Jump to content
View in the app

A better way to browse. Learn more.

Surly Horns

A full-screen app on your home screen with push notifications, badges and more.

To install this app on iOS and iPadOS
  1. Tap the Share icon in Safari
  2. Scroll the menu and tap Add to Home Screen.
  3. Tap Add in the top-right corner.
To install this app on Android
  1. Tap the 3-dot menu (⋮) in the top-right corner of the browser.
  2. Tap Add to Home screen or Install app.
  3. Confirm by tapping Install.
Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business & Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Advertise... Tailgate Donations

Featured Replies

  • Replies 12.9k
  • Views 815.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Most Popular Posts

  • Brisketexan
    Brisketexan

    Some people and posts above see this for the incredibly dangerous thing it is.  See the whole forest, not just the tree.  Roe is built on the bedrock of the 14th amendment and the inherent right to pr

  • Ghost of LL
    Ghost of LL

    The whole episode is pretty bad for the Court.  The leak is embarrassing.  But the decision is catastrophic. You've got a 5-4 decision to get rid of a something that has been settled as a constit

  • in one of the many instances in which i debunked your oversimplified, unsupported bullshit and you simply never responded, i addressed your absolutist contention that religious are more charitable tha

Posted Images

6 minutes ago, Captainant said:

 

It would appear that Nicholas Grossman's tweets were pretty prescient ... 

saturday-night-live-no-way.gif

Edited by Gap03

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Summary of SCOTUS take:
1) humans have rights under the Constitution.
2) this guy’s rights were violated.
3) but there is no remedy for that, the Regime can violate anyone’s rights with zero repercussions, answering to no one.
So you can frame the “people have rights” part of that decision and put it on the wall, it’s a pretty decoration and that’s it. What matters is the remedy - can you get one? No? Then nothing fucking matters.

Yep. Nothing matters.

Quote

The Supreme Court held that the government must “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and return to the United States. But at the same time, the Supreme Court said that the government cannot be ordered to “effectuate” Abrego Garcia’s return, out of respect for some hazy presidential powers over foreign affairs. So the court drew this blurry line where, I guess, the government can’t be forced to send him back, but it can be forced to try. That raises the question, though: What happens if the government claims it tried and failed? Can the district court not do anything more at all?

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2025/04/supreme-court-anlysis-trump-gulag-justices-chumps.html

1 hour ago, Satchel said:

Facilitate and effectuate  in context mean all deliberate speed, which means nothing 

Nothing but feculence from SCOTUS lately...

The court is taking up birthright citizenship. This should be a 9-0 decision telling Trump to sit down and shut the fuck up, but with Alito and Uncle Ruckus....

Fuck this timeline.

  • Author

Roberts is going to end this country. thomas and alito are all in on this one 

 

Shut It Down 30 Rock GIF

There are only two seasons for the court to take this case. One of them is really bad. 

Buuuut.... it's in the Constitution. What will they take on next, that whole "free speech" thing? 

2 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Buuuut.... it's in the Constitution. What will they take on next, that whole "free speech" thing? 

This is a crew who can and will manage to find things that are in the Constitution itself to be "unconstitutional."  Because you see, the test for constitutional vs. unconstitutional is "whatever our divinely appointed sovereign, his royal highness King Trump, long may he reign, wants."

1 hour ago, Red Five said:

Buuuut.... it's in the Constitution. What will they take on next, that whole "free speech" thing? 

“The first amendment limits the power of congress to regulate speech but, consistent with history and tradition in common law, establishes no such limitation on the power of the President, in his capacity as head of government, to prohibit speech that puts national security or defames or otherwise does insult to the sovereign, in the person of the president.” 
- Justice Gorsuch, probably 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova

1 minute ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

“The first amendment limits the power of congress to regulate speech but, consistent with history and tradition in common law, establishes no such limitation on the power of the president to prohibit speech that puts national security or defames or otherwise does insult to sovereign, in the person of the president.” 
- Justice Gorsuch, probably 

Surly: where the ironic hyperbole actually turns out to be dead-on, balls-accurate.

  • Author
1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

There are only two seasons for the court to take this case. One of them is really bad. 

 

they have the votes 

33 minutes ago, Fastbreak said:

wtf does that even mean?

It means that Alito and Ruckus have signaled to Trump's folks that they are willing to rely on some sketchy interpretation of history to read in an unwritten qualification to the 14th Amendment.  While the 14th Amendment seems pretty clear on its face, I look forward to reading a 75-page SCOTUS opinion explaining that, "Hey, because the 14th Amendment was adopted in 1866, it's clear that it was really only intended to allow former slaves born in the U.S. to be treated as citizens and nobody else, especially not those brown and yellow folks ... but maybe we're okay with the Eastern European people ...

Quote

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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

Apparently, Trump, and maybe others, think that those people who wrote and voted for the 14th amendment never, I mean never, thought it might be used outside the scope of former slaves. I guess they were all pretty dumb.

Loving may be next. Yes, I realize that affects Thomas, Donalds, The Couch Botherer. They’ll be exempt somehow.

Edited by TheStoicPaisano

So if place of birth no longer determines US citizenship, what is the test or process for children born on US soil to attain citizenship after 14A is interpreted in that manner?

On another note, I look forward to Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito being deported in the near future.  Because, you know . . .

Man I just don't see how you parse this language, but this timeline....

 

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

well, we also thought they wouldn't undo prior precedent, but here we are

Edited by Longhorn_Fan68

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

So if place of birth no longer determines US citizenship, what is the test or process for children born on US soil to attain citizenship after 14A is interpreted in that manner?

On another note, I look forward to Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito being deported in the near future.  Because, you know . . .

 

i2ilm1S.jpeg

Edited by Bookman

On 4/18/2025 at 7:58 AM, TheStoicPaisano said:

Loving may be next. Yes, I realize that affects Thomas, Donalds, The Couch Botherer. They’ll be exempt somehow.

You are going to have to pry my redheaded vixen from my cold, dead, swarthy hands.

4 hours ago, Surly Bevo said:

Man I just don't see how you parse this language, but this timeline....

 

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

They hold that "browns" aren't people? Or that immigrants aren't subject to the jurisdiction thereof and free to crime as they desire?

The founders barely gave any thought to citizenship or naturalization.

The "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," almost certainly referred exclusively to Native Americans, because even way back then, it was generally recognized that although they lived in the territory of the United States, they remained their own sovereign nation, sort of without territory, some with reservations of various types and flavors and some without.  So even though they may have been born in the territory of the United States, in some abstract way, it was as if they were born in another country, within our country.  And to attain US citizenship, had to undergo naturalization.

This wasn't wholly an act of disrespect, either.  Many Natives didn't want to be regarded as citizens of the US without some overt action on their part.

The sovereignty of Native Americans on reservations, and reservations themselves, have become gradually more and less formalized, but even today, we recognize that Indian tribes may have many of their own laws and jurisdiction to enforce them.  But we also passed the Indian Citizenship Act in 1924 that undid that aspect of the 14th Amendment.  And, in keeping with the foregoing, some tribes were opposed to it.

Trumpco is trying to extend that notion, that Native Americans were only partially subject to the jurisdiction of the US and therefore not citizens by birth, to citizens of any nation.  It kind of fits in an abstract way, but I don't think was at all what the drafters of the 14th Amendment intended.

Also, there is a "common understanding" of birthright citizenship under the 14th, but only a handful of legal decisions explicating it.  And as was the usual case with century-old decisions and statutes, a bit of ambiguity.

 

Edited by TwiceHorn

4 hours ago, Cousin Strawberry said:

They hold that "browns" aren't people? Or that immigrants aren't subject to the jurisdiction thereof and free to crime as they desire?

The idea is that if both parents aren't citizens, they aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and birthplace is irrelevant.

you’ve been practicing copyright/patent/trademark law way too fucking long, my guy.  
 

go have a drink, relax, take the afternoon and play with the kids.  
 

2 minutes ago, Kyrie Eleison said:

you’ve been practicing copyright/patent/trademark law way too fucking long, my guy.  
 

go have a drink, relax, take the afternoon and play with the kids.  
 

Just explaining the argument.  It was for the Indians.  End of story.  Trumpco is trying to extend it some other way.  He should fail, but it's possible he wont.  See Breuen.

The justsecurity article goes into gorier detail and there's a similar one on lawfare from some months back that I'll try to find. https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/no--native-american-citizenship-does-not-support-limits-on-birthright-citizenship

Edited by TwiceHorn

there’s enough fucking stare decisis dumbass textualist that i’m not worried about it.  
 

7-2, Kavanaugh writes it, Alito and Thomas do their regular whiny-ass pretext fuckabout. 

6 minutes ago, Kyrie Eleison said:

there’s enough fucking stare decisis dumbass textualist that i’m not worried about it.  
 

7-2, Kavanaugh writes it, Alito and Thomas do their regular whiny-ass pretext fuckabout. 

Funny, I think the argument for Trump's variation is pretty purely textual, as opposed to originalist, while the argument against it is more originalist, that is the intent and understanding at the time of ratification

Edited by TwiceHorn

You all understand that this is nothing more than Calvinball right?  
 

If a majority of the court wants to support the EO they’ll come up with some way to justify it. 
Simple as that. 

Edited by DDD Dad

11 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

The founders barely gave any thought to citizenship or naturalization.

The "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," almost certainly referred exclusively to Native Americans, because even way back then, it was generally recognized that although they lived in the territory of the United States, they remained their own sovereign nation, sort of without territory, some with reservations of various types and flavors and some without.  So even though they may have been born in the territory of the United States, in some abstract way, it was as if they were born in another country, within our country.  And to attain US citizenship, had to undergo naturalization.

This wasn't wholly an act of disrespect, either.  Many Natives didn't want to be regarded as citizens of the US without some overt action on their part.

The sovereignty of Native Americans on reservations, and reservations themselves, have become gradually more and less formalized, but even today, we recognize that Indian tribes may have many of their own laws and jurisdiction to enforce them.  But we also passed the Indian Citizenship Act in 1924 that undid that aspect of the 14th Amendment.  And, in keeping with the foregoing, some tribes were opposed to it.

Trumpco is trying to extend that notion, that Native Americans were only partially subject to the jurisdiction of the US and therefore not citizens by birth, to citizens of any nation.  It kind of fits in an abstract way, but I don't think was at all what the drafters of the 14th Amendment intended.

Also, there is a "common understanding" of birthright citizenship under the 14th, but only a handful of legal decisions explicating it.  And as was the usual case with century-old decisions and statutes, a bit of ambiguity.

 

There’s not actually any ambiguity about it at all. The reason there isn’t a bunch of precedent is because it was understood on the level that “water is wet” was understood. There’s literally no scholarship supporting an anti-birthright citizenship reading of the law, which is why there’s three or four “originalists” pretending they suddenly found historical support for that position after Trump took office and writing op eds about it instead of actual scholarly work. 
 

You really don’t fucking gotta play devils advocate for every position, man.

Edited by wildcat09

16 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

So if place of birth no longer determines US citizenship, what is the test or process for children born on US soil to attain citizenship after 14A is interpreted in that manner?

On another note, I look forward to Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito being deported in the near future.  Because, you know . . .

I’d be okay with relocating the two to Oklahoma, permanently.

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Author
Quote

Apart from Chief Justice John Roberts, the other conservative justices involved in the case appeared swayed by the argument that barring the church’s participation would be discriminatory.

“All the religious school is saying is don’t exclude us on account of our religion,” said Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

 

and this is how oklahoma will end up with a church of satan public school. dumb ass state didn't learn the first time 

 

 

9 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

and this is how oklahoma will end up with a church of satan public school. dumb ass state didn't learn the first time 

 

 

This is exactly what will happen.  Then, right wingers will blame liberals for allowing the Satan School.

  • Popular Post
50 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

This is exactly what will happen.  Then, right wingers will blame liberals for allowing the Satan School.

Going to be worse when Satan School starts developing some serious blue chip college football prospects.

  • Author
  • Popular Post
5 minutes ago, South Austin said:

Going to be worse when Satan School starts developing some serious blue chip college football prospects.

 

IMG_3953.jpeg

1 hour ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

and this is how oklahoma will end up with a church of satan public school. dumb ass state didn't learn the first time 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Aqua Buddha said:

This is exactly what will happen.  Then, right wingers will blame liberals for allowing the Satan School.

They'll just eliminate charter schools 

4 minutes ago, Doc Sam Beckett said:

 

They'll just eliminate charter schools 

Can't make/funnel money that way. 

2 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

and this is how oklahoma will end up with a church of satan public school. dumb ass state didn't learn the first time 

 

 

I think I just found my path out of the legal practice. Superintendent of Satanic Charter Schools has a nice ring to it.

On 4/20/2025 at 12:23 AM, wildcat09 said:

There’s not actually any ambiguity about it at all. The reason there isn’t a bunch of precedent is because it was understood on the level that “water is wet” was understood. There’s literally no scholarship supporting an anti-birthright citizenship reading of the law, which is why there’s three or four “originalists” pretending they suddenly found historical support for that position after Trump took office and writing op eds about it instead of actual scholarly work. 
 

You really don’t fucking gotta play devils advocate for every position, man.

Explain, then, what the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means.  I'd suggest that it injects some ambiguity in it.

I didn't say the argument was a winner, but it can't be dismissed quite as easily as you want to.

You're really as bad as the Supreme Court justices you decry.  You work your way backward from your desired result.

2 hours ago, South Austin said:

Going to be worse when Satan School starts developing some serious blue chip college football prospects.

They have this great women's basketball recruit, Lucy Furr, who is absolute fire from three-point range.

Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business & Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Advertise... Tailgate Donations

Configure browser push notifications

Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.