Re: schedule F, from when I first heard about the concept to Inauguration Day 2025, I assumed that a second Trump term would bring cronyism and corruption in the federal government unlike anything seen in this country in over a century. You'd have to go to third world countries or the late 19th century to find points for comparison to the patronage networks, bribery, and general shittiness we'd get.
Then the term actually started and it looked more like they were just dismantling the federal government. Not co-opting it for the personal enrichment of Republicans, just getting rid of it, illegally of course, destroying the functions of it outright. This would devolve the country to more like the early 19th century. At the same time they were making ICE and other law enforcement more like a police state.
As of Friday's news, it looks more like the first thing again. Maybe their incompetence and greed got in their own way a bit? We can hope.
Re: birthright citizenship, I expect them to split the difference. Nothing anyone would call a precedent, just a hollowing out of earlier precedents.
I remember Schedule F from the end of the first administration. It was a looming threat in 2020. It made a big impression on me that they'd "solved" the major problem from T1.
Regarding birthright citizenship and the general state of US jurisprudence, I thought it was super-hopeful that SCOTUS stopped the deportations with a 7-2 vote - and that the administration seems to have obeyed.
The plain language and original intent of the Constitution, along with decades of court precedent, generally aren't barriers to SCOTUS doing whatever the fuck it wants, but the deportation ruling suggests for the first time that there is a line the court is reluctant to cross.
1.1-3 competing factions within the regime explains a lot of that kind of dysfunction.
I kinda expect we'll see some kind of ruling that ends birthright citizenship going forward for children whose mother isn't documented. But not retroactively (because the logistics are insane) and not for people here legally even if it's just a tourist visa.
The court is 2 people who are completely Fox brain-rotted and totally insane on all issues, one guy who is kinda libertarian but also partly brain-rotted, one woman who is insane but not because she watches Fox News and so isn't going to fall for dumb stuff that isn't in the Bible, and two "normal republicans" who don't watch much Fox News and instead like read the Wall Street Journal and whatever else fancy conservatives read. So anything from 2-7 to 6-3 is possible depending on the case.
I don't feel like I have a great handle on when Kavanaugh and Roberts disagree.
If you can't buy a wife by mail and have legitimate kids, lots of Republican men are going to be mad.
5: I'm not saying it couldn't be done, but it would be really creative for the court to come up with a Constitutional line that divvies up people so that the ruling isn't retroactive. The executive order itself indicates no intent to enforce retroactively, but any ruling that people aren't citizens under the 14th Amendment has to be retroactive. Neither the 14th amendment nor the caselaw includes any discussion of when a person is born. And if you concede that people born in the US in 2024 are citizens, then it seems like you're giving up the whole ballgame.
You just say it isn't retroactive because that would cause chaos, and people need to be able to trust that a passport means a passport. It's a very Roberts thing to do. They'll do the same thing when they decide states don't have to issue same-sex marriages if they don't want to (but do have to recognize old ones or ones issued in other states).
That is to say, even if the constitution did not *require* the government to give citizenship to the children of people in the country extralegally, neither did it ban giving them citizenship, and so if the government did in fact give you a passport then you were and remain a citizen.
I'm expecting them to make no ruling on birthright citizenship at all, just to punt the issue to Congress. Or maybe, because of the executive's authority in foreign policy issues, to the discretion of the Department of Homeland Security. Then Kristi Noem will say "no changes at the moment" and everyone at the New York Times will be thrilled by the cautious moderation.
I don't think they're going to overturn Wong Kim Ark. I don't think the architects of the policy expect it to be overturned. They just want another excuse to denounce the judiciary, and the concept of the rule of law.
The Ozturk decision from last week -- it's a 74 page opinion I can send to anyone who wants it -- is a good demonstration of judicial pushback, even in the immigration area, where there's a lot of Executive discretion.
I know people with green cards, including my spouse, and have friends and family who live abroad. I've been telling everyone that no one should be crossing the US border unless they have to. I have no ide how long this is going to last: the schedule F thing is designed to prevent any sort of corrective actions, and make it harder for the pendulum to swing back. (Look for all these political appointees to be given some kind of civil service status as the Trump admin draws to a close. [If it draws to a close.])
10: We'll get you a clerkship for Justice Alito yet! But even if people with passports get let off the hook, is there a way to draw that line for people who lack them, who have not been officially declared citizens except via their birth certificates?
We'll see. Certainly you can't rule out anything with these six justices.
CharleyCarp @ 12: yes, this is right: anybody with any sort of visa has just found out that they have no rights a white man is bound to respect. I read that nothing has happened to citizens (yet), but am pretty worried. Don't know how to track the danger we citizens might be in. That's worrying, too.
I was 10 miles from Saskatchewan a couple of weeks ago, a province I'd never visited, and thought about popping up for dinner. Then I thought who needs the stupid bullshit.
There was a citizen who'd had trouble coming back from Canada, and another arrested and then released in Miami.
Yeah, Dred Scott continues to be an accurate recounting of all too many people's understanding of how things ought to work. I don't see 5 votes for that!
9 is exactly what I'm anticipating for both same-sex marriage and interracial marriage, if it comes to a ruling.
I don't think they're going to overturn Wong Kim Ark. I don't think the architects of the policy expect it to be overturned.
Speaking as someone who has been following this issue closely for almost 20 years, I strongly disagree. The people who are leading this absolutely do expect it to be overturned, as a practical matter even if some shell remains. They are betting that their appetite for killing the law is stronger than SCOTUS' appetite for keeping it, and I would absolutely not bet against them.
(Whether they will get the case they want with the timing they want is another question, but again I wouldn't bet against it.)
There are a TON of ways to make birthright citizenship effectively dead even if Roberts-crafted byzantine language leaves it sort-of existing on paper. This isn't speculation or projection; this is just a straight-line prediction based on how borderline citizenship cases have ALREADY been addressed, repeatedly, under both administrations. Babies born at midwife-assisted births in Texas are just one example.