I hesitate to weigh in on Tuesday’s SCOTUS decision upholding birthright citizenship in America.
And I wouldn’t (weigh in) if it didn’t so plainly meet the definition of “top news,” which I obliged myself to cover when I set about launching this portal a decade ago.
I’ve learned during “Trump 2.0” — and this became particularly evident in reader remarks and subscriber feedback related to my coverage of the war with Iran — that very few netizens actually want honest editorials and unbiased (geo)political coverage.
On the contrary, nearly everyone wants an echo chamber, which is to say most of us are after confirmation bias. Present company included. I don’t claim to be significantly more openminded in that regard than anyone else.
While I’m part of the problem on the information demand side, I try (with every editorial ounce of me) to be part of the solution on the information supply side. Simply put: I can’t pretend my position on important political issues, “geo” or domestic, everywhere and always neatly aligns with the liberal viewpoint just because I’m an avowed liberal.
If I don’t agree, I don’t agree, and I’m going to say as much, or at least when I can’t dodge the question, as I can’t with Trump v. Barbara, which the court decided on Tuesday.
For those unfamiliar, the case turns almost exclusively on the interpretation of a specific phrase — “… subject to the jurisdiction thereof” — in the 14th Amendment.
Without getting into the interpretational weeds, I find the language to be pretty clear. The Constitution guarantees birthright citizenship. So, denying birthright citizenship by executive fiat, as Donald Trump attempted to do on his very first day back in office, is plainly unconstitutional. And thereby manifestly illegal in almost every instance.
But I don’t think that’s really the crux of the matter. Let’s dive in. Even if we’d rather not.
Automatically conferring citizenship on children born in America regardless of their parents’ immigration status is a nice thing to do. If I allowed myself to traffic in normative language, which I typically don’t, I’d say it’s thereby the “right” thing to do.
“So far, so good,” said every liberal reader. (Steel yourself, liberal. It’s gonna be rough from here.)
The problem starts, and in my view ultimately (dead) ends, in the tension between “jus soli” and what common sense seems to dictate if we’re going to bother delineating national boundaries in a world of seismic migration shifts.
I won’t endeavor to expound on the historical circumstances which made jus soli the norm in the Americas. There’s not enough time in the day for that, but more importantly, it’d be counterproductive. Because what we need in a world experiencing mass displacement due to conflict and the onset of climatic oblivion, is binoculars not a rearview mirror.
It’s one thing to tell people fleeing violence, oppression and different sorts of devastation that America’s always accepting applications. It’s another entirely to waive the application requirement altogether for any children those applicants (or non-applicants for that matter) happen to have on American soil while their requests are processed.
The fact that processing times vary, and that the process itself belongs in the urban dictionary next to the entry for “FUBAR,” is highly unfortunate in that context, but that’s not a good reason for upholding a provision which, in addition to being unsupported in modernity by anything other than goodwill, could exacerbate the coming migration crisis, and place significant strain on US government resources.
I realize (more so, probably, than a lot of readers who chafed at them) that the preceding two passages sound, in places, like a recitation of nativist talking points. But that’s not my intent.
Rather, I worry that in elevating this particular case — that in declaring birthright citizenship the figurative hill upon which the conservative majority’s willing to die — John Roberts, Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh are merely virtue signaling. Exploiting an opportunity to grandstand around a case they know will receive more attention than almost any other on the docket, even as they routinely join opinions undercutting core democrat precepts in decisions that garner less publicity.
With allowances for the fact that SCOTUS majority opinions can be grandiloquent by their very nature, Robert’s language felt like the grandstanding I think it was. “Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights — to freely participate in our political community,” he declared, writing for the majority. “The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land.’ We keep that promise today.”
All liberals stand and clap for John. And for Amy. But not (nearly) as loudly for Brett, whose concurrence didn’t rest on the notion that Trump’s executive order violated the Constitution. Rather, his (ostensible) gripe is that Trump’s order effectively claims for the executive the authority to create ad hoc exceptions to birthright citizenship, when that latitude properly belongs to (and has been claimed by) Congress.
In other words, Kavanaugh’s concurrence pulls double-duty as a partial dissent. To read it is actually to read an argument for allowing exceptions to birthright citizenship, consistent with those proposed by Trump.
For Kavanaugh, constitutionality isn’t the problem. “The Constitution is an enduring document, and its principles were designed to, and do, apply to modern conditions and developments,” he wrote, adding that,
Significant illegal immigration into the United States is a new circumstance that was largely unknown as of 1868 and that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment could not have fully anticipated. And the Framers likely would not have anticipated (and presumably would not have intended) the odd result of granting a substantial birthright citizenship benefit to (i) those foreign citizens who violate US immigration law and illegally enter or overstay and then have children in the United States over (ii) those foreign citizens who follow US immigration law and have children in their home countries while seeking to lawfully immigrate to the United States.
I don’t see much, if anything, wrong with Kavanaugh’s logic as long as “wrong” means “flawed.”
If, on the other hand, “wrong” means “cruel,” it’s a bit of a different discussion. But as alluded to above, there needs to be a role for pragmatism in this debate. Otherwise, we’re courting disaster in the face of a migration crisis.
When “wrong” means “flawed,” and again considering what I think we can agree are exigent circumstances even if we don’t go the Trump route and declare those circumstances a national emergency, I’ll confess I don’t see much wrong with the following declaration either,
United States citizenship does not automatically extend to persons born in the United States: (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States at the time of said person’s birth was lawful but temporary (such as, but not limited to, visiting the United States under the auspices of the Visa Waiver Program or visiting on a student, work, or tourist visa) and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.
That passage is, of course, from Trump’s infamous executive order.
To reiterate: When viewed through a scholarly, jurisprudential lens, this entire debate hinges on the interpretation of one phrase from the 14th Amendment. But I think that’s pedantic and misses the broader point.
To me, this looks like a(nother) issue where circumstances have conspired to put morality and practicality at odds, or at least in tension, and as is so often the (ironic given conservatives’ pretensions to occupying the Christian moral high ground) case, liberals are willing to put morality first.
Recognizing (because how could he not?) that this is a hot-button issue, and perhaps wanting to avoid a repeat of Dobbs (which, you’ll recall, was also decided in a mid-term year, and might’ve helped Democrats outperform), Roberts opportunistically declared his court “keeper” of the birthright citizenship “promise.”
If this was performative, even in some small measure, it’s regrettable. Because, again, I think Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship, regardless of its constitutionality, has it right if the benchmark’s common sense (which it should be) and the context is the current immigration environment (which it is).
The tragic irony may be that this court, in attempting to paper over all the irreparable harm the conservative majority’s done to American democracy over the past year, has just done the country another disservice by according sacred cow status to what, in the modern context, is just bad policy. Even if it’s good morals.
Sorry to put everybody through that but, again, there was no not covering this. It was Tuesday’s biggest news. I had to weigh in, and my take on this issue just isn’t as bleeding heart as it is on most.
I come here precisely to challenged, either in my ignorance of market mechanics and geopolitical reality or in my cozy liberal thinking. To every interesting question during these trying times, the first honest response should always be, “It’s more complicated than you think it is.” Keep up the good work.
Well said. I come here for the same reasons. I do not want echo chambers.
No need for ‘sorry’ , a good wake up call to my own thought process which was a lazy ‘ if goes against Trump wishes , most be good decision’
I liked it. The world is gray even though we really, really want to make simple/ black and white. Fitzgerald had a good thought on this subject.
No echo chambers, please!
Reminds me of NFIB vs ?? (don’t get old) a few years ago. Robert’s upheld the ACA’s individual mandate as a tax surprising conservatives. They looked balanced, then crushed it later when they gutted Medicaid expansion. The term I remember was Legitimacy Cover or Covered California (wink).
The only thing I’d call out is that Kavanaugh’s language sure doesn’t sound very originalist. Is he going to apply that same logic when the next case about assault weapon bans comes up?
Nice, totally agree.
“Is he going to apply that same logic when the next case about assault weapon bans comes up?”
Nope. And that’s really the point here. Or the subtext. Not re: assault weapons specifically or necessarily, but just in general. Bravo.
+1!
I appreciate this analysis. The middle-term outlook gradually favors Trump, so we might as well let the FOMO continue through 2029.
A terrible decision on many levels. The largest being that for the next 2.5 years, the immigration hammer is coming down harder. More raids, round-ups, aggressive removal of temporary status folks, border wall construction, increased ICE and Coast Guard budgets, much fewer tourist and student visas, hell maybe even pregnancy tests live and in person at US consulates before visas are granted to females aged 14-45. Watch the parents being removed because they are illegal aliens and the kids being left behind because they are citizens. Stephen Miller unhinged.
As others have said, thank you for the honest appraisal. Mr. Trump’s EO was a decent attempt at a middle road.
Congress just sucks so badly. This issue is fixable by reasonable people. More seasonal or temporary work permits allowing folks to come and go as they please being a key element. I read a study several years ago that most immigrants will leave the USA willingly if they know they are can get back in when work season comes back around. A system attracting the best and brightest for permanent residency status and temporary work permits for others would go a long way to improving the system. As with so many issues, the fringe on each side won’t let the middle negotiate. Need to campaign off of the unsolved wedge issues.
Unchecked immigration is a winning issues for the Republicans. I believe it was the largest reason Mr. Trump won the popular vote. This might be a Pyrrhic victory for the Left.
Congress
Well said!
“I believe it was the largest reason Mr. Trump won the popular vote.”
Along with “urban crime” which long has been a GOP wink-wink code word for black crime.
Also agree on the likely reinvigoration of mass deportations AFTER the midterms. Ice and Miller have been toweled down a bit because, despite the MAGA hatred of dark-skinned immigrants, ICE deportation operations have not received great reception among the small middle who decide elections.
Whoever wins in November, I’d wager that hell is about to be unleashed right after the voting. All those transformed warehouses need to be filled!
A child is born here, through no fault of her own, to parents who came here illegally. She grows up and is educated here. In what way is she any less qualified to undertake the responsibilities and enjoy the privileges of citizenship than any other child born here? Except that maybe she might be less likely to vote Republican. ?
“She grows up and is educated here.”
Well, let’s be fair, even if the GOP never extends that same courtesy: The point of Trump’s exceptions isn’t to retroactively strip 31-year-old, tax-paying, law-abiding birthright citizens of their citizenship. It’s to introduce yet another chilling effect in a bid to curb future immigration flows. I’m not saying that’s any “better,” but holding up the paragon of virtuous birthright citizenship — i.e., someone who’s born here, is educated here, grows up speaking the language, goes to college, gets a job, pays taxes and buys a home — to attack Trump’s EO is about like Trump holding up the minority of immigrants who commit serious crimes as evidence to close the border. Either way, we’re using the extremes to attack the middle.
I’m not an illegal immigrant so I can’t really say for sure what motivates them, but I doubt that the elimination of birthright citizenship is really going to change the calculus for most. If I am swimming the Rio Grande (or taking any other of the various risks the illegals endure) it is probably for the immediate benefits of escaping the situation they are in now. Kids just happen.
Also, part 2 of Trump’s EO is directed at people following the rules, so that can’t possibly impact illegal immigration.
Ok, a couple of things here. First, I don’t know what the calculus is for “most” illegal immigrants, but I think it’s an affront to common sense to suggest the promise of birthright citizenship for their children isn’t an incentive. Even if you’re not being entrepreneurial about it as a parent (i.e., “Well, if I have two kids in the US and they’re automatically citizens, that’s good for me and our extended family south of the border, because even if I’m eventually deported they can get jobs in America and send USD back to us”), the promise of an overall better life for your children is a powerful draw. I think it’s naive to dismiss entirely the notion that getting here first and then deliberately having kids here upon arrival, isn’t a strategy. It surely is. Again: To suggest otherwise is to be deliberately obtuse.
Second, kids don’t “just happen.” There’s a process to that. I mean, as someone with no kids, I suppose I can’t speak definitively about it, but from what I understand, the stork story’s a myth. But as usual, readers are free to correct me if I’m wrong.
And anyway, at the end of the day, Trump’s intent here is absolutely, unequivocally to curb future immigration flows. About that, there can be no question. Whether this would’ve been effective in that regard is another matter and I’m (more than) open to the possibility that you’re right, and that it wouldn’t have been.
Speaking the language
I understand the desire for reasonableness. But I can’t abide the possibly unintended eliding of the historical record that almost always accompanies the subject of immigration.
The 14th amendment was adopted in 1868. The first (and that should really be rendered in Trumpian caps) major immigration legislation was passed into law in 1882. Notably, that law was the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.
The tale of immigration legislation since then is riddled with restrictions and prohibitions fueled by the type of thinking that nods in agreement with a category called “s***hole countries.” Should anyone expect better behavior from a contemporary Congress?
Like our host, I’m a social science guy. To me, the only way to achieve a refined definition of citizenship would be through a constitutional amendment. And given our current political passions, I can’t foresee that happening.
Trump stopped the US Refuge program first day in office. He now favors almost all white South Afrikaners, they can immigrate. He claims they are being harmed, persecuted. Born here, not born here…it’s mostly about racism.
I applaud today’s decision. I taught high school in East L.A. for the better part of twenty-five years. During that time, I would estimate that some 30-40% of my students were somehow “illegal” immigrants: Mexicans, Armenians, Peruvians, Nicaraguans, Russians, and even some Koreans. Some of the nicest kids you ever met. The notion that those families “planted” their children here to circumnavigate this nation’s immigration laws is utterly ridiculous. They came here looking for work, education, and all of the other opportunities this country affords people to better their lives. (The American Dream, remember?)
For many, that idea was well worth the risk they took breaking the law in order to get here. Had this country presented them with an easier path towards citizenship, they would have taken it (and a number of them did while amnesty was still available, or by later enlisting in the military). But ever since 2015 these people have been unfairly demonized and painted with the same brush. Why then? In 2012, after Mitt Romney was trounced by Barack Obama, Reince Priebus ordered what later became known as the “RNC Autopsy,” an extensive report on how Republicans managed to lose the election. Among other things:
“It emphasized directing messaging toward Hispanic and Latino Americans when considering changing demographics, emphasizing the increasing Hispanic population in the United States and urging the party to limit its rhetoric on immigration policy.”
Sounds logical, no? Expand the base. Enter Donald Trump [stage left] and the MAGA Republicans. Homey don’t play that! If newly minted citizens, and their children, are going to vote for Democrats, better to cut-off nearly all immigration by any means rather than endeavor to invite new groups and their ideas into our party. Better to attack voting rights too, and to question the sanctity of elections themselves. Also, let’s throw-out mail in ballots, and gerrymander a bunch of voting districts. In fact, let’s demand state voting lists and try to exert some federal control over elections. Blah blah blah blah blah blah. Some ten-years later, here we are.
“In 2012, after Mitt Romney was trounced by Barack Obama, Reince Priebus ordered what later became known as the “RNC Autopsy,” an extensive report on how Republicans managed to lose the election… etc. etc.”
Oh how quickly even the most dedicated readers forget: I wrote an entire Monthly Letter on that.
I hate to be the guy who constantly says, “Yes, I know, I’m an expert, credentialed or self-taught, on the subject” but… —-> https://heisenbergreport.com/2024/06/07/charons-obol/
I am sorry if I overlooked that fact. It was not meant as a slight.
“The notion that those families ‘planted’ their children here to circumnavigate this nation’s immigration laws is utterly ridiculous.”
Maybe. But equally ridiculous is the idea that they weren’t aware of birthright citizenship when they had their kids here.
You’ll say “Well, I didn’t say that,” and I’ll say “Well, you kinda did.”
If you’re coming here, you have a list of reasons for doing so. Maybe not an actual, physical list on a piece of paper, but a mental list. If you’re a man and a woman and you plan to have children together, or are open to having children, then birthright citizenship’s on that “reasons to immigrate to America” list. Period. How could it not be? Indeed: You’d be a bad / derelict potential parent if it wasn’t on your list.
I mean Jesus Christ, folks: If I’m an aspiring mother suffering gang violence and poverty in Latin America, I want to come to the US and have my children in America because I know they’ll be citizens and thereby can’t be deported even if I am. Because of course I do! What kind of aspiring mother would I be if I didn’t at least consider that option?
That’s not the same as saying they “planted” their children here, but to ignore it or just brush it aside as though it’s irrelevant, is precisely why conservatives are able to call liberals ridiculous and out of touch with reality and common sense. It’s only when we (liberals) eschew the temptation to ignore common sense in the service of making a point about “right” and “wrong” that we can win the argument.
All of which is true. I guess my point was that if your goal is to reduce the number of illegals, getting rid of birthright citizenship isn’t going to meaningfully move the needle. But that doesn’t mean that Trump and his ilk don’t believe the opposite. Since we aren’t going to get to run this experiment (at least for now) we will never really know.
I respect your spirited response. Maybe East L.A. is a unique case because immigration is so well ensconced there, but many of the families I came to know had been in this country illegally for five or ten-years before having their children here. They had lives here, and often one or both parents had a green card as well. In some cases, one — or even both — parents returned to their country of origin (or self-deported) at some point, often leaving their (legal) children with grandparents or other relatives here so that they could continue their education in the U.S. If birthright citizenship has been the law here since 1868, than having children and gaining citizenship for them should not be viewed as some sort of criminal conspiracy. Believe it or not, some people do not consider it a flaw, but a uniquely American feature.
Now, is illegal immigration a crisis that has been completely mismanaged for years? That is quite another question. Allowing anyone to enter the country and make an asylum claim, one that often requires lengthy court proceedings, had become completely unmanageable. I have no problem with tighter boarder enforcement, reasonable quotas, citizenship requirements, and legal deportations, but those are not birthright citizenship issues. (At one point I even suggested to friends that we should set up refugee camps at the border in order to screen asylum applications before allowing immigrants to enter the country, but I digress.) In short, overturning birthright citizenship felt like more of a “populist” response to a very complex issue. If we as a nation truly wish to change our immigration laws we certainly can, either through legislation or amending the Constitution itself. (Remember, we had a bi-partisan immigration reform bill set to pass under Joe Biden before Donald Trump demanded the GOP scuttle it prior to the election.)
Anyone with wealth and a dodgy past (Russian oligarchs) will continue to have their progeny in the USA and likewise there will be a continuation of illegals entering the USA to birth their children. Surely if the 14th had been revoked or rewritten what about all the other amendments, the dominos would all fall!
I appreciate the thought provoking article and I never mind hearing a different opinion as long as it’s backed up intelligently, as you always do. I don’t think the Supreme Court should have even heard the case. It’s so blatantly against the text of the Constitution that the lower court decisions should have been left alone.
Like you, I don’t have a problem if the law were to be changed. Times change, and laws should change with the times to reflect that. But Presidents don’t have the power to change those laws on their own for good reason. The fact that Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch would even consider (essentially) rewriting the Constitution themselves is unsettling. If anyone understands why Congress should be the ones changing laws, not the Supreme Court or a President, it’s those guys.
Yeah the main point of the piece is that if what we’re interested in is defending the Constitution and preserving the American “promise” in the all-encompassing sense of the term, I don’t think this case was the best place to do it. The court might’ve, for example, said, “No, Mr. President, you cannot, in fact, send the Navy SEALs to assassinate a political rival. If you do that, you’ll be hauled away and jailed.” Or, “No, Mr. President, you cannot just run around firing independent agency heads because you don’t like the shape of their nose. That’s absurd and we’re not going to allow it.” And on and on. With apologies, I think this case is less important than a lot of cases decided in Trump’s favor over the past year, and that’s to say nothing of the conservative majority’s countenancing of The White House’s strategy to leverage the emergency docket for making interim laws out of ad hoc decrees. That’s an affront to democracy far, far greater than any attempt to circumscribe birthright citizenship. In my view, the conservative majority has issued multiple rulings that are objectively more injurious to the Constitution than if they’d allowed Trump’s birthright citizenship EO to stand. I just think this was Roberts seeing a chance to play on the public’s emotions while continuing to abide a subtler program that chips away at the separation of powers via cases the broader public doesn’t give a damn about.
You know what I mean? Like, Roberts knew what the headline was gonna be: “Supreme Court Upholds Birthright Citizenship.” “Yay! They’re still on our side after all! We don’t have to worry so much anymore!” Meanwhile, he and the rest of the conservative majority just chisel and chisel at the foundation. And we’re satisfied because Sofía, born next Monday, is a citizen. Sorry, but I don’t love it. I’d rather Sofía isn’t a citizen and Trump goes to jail if he sends Delta Force to get me because he doesn’t like a banner image I chose for an article. Sure, it’d be ideal if that weren’t the tradeoff (and it’s obviously not in a literal sense, I’m just being funny here), but it feels a little like that to me.
Yes, point well taken. For a group that’s supposed to be resistant to change (conservatives), they sure do seem to be in a hurry to change a lot of fundamental parts of our country.
100% agree – things like banning transgender athletes, while obviously impacting some people, are nowhere near as important as the other decisions made by the Supreme Court. I used the assault weapon example above, but with apologies to all the people affected by gun violence, the area where I’d most like to see Kavanugh’s logic applied is how we treat free speech as it applies to spending and corporations.
The immigration problem wasn’t answered here and hasn’t really be critically evaluated by either side of the political spectrum. The Right always ends up sounding like dogwhistling dixie boys and the Left comes across as naively hopeful that “it’ll all work out”. Neither has really considered the motivations for immigration, the risks, and how to thoughtfully address what enough Americans consider to be a problem to elect Trump, a second time.
The challenge comes from this Supreme Court who conveniently decided that “corporations are citizens” and thus thoroughly disrupted democracy here by allowing ungodly amounts of money into elections and then again just said unlimited amounts in from any single person. (Looking at you Elon!)
That’s on top of their overly theocratic ambitions (separation of church and who?) and some ridiculous conception of democracy being couched in the Constitution as a “Unitary Executive” by founders who wanted to get away from the British Monarchy but somehow aspired to stand up a government looking quite similar here? The only way their logic makes any sense at all is if you never bother read the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution and instead just watch to TikTok’s from far right influencers to conclude this is what the Founding Father’s aspired to be.
I for one feel that all citizens should have to pass some basic level civics exam to earn the right to vote. I also expect everyone should have to pay a fair share of taxes and participate in some kind of community service that supports building a natural partriotism and not some superficial bumper sticker having/flag waving/ridiculous clothing wearing version that the Right espouses today.
So, what am I suggesting? You can’t vote, run for office, or practice law unless you understand what the Constitution actually says and you can immigrate as long as you do the same and also pay your fair share of taxes. So Elon Musk should be deported to El Salvador post haste.
I take a pragmatic view. Birthrate in the US is only 1.6 babies per woman. Without immigration, the US population will shrink and age, a negative outcome economically and socially. So we need immigration and for immigrants to become fully assimilated “Americans”. Which includes but is not limited to citizenship.
Obviously you don’t hand citizenship to everyone the moment they step into the country; they need to show they’ve assimilated. But a baby growing up in the US is guaranteed to grow up as an assimilated American, he or she can’t help it.
I realize in theory a baby can be born in the US then whisked back to Guatemala or whereever, and thus grow up completely not-American yet possessed of US citizenship, which seems not ideal. However, I think that is the edgiest of edge cases.
OK! Finally some sane, reasoned ideas from our right-wing patriots.
“Federalist CEO suggests sterilizing foreign visitors after SCOTUS ruling”
“Sean Davis, the CEO and co-founder of conservative outlet The Federalist, unloaded on social media after the court ruled 6-3 on Tuesday that Trump’s executive order stripping citizenship from the U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants was unconstitutional.”
“He then laid out his “ways forward.” Alongside packing the court and having red states refuse birth certificates to non-citizens, Davis proposed denying entry to all pregnant foreigners, denying entry to all female foreigners, and requiring “sterilization of all foreign visitors prior to entry.”
I have little doubt that he professes to be a devout Christian.
Before you roll your eyes and dismiss Davis as some kind of unhinged right wing foamer writing in the Daily Stormer, do yourself a favor. Put the prompt Federalist Society & judicial appointments into your favorite LLM. This man is CEO of a group the GOP totally relies on to vet and suggest Federal judicial appointments.
CORRECTION: Mr. Davis is the CEO of The Federalist MAGAZINE not the Federalist SOCIETY. That’s pretty different, aint it.
As most of you mentioned, the worst part about this is really Congress’s complete abrogation of responsibility, and not just on immigration. On pretty much everything.
America now basically works as follows. Trump sees something he doesn’t like and says, “I’ve got what I think’s a better idea. Here’s my idea, and it’ll be de facto law until John, Amy and Brett decide whether it’s illegal or not.”
Those are the only four people who matter in law-making. Trump and the SCOTUS “swing voters.”
I agree 100%. Thank you for this deep dive on a very important subject.
This observation explains the extreme leftward tilt in the recent Democratic primaries. I view it as a balancing action to the extreme rightward movement of the GOP. Democratic voters are pissed at the fecklessness of their own party and are intentionally electing people who will do something other than point out things on social media.