domain:shapesinthefog.substack.com
gattsuru
13hr ago
Given that we could end up in situations where newborns in certain states acquire citizenship and other newborns don't, I would've thought the Supreme Court would issue a decision on birthright citizenship within the present term. Is it just that there's not enough time?
They don't have a current case on it; almost everything is early in preliminary process at the district or appeals level. The oral args brought up cases in the First, Fourth, and Ninth Circuit, there's no chance of the feds winning the 9th Circuit barring pod people, and the feds committed to requesting cert if they lost (for whatever a lawyer's promise is worth, lol). Bondi's statement, charitably, would involve a fast resolution to one of those cases, an October term hearing, and decisions months after that. This timeline might not give us an answer until Spring or Summer 2026 (although I think it'd be obvious before then).
But I don't think CASA prohibits all preliminary protections. The majority opinion openly invites class certification and class-wide relief, and the extent that the feds tried to argue against class certification during oral args was kinda a joke:
KAVANAUGH: If you were to oppose it, on what basis would you plausibly oppose [classwide certification]?
GENERAL SAUER: There may be problems of commonality and typicality, for example. For -- for example, there's two different sets of groups that are affected by the Executive Order. There are those where the mothers are temporarily present and those where the mother are illegally present, and in both cases, the father is neither a citizen nor a lawful permanent resident. So there might be issues of typicality. Adequacy of representation might very well be an issue. So there would have to be that rigorous application of those criteria. Now the argument may be this is a case that is a natural candidate for a Rule 23(b)(2) certification. That may well be true. The government hasn't taken a position on that. Our position is not that class certification will necessarily be granted.
((I'm increasingly thinking SCOTUS picked such a broad case because the more grounded alternatives for preliminary relief are fairly straightforward.))
What are the chances that the Supreme Court actually strikes down birthright citizenship? My impression from the start was that this was always going to be a losing case given how far back the precedent goes, but I'm far from an expert.
It's pretty low. The legal arguments aren't as obviously wrong as at first glance, but they're still a long reach, and mixing that, the reliance interests, the seeing-as-a-state problems, everything like that... I don't want to say zero, because zero isn't a probability, but it's low low. I'd honestly consider 9-0 more likely than 6-3 or 7-2.
Hadad
13hr ago
If Trump declared elections suspended tomorrow and proclaimed himself first emperor of America, he would have more supporters than Obama trying to run for a third term, and lots of his opponents would object less.
I'm not convinced this is true. I think Obama would absolutely cinch the vote if he ran for a third term, especially given the other options Democrats have to choose from.
Agreed on the headlines, though. Obama had significantly more earnest and intense elite buy in than Trump. They loved Obama as much as they hate the orange man.
mrvanillasky
Indo Aryan Thot Leader
13hr ago
First time hearing of a woman doing this. I usually only see videos of dysgenic looking men do it. Did you file a complain?
anti_dan
13hr ago
I've been saying it for a while: it's gotten to a point where saying "having a kid out of wedlock is a bad idea" is left-coded.
Only to the extent that its a subset of "having kids is bad" which is a strong left coded meme. I think if you are to have a child the left generally would prefer it being out of wedlock.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
13hr ago
"Now, sure, every time in the last 200 years that a nation declared itself as enlightened atheists guided by pure reason they immediately proceeded with the worst atrocities yet visited upon man, but hey, what's religion got to do with anything?"
Which non-communist countries would these be? Because I think the single unifying trait you are ignoring here is communism.
You're better than this response, not least of all because your challenges were answered and you missed it in your haste to throw down the "tl;dr lol."
My response was not "tl;dr lol." You did not answer my challenges, you just keep insisting that Rome and China and the Weimar republic all fell for reasons they did not.
Avarice is self-evidently ruinous. Caprice was explained at the top:
Sure, but I could name a bunch of other ruinous traits also easily found in most countries in decline. This argument is specifically about whether it's control of women (or lack thereof) that is a unifying thread. You mentioned automation. I could mention that and a host of other economic, technological, and tribal concerns that probably figure much more prominently in any potential societal collapse than the "mistake" of letting women have sexual agency.
anti_dan
13hr ago
Condoms are not used correctly, in practice, is my understanding of their failure rate. Contra @alexander_turok's assertions in the OP, condoms are, actually, the low class birth control option. If you aren't willing to go raw with a man you shouldn't even be pondering sex with them. And condoms are easy to sabotage both intentionally (hole pokes being most common) and inadvertently (heat, cold, old age, abrasion). Also, apparently there are application problems that are common specifically regarding looseness and tightness of fit which are vague memories I have from sophomore age sex ed.
So yeah, its birth control for dumb, untrustworthy, probably intoxicated people. Of course it doesnt work well.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
13hr ago
But the prohibition on ex post facto laws is about laws. The supreme court is not very consistent about when its declared constitutional rules apply retroactively, but the answer is not "never." To the extent individuals have gotten citizenship by birth due to the fourteenth amendment (rather than an act of Congress) such citizenship would be open to retroactive removal by the court.
gattsuru
13hr ago
Trump v. CASA is very specifically about universal injunctions; none of the majority really delves into the likelihood of success in the merits, and I'm extremely skeptical that it could get more than two votes max on the merits of the underlying lawsuit.
I'm skeptical the EO will even avoid pretrial mass relief: the majority openly invites state-wide injunctions or class action lawsuits, and this would be one of the cleanest Rule 23 class actions possible. I'd be willing to bet 100 USD to a charity of your choice that there are at least three circuits where almost all children of illegal immigrants are covered by an injunction before the end of the year, and I'm only going that low because of friction effects.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
13hr ago
A child support order is going to say, throughout, "for the support of the child" and among other things will typically specify that support will end when the child turns 18, etc. If we have to black out every mention of "child" then I suppose it might be hard to figure out what the purpose of the order is.
What elements would you point to in order to refute the competing hypothesis that the primary function of the policy is actually mother support?
The fact that the support ends when the child reaches age of majority, and that the calculation of support is based on the child's needs, not the mother's. ("Mother support" is called alimony, and as I mentioned already, it's awarded rarely nowadays, usually only in a marriage of long standing where one spouse has substantially depended on the other and has no ready means of earning income once separated.)
I am guessing your grievance is that the mother (or, more rarely, father) is given $X per month in child support and nothing really prevents her or him from spending it on heroin or lotto tickets. True except inasmuch as failure to care for the child would be subject to court oversight and in extreme cases loss of custody, but if Mom puts all the child support in the same pot of money as her other sources of income (let's assume she has a job, which most often she does) - how would you prefer to make sure she does not personally benefit from the child support? Suppose you think she's spending too much money on clothes for herself. But she can always say "The child support money is what paid for the food Child ate and the Child's clothes, I bought my clothes with the other money." You could argue that without the child support she wouldn't have been able to afford to buy clothes for herself. While true, the point of child support is that children add expenses. If she weren't taking care of the child she could afford to buy clothes for herself.
I have also had this argument about a hundred times. It always boils down to a desire to be punitive and/or bail on financial obligations, almost always rooted in a sense of bitterness and injustice, not actual concern for the welfare of any children in question.
George_E_Hale
insufferable blowhard
14hr ago
Interesting. It certainly seemed to be something like this, but it was in Arabic and right there on Twitter so I assumed it had to be less tawdry somehow.
Jiro
14hr ago
Scott originally gave as an example "There isn’t enough Stalinism in this country!" There isn't enough leftism is an obvious extension.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
14hr ago
While I'm not a lawyer, I don't see how there could be any such retroactive action, considering the constitution explicitly forbids ex post facto laws. Presumably even if we do get rid of birthright citizenship, it would apply only to future cases, not past cases.
jake
14hr ago
"Now, sure, every time in the last 200 years that a nation declared itself as enlightened atheists guided by pure reason they immediately proceeded with the worst atrocities yet visited upon man, but hey, what's religion got to do with anything?"
You're better than this response, not least of all because your challenges were answered and you missed it in your haste to throw down the "tl;dr lol."
Avarice is self-evidently ruinous. Caprice was explained at the top:
When birthrates decline in an otherwise prosperous nation the cause is always the same: multiple avenues for intrasexual competition where women attain status aside from wifehood and motherhood.
Left to their own devices, the majority will choose serial fleeting satisfactions rather than the long-term happiness that comes in continuing the human race by creating more people. This is capriciousness.
I do agree my jab at the end was hyperbole, but it's because my timeframe is right. Simulacra will reach ubiquity before "Generation Supercritical" reaches the age of majority and adopts them in mass. As for you calling this doomsaying, I'm deathly serious about my concerns, I don't see the flaw and I think about this constantly. If you do, if you think you have a superior understanding, if you see how we get out of this mess of young people seeing no purpose in life, especially when automation comes for everything, I'm all ears. I want to be wrong, I would want you to be right, because then all posterity doesn't hinge on this one achievement.
Lewis2
14hr ago
Eh, I know a number of couples who ended up married because of a surprise pregnancy in the 80s and 90s, some of whom would admit that they probably wouldn’t have stayed together otherwise. Heck, it’s still not completely uncommon where I grew up. Getting pregnant and then not getting married is seen as pretty low-class. Some do it anyway, but they were usually trailer trash to begin with.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
14hr ago
But he wouldn't be the legitimate ruler in this case, because he can't be. I don't deny that there's a group of people who are so fanatical about Trump that they will follow him no matter what he does. But it's not enough to get him re-elected.
Felagund
14hr ago
I was pretty sad to see that Louisiana v. Callais was delayed. I was looking forward to that.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
14hr ago
The NIST-accepted theory is that the fire caused the floor trusses (not beams) to lose stiffness, sag, and pull the outer columns inward, which initiated the collapse. Loss of stiffness and strength due to the fire was a cause, but not the proximate cause, of the collapse -- the buckling of the columns was.
hydroacetylene
14hr ago
This depends on your definition of mainstream.
If Trump declared elections suspended tomorrow and proclaimed himself first emperor of America, he would have more supporters than Obama trying to run for a third term, and lots of his opponents would object less. But CNN would run one with the headline 'fascism is here- Jews bewarned' and the other with the headline 'respected elder statesman reenters the ring'.
cjet79
14hr ago
I think it's the same for most defenses of basic rights. Either defend the rights of scumbags or everyone loses the right.
Happens in free speech when it's Nazis that need defending. Happens in criminal law when it's pedophiles or rapists getting railroaded.
And of course the question gets asked why not just defend the right for "decent" people. But "decent people" always tends to start looking a little too much like "my political allies".
It would be nice to not have this slippery slope hanging over our heads for every basic right.
hydroacetylene
14hr ago
Lot's of people unironically treat Trump as a king/emperor. He's the American Marius and everyone knows he represents a break in the system, personalizing power into more personalistic arrangements.
Now which of his associates will turn Sulla?
child support is to support the children
I've had this argument about a hundred times, so I'm going to experiment with a new track:
What about "child support", as currently practiced in the liberal west and particularly the United States, evidences that it is about supporting children—without referencing its name in any way, shape, or form? If I gave you a sheet describing the terms, functions, and conditions of C.S. with the name at the top blacked out, what elements would lead you to suspect ah ha, the primary function of this policy is to support children! What elements would you point to in order to refute the competing hypothesis that the primary function of the policy is actually mother support?
This is an open challenge. Anyone reading should feel free to answer.
grognard
Intel Pentium III 450 / Nvidia Riva TNT2 Ultra / Corsair 128MB PC133 / ABIT BH6
14hr ago
Play it for the vibe not the challenge.
hydroacetylene
14hr ago
Among other things, it bears pointing out that there was no republican support for ACA, and no republican support was expected. The final version was a compromise between mainstream democrats and blue doggers, not between republicans and democrats.
This isn't crazy once you accept a not insignificant number of people -- an amount I perceive to be growing, not shrinking, with time -- believe the laws are already being routinely broken, including constitutional rights, with no penalty.
Sure, a third term's unconstitutional. So is the constant deprivation of my gun rights in blue states. I'm not convinced the third term rule is more important than the gun rule.
More options
Context Copy link