W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
(Ninja'ed by @turingtest.)
Quoting from the 194 pages of the decision and the various opinions:
Edited to add:
On page 24 of the majority opinion (page 28 of the PDF), written by Justice Roberts, footnote 6 takes this swipe at Kavanaugh:
5-4? That was too damn close.
Birthright citizenship was upheld by a 6-3 vote, but Justice Kavanaugh confused the issue by concurring in part while also dissenting in part.I keep seeing 6 to 3. Is Fux News spraying again?
Quoting from the 194 pages of the decision and the various opinions:
Kavanaugh upheld birthright citizenship (hence the 6-3), but wrote a dissent saying birthright citizenship was a consequence of federal law, not the Constitution, which will of course encourage attempts to overrule the decision through federal legislation.ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, BARRETT, and JACKSON, JJ., joined. JACKSON, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which SOTOMAYOR, J., joined as to the introduction and Part I. KAVANAUGH, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment and dissenting in part. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which GORSUCH, J., joined. ALITO, J., and GORSUCH, J., filed dissenting opinions.
Edited to add:
On page 24 of the majority opinion (page 28 of the PDF), written by Justice Roberts, footnote 6 takes this swipe at Kavanaugh:
That footnote appears in the context of the majority opinion's swipe at the dissent written by Alito and the dissent written by Thomas and joined by Gorsuch.6 JUSTICE KAVANAUGH proposes a similar ad hoc exception to his own interpretation of the Citizenship Clause. Under his rule, the Clause generally does not promise citizenship to children whose parents are “not U. S. citizens.” See post, at 9 (opinion concurring in judgment and dissenting in part). Yet it must grant citizenship under the “facts and circumstances” presented in Wong Kim Ark—even though Wong’s parents were not U. S. citizens. Post, at 5, n. 3. Like the exception proposed by JUSTICE ALITO, JUSTICE KAVANAUGH’s exception is at war with his supposedly “unifying” principle of the Clause. Post, at 9.
Last edited:


