you are thrilled.
Now, not only can anyone who gets inside our borders, anywhere at anytime legal or illegal can have a baby born here who is a citizen.
Now take this a step further – not only will those babies grow up and bring over more relatives, they can return to their home country but because they are US citizens they still can vote in US elections as long as they fit a residency requirement of a given state.
The USA now lets the entire planet run our elections. I’m sick to my stomach over this. I have a bit of immigrant experience but giving away our sovereignty, our voting – it becomes a “so what” if you count mail in ballots by anyone at anytime.
Congrats, SCOTUS, you have tanked the USA. Unbelievable you’d be so stupid or so cheap to be bought.
They can apply to bring over relatives. There’s no guarantee the application will be approved.
How about the stats on the number of cases that are approved?
No idea, but that changes. The government can decide to be stricter or more lenient as it chooses. So the parents have no guarantee that when these children grow up and apply to bring them to the USA the government will be amenable to such applications.
Conservatives worked their fingers to the bone for decades – so that Republican judges can side with the Communists as often as not.
It doesn’t seem to matter how many promises we hear from conservative judges, once they’re in office it’s a complete crapshoot whether or not they’ll stay conservative. Liberal judges, though? They stick to their beliefs and virtually never deviate.
This country is cooked. Self-destructed. Benjamin Franklin would be appalled and tell us he warned us but we didn’t listen.
.. . and the people he warned were white males only. Had he known how low US standards in that limited suffrage would fall, he would not have replied in the subjunctive.
It would be appropriate to hold The Funeral for America in the very near future.
Cause of death: The Supreme Court.
4 women + Roberts. So much for the so called patriarchy. How does that 19th amendment look now?
As stupid as it did when Slick Willie was first elected.
JFK. Nixon was no prize but JFK won because of women and TV. First actual showing of American Idol.
In evidentiary law, the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine holds that any evidence that was obtained as a result of unconstitutional police conduct and/or violations of the defendant’s constitutional rights, is inadmissible in the prosecution of a criminal defendant.
Along the same logical lines, why the hell should the fruit of an illegal alien’s womb or a bad faith visitor to the U.S.’s womb, be deemed an American citizen? Why should illegal and bad faith conduct with regard to our immigration laws and borders, be rewarded?
The exclusionary rule is not a constitutional provision. It’s a protection invented by the courts, for very good reasons, but that’s all it is. Admission of such evidence is not unconstitutional, the courts simply have decided on policy grounds not to admit it.
Obviously the courts have the power to do that. It doesn’t violate anyone’s rights, nothing in the constitution requires such evidence to be admitted, so the courts can rule it out. But neither the courts nor Congress have the power to invent such a rule to refuse citizenship to someone the constitution says is a citizen. That would violate that person’s rights.
I didn’t say that this evidentiary rule was a constitutional provision, non-law professor Milhouse — whether it’s a creature of caselaw or statute is irrelevant; I’m stating that there is legal precedent for the common-sense moral and ethical principle that people shouldn’t benefit from wrongful conduct; that’s axiomatic.
It’s obvious that you can’t override the constitution with a prophylactic rule that didn’t exist until SCOTUS invented it in 1920 for federal courts only, and that it didn’t even apply to state courts until about 1960. Your thesis could only ever make sense if the rule were regarded as inherent in the constitution itself, but it isn’t. The courts have never pretended that it is; throughout the last century they’ve openly acknowledged that it’s a prophylactic rule they made up for the internal purposes of the judicial branch. So how could it override someone’s constitutional rights?
If your thesis were correct then (a) it wouldn’t have been necessary for states to pass “Son of Sam” laws, since they would be inherent in the constitution already, and (b) they wouldn’t have been struck down as unconstitutional. I don’t know if you’re aware that the original one, in NY, which was passed in 1977, was struck down in 1991. Not only can a criminal benefit from his crime, he has a right to do so and no state can prevent him.
Besides which, even if the rule were treated as a constitutional provision that was inherent in the text and therefore was always in force, a sort of “clean hands” doctrine, it wouldn’t apply here because the child has done nothing wrong. “Clean hands” means a person can’t be allowed to benefit from his own wrongdoing; it has never been taken to mean that he can’t be allowed benefit from someone else’s wrongdoing. A criminal’s child has clean hands and can benefit from his parent’s crime. So even then the child would be a citizen.
While that child is a citizen the parents are not and there’s probably plenty we could do to punish them for having the child here, especially if we can prove that they deliberately had the child here to use as an anchor baby.
Wherever that fetus is from, that’s the citizenship they are gifted
Birthright US citizenship is not a gift, it’s a constitutional right.
Depends on who’s reading the Constitution, though…
Yes, it depends whether they’re reading it honestly or dishonestly.
By opening United States citizenship to every one of our enemies (Chinese birth tourism, anyone?) the Supreme Court has effectively sounded the death knell of America. Plan accordingly.
Plan accordingly.
The Elders did.
US Constitution; Second Amendment.
Headline should be: “Five Liberal Justices Stuck Together”
It’s a little weird to claim that Roberts is a conservative. Conservatives believe in the Constitution. Roberts flips back and forth too much to be considered anything but a hack.
Well in this case he upheld the constitution. The three who have justly earned a reputation as serious originalists have in this case twisted it to suit their policy preferences. It’s disappointing.
They upheld the traditional interpretation of the language of the 14th amendment, which differs wildly from the original authors’ intent. Granted, they should have worded it more clearly, but illegal immigration on the grand scale of the last 50 years or so was something that the authors, who were writing specifically to address freed slaves, could never have imagined.
The 14th amendment was not interpreted to mean birthright citizenship until United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). Incidentally, the same court also decided Plessy v. Ferguson which is one of the most racist decisions ever handed down by the court. Not what today’s communists in the Democrat party would call “racist” but truly racist, separate but equal. Clearly that court got just as many things terribly wrong as the current court.
The draftsmen’s intent is irrelevant. Laws must be interpreted according to the public meaning of their published text, not according to this or that person’s secret thoughts. And the draftsmen’s or sponsors’ thoughts are in any case irrelevant, since they are not the ones who make it law; that is the legislators who vote for it or ratify it.
But in this case we know how one of the principal “authors” understood it. Jacob Howard, introducing the bill to the senate, explicitly said it would exclude only “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”
Note well that many opponents of birthright citizenship dishonestly and deliberately misquote Howard, by inserting a spurious “or” before the words “who belong”, as if he were making two exceptions rather than one. But the quote is clear; there is no “or”, so he was making only one exception and stated that there were no others.
Later in the debate others pointed out that tribal Indians must also be excepted and he accepted that. The Wong Kim Ark court identified a third exception that was never mentioned in the senate debate, or as far as I know in any of the ratification debates: children born on US soil to members of an invading army. That seems never even to have occurred to anyone, on either side of the debates, and yet the court said that since invading soldiers are not subject to US jurisdiction it was obvious that their children would not be US citizens.
LIkewise Little Pony Barrett. She has been a wolf in sheep’s clothing from the very beginning;
remember the hearings? A bleeding heart liberal wearing pearls.
I still can’t get over him defining Obamacare as a “tax”.
Have you ever tried to hold on to an old appliance? You keep pouring money into it to fix it, it works for a while, and then breaks again. Finally, you just throw it out and get a new one.
That’s our entire system.
“Chinese birth tourism” was mentioned. Your humble servant is Chinese in part of his ancestry. Something from America’s past that bears on this. From the 1850’s until 1943 when we were finally recognized as human beings under American statutory law; entrance of Chinese females to this country was banned for fear that any children born would be citizens and people. There is precedent. But there is nobody in our Nomenklatura who is serious about either solving this problem or indeed preserving the country.
TINVOWOOT
Subotai Bahadur
Should have waited until we got another SCOTUS nomination, or preferably two, before pushing this issue.
Now we’ve got an adverse opinion, which is far worse than no opinion at all, and virtually zero chance of doing anything about it any time soon.
This will require either a Constitutional Amendment or a SCOTUS opinion reversing it, and there’s precious little chance of the first happening and the second can’t possibly happen until there are a few different people on the bench – and a strategy to get another case.
It took 91 years to reverse Humphreys Executor. It took 49 years to reverse Roe. The Obamacare decision is plaguing us still (another Roberts abomination).
But, this one? It fundamentally changes our country. It grants citizenship to millions of people with zero allegiance to our country and, for the most part, zero intention to ever assimilate.
If this isn’t reversed soon, the United States as we know it will cease to exist. How long until we are like the UK is now? How many cities will become like Dearborn in the meantime?
Absolute worst SCOTUS decision in our nation’s history.
Humphrey’s Executor wasn’t reversed; the facts simply changed. The FTC is no longer what it was in the 1930s. Had it been exercising executive power in the 1930s FDR would never have lost the case in the first place.
How can this decision “fundamentally change our country”, when all it did was uphold what has already been taken as the law for our entire history? On the contrary, striking down birthright citizenship would have fundamentally changed our country.
The Supreme Court just explicitly stated that Humphrey’s Executor decision was entirely reversed. Here is the exact quote, retard:
“If anything more is left of Humphrey’s, the Court overrules it” – From John Roberts Majority Opinion.
And you are flat out lying about Birthright Citizenship also – as both Thomas and Alito in their separate dissents document, children of temporarily visiting legally present foreign nationals were excluded from US citizenship for most of our history, beginning with the passage of the 14th Amendment. And Elk v Wilkins expressly forbid it also. And the Wong Kim Ark case only allowed birthright citizenship for children born of legally present “domiciled” permanent residents.
Either you didn’t read any of the opinions in this case, or you are a LIAR.
Probably both.
“If this isn’t reversed soon, the United States as we know it will cease to exist.”
The “united” part is already terribly eroded.
Saw an interesting take on that on a different site: had they denied birthright citizenship, it would have sucked all the air out of the room with D’s screeching and motivating their constituents to get to the polls; since the ruling upheld BC, conservatives need to get fired up and head to the polls en masse. Media coverage had the justices denied would have distracted from the other big issue of the day: socialist democrats, communists, winning primaries. Finally, so-called conservative judges are not conservative when it’s inconvenient. Now we know. They stabbed America in the back.
They made Birther Tourism legal.
There is no chance disallowing pregnant women to do that. Good luck trying.
Not many countries do this, the Marxists have to be as happy as can be. The invasion continues.
Sadly, it was already legal. All the court did was say that Trump couldn’t stop it via executive order. It will take a constitutional amendment to clean up the language of the 14th.
Who says there’s no chance? It won’t be foolproof, but it can be done enough to put a stop to any such industry that may or may not exist.
I recently read that the CCP has been running a variant where they send women to Saipan to give birth. That can be shut down easily by Congress, simply by legislating that children born on Saipan don’t get citizenship unless one (or both) of their parents is a US citizen. The actual Saipanese shouldn’t object, since they’re all US citizens already, and have no interest in giving citizenship to CCP tourists. And since Saipan is not incorporated into the USA, birthright citizenship there is merely a grant by Congress, which it can change.
Having had a chance to read through Thomas’ and Alito’s dissents, it just blows my mind that they weren’t able to get either Roberts or ACB to join them.
They lay out the history of the 14th with clarity and explain perfectly the fact that the issue was entirely about the political ALLEGIANCE of the parents – either to the US or to some other foreign power – as the determining factor of citizenship.
Both dissents also get the history correct on what the Senators who wrote, debated, voted on, and understood the meaning of the citizenship clause to mean. Which is the precise opposite of what the majority is claiming.
Its always amazed me that people could exist that cannot understand that this is the entire point of “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.
And they make absolute fools of the majority’s nonsense with their reliance on English Common law from the feudal period. Which not only doesn’t apply, but they get it dead wrong as well. Likewise with the nonsense trying to right some supposed lingering historical debt from the Dred Scott decision.
The majority’s opinion here is just absolute garbage.
As dejected as I am that the majority got this wrong, and the effects that this will have on our country, I’m now convinced that there is a light at the end of the tunnel on this. The majority’s reasoning is so absurd and so contrary to the original meaning of this clause that it ought to be very easy to overturn at the first opportunity once any of these five are replaced with literally anyone with a functioning brain.
There’s just no way any honest person, who is not prejudiced in favor of replacing our population for the purpose of giving the Democrats a permanent majority, can read all three of Roberts, Alito, and Thomas’ Opinions on this case and conclude that Roberts got it right.
If Scalia were still with us, he’d have absolutely ridiculed Roberts on so many points here – and would have stated, again, “If I had ever written that, I would hide my head in a bag.”.
History documents just as much trouble to understand the simple phrasing of the 2nd amendment as well. “Shall not be infringed” is pretty clear, or should be. Likewise, “make no law” in the 1st has been interpreted to mean we can make as many laws as we want aimed at the Jeffersonian nearly throw away phrase about “separation…”
Whenever there is a crucial decision that would shore up elections or prevent immanent threats to the US, Roberts (good friend of Norm Eisen) and Barrett are reliably absent. You know that they are either corrupt or compromised.
They’re both liberals pretending to be conservatives.
This is two problems disguised as one. First, birth tourism in various forms where the parent(s) have visas. I see no problem making a requirement of a visa include ‘by signing, the applicant declares they are not considered ‘under the jurisdiction of the US for purposes of the 14th amendment’ before the visa can be granted. No signature, no entry. Signed, and there is no right for the born child to have US citizenship. They maintain the citizenship of the parent.
Illegal aliens are more difficult, and it splits up two ways there too. For aliens inside the country appealing their deportation and such, same thing. Condition of your appeal is a signature. No signature, you get a plane ticket leaving today. Illegal aliens not under detention, deport as they are found.
Signing anything is meaningless. Unless you’re willing to actually grant people immunity from US law, which you are definitely not willing to do, making them sign something saying they’re immune will achieve nothing.
And in any case no signature by a parent can affect the child’s inherent constitutional right to citizenship.
SCOTUS has rendered bona fide US citizenship meaningless. End of story.
I’m amazed the Court could place the language of Title IX in its proper historical context, but completely failed to do so with the 14th Amendment which had an even more archaic historical context.
It seems like a intellectual slothfulness on the part of the Court.
Laws, and especially constitutional amendments, mean what they say. Historical context is only useful for understanding terms that may have changed in meaning in the interim, or for understanding why a law is worded the way it is. It doesn’t change the actual meaning. What the legislators or ratifiers intended is irrelevant; the only thing that matters is what they did, as it would have been understood at the time.
Well, since we do have the Congressional Record while 14th amendment was being debated, we know exactly what those words mean. And they don’t mean what those idiots on Supreme Court said.
While expected, this ruling goes against all common sense and logic. China will send every pregnant Chinese woman over here to give birth and will eventually take over the country LEGALLY. No need for war! Every turd world preggo will drop and pop out more anchor babies. Congress will do nothing.
I am glad I am old and saw the best this country had to offer. This country is fucked beyond repair. It’s over. I will watch CITIZEN VIGILANTE this afternoon and hope that solution comes to pass.
I just saw this tweet about leftist “hysteria over the idea of reining in the permanent unelected bureaucracy”. It seems to me that having gloated about this earlier in the day, we’re now seeing the exact same hysteria on the right about the idea that the 14th amendment means what it says, and what it’s always been assumed to mean.
And all the rinos and repubs rushed to the tv cameras to say they’re putting up a bill to end birthright citizenship.
The morons can’t even pass a bill ending daylight savings time or the SAVE America act and they want me to believe they’re going to do something once the shining light moves on?
If they want to make American citizenship so cheap and meaningless, why don’t they just sell it on TEMU
Best comment of the day.
I expected those 3 female liberal Judges to be ok with birthright, but to have the conservatives go along with it is a tremendous disappointment. I am starting to think that we have MORE than 3 Liberal Judges on the Supreme Court, with many of the decisions that I have seen of late. Very disappointing!
ACB was recommended to President Trump by Mitch McConnell.
Roberts has history of doing mental gymnastics to side with leftist agenda. It started with obamacare, and has been one long slow train wreck since then.