The closing line really is it; the court doesn’t seem like it’s going to buy this but if it’s anything other than 9-0 that’s going to be a massive red flag.
Lest we forget, John Roberts has spend his entire career dismantling Constitutional rights. Trump or no Trump, he will not be satisfied until the 14th Amendment is invalidated. Moreover, it was a unanimous court - in violation of Sec 3 of the 14th A - that allowed Trump to be on the ballot. Whatever the decision, I fear rights-erosion in some fashion.
Labour just doubled from five years under Theresa May's "hostile environment" to ten years the length of approved residency required for an applicant for immigration to the UK. The ten years can be reduced by hitting high income benchmarks, employment in NHS or other public service measures that establish that the applicant has "earned" the privilege of UK citizenship. This change came in response to Farage's and Reform's intent to cancel Indefinite Leave to Remain altogether. I underwent the rigours of the "hostile environment" and received my Indefinite Leave to Remain. It took ten years from the time I left the US to live in England. I have my US Passport in good order. I am here for personal, not political reasons. But when the spectre of expulsion began to haunt these sunny uplands, I hightailed applied for and received my British Citizenship to go along with my citizenship in the United States. I am fortunate, others are not. The words of Arendt and Earl Warren came to life when I read them.
For some reason Roger Griffin's definition of ultranationalism is mainly based on "nationalism that goes beyond anything compatible with liberal democracy", which has always seemed a bit circular to me. I have always thought that the idea that there are "inauthentic" members of the nation that should be at the very least stripped of citizenship rights (including voting) and preferably physically removed from the body politic of the true nation, should be a sine qua non for ultranationalism. And for sure MAGA's birtherism and open agenda to strip citizenship from "bogus citizens" is a clear-cut case of its ultranationalist core ideology. (And as for Griffin's palingenetic bit... well, the clue's in the name).
If anyone's bored, I have a longer form discussion on these and related questions: "MAGA and Fascism" here (https://shorturl.at/8i1Nv)
Very much enjoyed your essay in the link, by the way. Pulls on a lot of threads and makes a good case for the “post-intentionalist” argument, and, in particular, emphasizes the importance of considering the political stakes. Not to mention this zinger: “The apparent brainlessness of a number of the component organisms in the Trump White House’s slimy symbiote should not mitigate the possibility of an overall fascist dynamic.”
I'd like to think that the Court will dismiss trump's challenge to birthright citizenship out of hand, given how deeply rooted it is in American history and constitutional law, but the fact that it even made it before the justices is disconcerting. It's hard to imagine the chaos and dislocation that would result from a decision favorable to trump.
I agree that defining citizenship and figuring out how to remove it from disfavor individuals and groups is at the heart of the MAGA project. This desire unfortunately won't die with trump. Vance's obsession with so-called "heritage" Americans is more of the same ideology, clothed in more impressive, seemingly intellectual, language. But who decides what characteristics comprise heritage? No matter what the Supremes decide in this case, the issue will remain.
The Fourteenth Amendment replaced discretionary judgment about who “really” belongs — the kind that produced Dred Scott — with a clear territorial rule. That replacement was the point. The executive order attempts to reintroduce exactly what the amendment was designed to eliminate.
I call the entire reactionary project a turning away from civilization — rule of law, anything progressive or beneficial to the population — a return to barbarism.
So this: Being tossed out of the tribe for any sort of dissent.
Trump showing up just to give the judges his WrestleMania malocchio captures something at the core of why MAGA, to their dying breath and his, will always love this absolute fucking meathead.
Not all the Justices, and several legal observers noted just by granting a platform under the guise of *amici curiae* offered into the record by a variety of crackpot extremists jonesing for a wholesale revision of "citizenship", it makes it easier for more of these attacks on not only the Citizenship Clause of the 14th A, but upon enabling legislation built upon *jus soli* to reach Scotus prospectively.
Remember, the arguments raised by trump's EO on citizenship were directed toward both the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 and the Citizenship Clause, and the Court could very well decide only on the merits of the INA and *Wong Kim Ark* being controlling, and leave the 14th itself to future challenges.
It's the metaphorical "foot in the door" that's concerning.
The closing line really is it; the court doesn’t seem like it’s going to buy this but if it’s anything other than 9-0 that’s going to be a massive red flag.
7-2 I think
Kavanaugh might be attracted to the contrarian (i.e. willful and malicious) position. You don't need to spell out who the 2 are.
Agreed.
Could be some funky "concurrences", with a bit of "Yes, but..." thrown in for the record, which could be alarming, depending on how these are written.
Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh will vote to end the republic.
Lest we forget, John Roberts has spend his entire career dismantling Constitutional rights. Trump or no Trump, he will not be satisfied until the 14th Amendment is invalidated. Moreover, it was a unanimous court - in violation of Sec 3 of the 14th A - that allowed Trump to be on the ballot. Whatever the decision, I fear rights-erosion in some fashion.
It seems that instead of breaking the clock of the Great Society or New Deal, they're trying to break the clock of Reconstruction
This exactly.
The American reform tradition stretches back far and the reactionary seeks to repeal it all.
Public health departments and public schools also became (nearly) universal during reconstruction. Lots of parallels
Labour just doubled from five years under Theresa May's "hostile environment" to ten years the length of approved residency required for an applicant for immigration to the UK. The ten years can be reduced by hitting high income benchmarks, employment in NHS or other public service measures that establish that the applicant has "earned" the privilege of UK citizenship. This change came in response to Farage's and Reform's intent to cancel Indefinite Leave to Remain altogether. I underwent the rigours of the "hostile environment" and received my Indefinite Leave to Remain. It took ten years from the time I left the US to live in England. I have my US Passport in good order. I am here for personal, not political reasons. But when the spectre of expulsion began to haunt these sunny uplands, I hightailed applied for and received my British Citizenship to go along with my citizenship in the United States. I am fortunate, others are not. The words of Arendt and Earl Warren came to life when I read them.
For some reason Roger Griffin's definition of ultranationalism is mainly based on "nationalism that goes beyond anything compatible with liberal democracy", which has always seemed a bit circular to me. I have always thought that the idea that there are "inauthentic" members of the nation that should be at the very least stripped of citizenship rights (including voting) and preferably physically removed from the body politic of the true nation, should be a sine qua non for ultranationalism. And for sure MAGA's birtherism and open agenda to strip citizenship from "bogus citizens" is a clear-cut case of its ultranationalist core ideology. (And as for Griffin's palingenetic bit... well, the clue's in the name).
If anyone's bored, I have a longer form discussion on these and related questions: "MAGA and Fascism" here (https://shorturl.at/8i1Nv)
Very much enjoyed your essay in the link, by the way. Pulls on a lot of threads and makes a good case for the “post-intentionalist” argument, and, in particular, emphasizes the importance of considering the political stakes. Not to mention this zinger: “The apparent brainlessness of a number of the component organisms in the Trump White House’s slimy symbiote should not mitigate the possibility of an overall fascist dynamic.”
Thanks for the link.
I'd like to think that the Court will dismiss trump's challenge to birthright citizenship out of hand, given how deeply rooted it is in American history and constitutional law, but the fact that it even made it before the justices is disconcerting. It's hard to imagine the chaos and dislocation that would result from a decision favorable to trump.
I agree that defining citizenship and figuring out how to remove it from disfavor individuals and groups is at the heart of the MAGA project. This desire unfortunately won't die with trump. Vance's obsession with so-called "heritage" Americans is more of the same ideology, clothed in more impressive, seemingly intellectual, language. But who decides what characteristics comprise heritage? No matter what the Supremes decide in this case, the issue will remain.
The Fourteenth Amendment replaced discretionary judgment about who “really” belongs — the kind that produced Dred Scott — with a clear territorial rule. That replacement was the point. The executive order attempts to reintroduce exactly what the amendment was designed to eliminate.
MAGA is befouling their own national sandbox so they don’t have to share or learn to get along with others.
I call the entire reactionary project a turning away from civilization — rule of law, anything progressive or beneficial to the population — a return to barbarism.
So this: Being tossed out of the tribe for any sort of dissent.
Can it be that simple? Pretty much.
Well as we used to say when I was young ‘socialism or barbarism’.
Trump showing up just to give the judges his WrestleMania malocchio captures something at the core of why MAGA, to their dying breath and his, will always love this absolute fucking meathead.
Not all the Justices, and several legal observers noted just by granting a platform under the guise of *amici curiae* offered into the record by a variety of crackpot extremists jonesing for a wholesale revision of "citizenship", it makes it easier for more of these attacks on not only the Citizenship Clause of the 14th A, but upon enabling legislation built upon *jus soli* to reach Scotus prospectively.
Remember, the arguments raised by trump's EO on citizenship were directed toward both the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 and the Citizenship Clause, and the Court could very well decide only on the merits of the INA and *Wong Kim Ark* being controlling, and leave the 14th itself to future challenges.
It's the metaphorical "foot in the door" that's concerning.
Absolutely chilling.