The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is the constitutional bridge/arbiter between the Legislative and the Executive branches of our government. It is composed of nine members and requires a majority vote of at least five to put forth a proactive opinion. Its primary role as a third branch of government is to determine that the laws passed by Congress or the actions taken by the President are properly permitted within the confines of our Constitution, and…that a proper governing balance is maintained between the Legislative and Executive branches within the Constitution’s framework.
There
are two members who are clearly liberal and typically, but not always, toe the
Democrat Party line. These members are
Sotomayor and Kagan. There is one member
that is pretty clearly a liberal progressive; that member is Jackson. There are two reliably conservative members
in Thomas and Alito, Jr. and they usually fall in line with Republican Party
thinking. There are two predominantly conservative members in
Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. And there are two
moderate conservatives in Roberts, Jr. and Barrett.
Chief
Justice Roberts, Jr. is an accomplished and respected juror. However, many of his past opinions and comments
have led me to believe that he is to the SCOTUS what Mitch McConnell is to the Senate.
By that I mean each man is more concerned
about how the body they serve is perceived rather than the integrity of the product
that body generates. This is not intended
as a slight; both are…in my opinion…honorable, patriotic, and statesmanlike men.
But the simple truth is that they are extremely
concerned about the image of their institutions; occasionally to the point where
it compromises their dutiful actions.
I
believe it is fair to say that this Court could be considered a middle-right
leaning body. And all things considered,
the nine opinions being represented are a pretty fair mix of American political
beliefs. It could be reasonably stated
that this is the type of judicial balance that most Americans would desire for
the Court. But occasionally…an opinion
is put forth that makes you scratch your head.
Such an opinion is the recent ruling on Trump v. Barbara regarding
birthright citizenship.
Much
as the SCOTUS at one time ruled in Roe v Wade that abortion was a
constitutional right…in Trump v. Barbara they not only ruled that the
President’s Executive Order eliminating birthright citizenship was invalid, they
went one step further and essentially ruled that this privilege was literally
contained in the Constitution. This
places the premise of birthright citizenship not only beyond the reach of
presidents; it also places it beyond the reach of Congress. The only way to change this ruling in the
future will be for the Constitution’s amendment process to be applied in its
overturning (occurring only 27 times in
250 years, and 10 of those 27 is the Bill of Rights) or for this recent
ruling to be overturned by a future SCOTUS; a process we witnessed in Dobbs v
JWHO, which overturned Roe v Wade.
Kavanaugh’s vote and opinion in this case appeared to be a practical
middle ground, inasmuch as he thought the President’s Executive Order was
invalid…but also seemed to leave an off-ramp to regulate birthright citizenship
through Congressional action.
The
central argument in the settlement of Trump v Barbara was the constitutional
language that read “All persons born or
naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are
citizens of the United States and the state wherein they reside”. The majority opinion held that any child born
in America, regardless of the parents’ citizenship status is a U.S.
citizen. This legalizes the act of what
is commonly referred to as tourism
citizenship; whereby a citizen of any foreign nation could come to America,
birth a child, and return to their home country within a few days with the
newborn being a full-fledged U.S. citizen.
I
am admittedly a legal non-factor, but I find this ruling odd on one commonly
discussed premise. If the act of birth
in America alone was sufficient for citizenship, why did our founders include the second qualifier of “…and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof…” to the constitutional language? To me, it is not dissimilar to addressing a
line of people entering a sports stadium and making the announcement that all
who are currently in line and wearing a blue cap will be allowed to enter. Quite obviously, this dictate requires in
addition to being in line, the presence of a blue cap upon your head. Had being in line alone been sufficient for
admission, a mention of a blue cap would not have been necessary. It strikes me that…in the opinion of this legal illiterate…the SCOTUS occasionally and
quite simply over thinks common sense, reason, and plain language.
Here is a good example of that over
thinking I mentioned: https://thefederalist.com/2026/06/29/john-roberts-presidents-have-executive-power-also-john-roberts-no-they-dont/
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Celebrating
(or not) our nation’s 250th birthday…
https://wsjfreeexpression.substack.com/p/clarence-thomass-america
https://freebeacon.com/culture/preserving-americas-principles-in-an-unprincipled-world/
https://reason.com/2026/07/03/on-americas-250th-birthday-celebrate-liberty/
Is
America a microcosm of the entire planet?
https://amgreatness.com/2026/07/05/an-imperfect-world-that-is-better-than-ever/
https://amgreatness.com/2026/07/03/nato-summit-will-expose-european-hypocrisy-on-defense-spending/
Education,
Education, Education
https://jamesgmartin.center/2026/06/reclaiming-pen-and-paper/
https://amgreatness.com/2026/06/30/two-winners-in-education-merit-pay-and-school-choice/
https://jamesgmartin.center/2026/07/a-tale-of-two-reports/
https://jamesgmartin.center/2026/07/what-public-policy-schools-should-teach/
No comments:
Post a Comment