‘Judicial Minimalist’ John Roberts Violated Procedures To Write Maximalist Birthplace Citizenship Opinion
Chief Justice Roberts chose to ignore procedural obstacles and move ahead with ruling on the constitutionality of an executive order.
Chief Justice Roberts chose to ignore procedural obstacles and move ahead with ruling on the constitutionality of an executive order.
Xi Jinping understands that a nation unable to decide who enters and who belongs has forfeited the capacity for serious grand strategy.
Our 'theater-kid occupied government' routinely attains to new heights of absurdity, as shown in Ketanji Brown Jackson's antiracist screed.
Trump v. Barbara may come to be remembered not as the final word on birthplace citizenship but as another constitutional detour.
That a court with six Republican-appointed justices could hand down such an un-American decision indicts America's rogue legal system.
The Supreme Court has spoken. Our constitutional conversation should not end there.
Until surrogacy is treated as a threat to national sovereignty, American citizenship is up for grabs by the highest foreign bidders.
Under conditions of mass immigration, legal or illegal, birthplace citizenship means the destruction of the nation.
SCOTUS's ruling 'is not only contrary to the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, it produces grotesque results,' Alito wrote.
Roberts reimposed the British system of subjecthood that the founders rejected just before the US is set to celebrate its 250th anniversary.