PS

Re: Adam Smith and Solomon Asch

Were the people who changed their answer (to follow the group of paid actors insisting on a false statement) disproportionately women?

When I wrote "Perceived Group Consensus *IS* the-right-and-the-good for many people," by "many people" I had in mind women especially. It's a function of their more-social nature, more often than not, most of the time, the median woman is a lot more social-group-oriented than the median man. Stated politely and neutrally (and it can even be phrased in a pro-woman way), almost everyone agrees based on experience. But then what to do about the question of female judges of the law?

This is a roundabout way of again asking why Amy Coney Barrett voted to make permanent a radical, untouchable regime of the handing out of "U.S. citizenship." I knew immediately during the oral arguments that she'd vote that way, or, at the most, try to go with a wishy-washy moderate position that still basically affirms the Leftist "birthright citizenship" mantra. In the end she didn't even try to be moderate. Why? "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" plus "Yeah, I guess it's kinda always been like that, so..."

PS: Afternoon, Mr. Hail,

https://i.ibb.co/ZR7sTDWB/Conforming-to-Social-Norms.jpg

𝐼𝑡 𝑡𝑜𝑜𝑘 𝑚𝑒 𝑎 𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑔 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑙𝑖𝑓𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑦 𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑒 "𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑑 𝐺𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑝 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑠 𝐼𝑆 𝑇𝑟𝑢𝑡ℎ 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑦 𝑝𝑒𝑜𝑝𝑙𝑒" 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑝𝑡. 𝐼 𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑑𝑛'𝑡 𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑤𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑝𝑒𝑜𝑝𝑙𝑒 𝑙𝑖𝑘𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡, 𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑦 𝑖𝑛 𝑠𝑢𝑐ℎ 𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟𝑠.

Yeah, Solomon Asch tried to warn us.

☮️

PS: Afternoon, everyone,

This is all fun and good and all that, but how does this decision affect our right to statelessness?


I had some (perhaps?) witty and clever things I wanted to say about this a couple nights ago, but oh well...

(Seems that ship has sailed.)

Mr. Hail said...

𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑛𝑜𝑛-𝑊ℎ𝑖𝑡𝑒 / 𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡-𝑊ℎ𝑖𝑡𝑒 𝐿𝑒𝑓𝑡 𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑦 𝑤𝑜𝑟𝑠ℎ𝑖𝑝𝑠 𝑊𝑜𝑛𝑔 𝐾𝑖𝑚 𝐴𝑟𝑘 𝑎𝑠 𝑎 𝑆𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑊𝑜𝑘𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠, 𝑎 𝑝𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡 𝐼 𝑚𝑎𝑑𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑆𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑒𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑠 𝑎 𝑓𝑒𝑤 𝑚𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ𝑠 𝑎𝑔𝑜. (𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑙𝑑𝑟𝑒𝑛'𝑠 𝑏𝑜𝑜𝑘𝑠 𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝑊𝑜𝑛𝑔 𝐾𝑖𝑚 𝐴𝑟𝑘 𝑝𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 ℎ𝑜𝑤 𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡 ℎ𝑒 𝑤𝑎𝑠 𝑓𝑜𝑟 ℎ𝑒𝑙𝑝𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑐𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑎𝑑𝑒 𝑎𝑔𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡 𝑊ℎ𝑖𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑠𝑚.)

While I couldn't find a copy of the children's books to download, I did find this...

𝐴𝑚𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑛 𝑏𝑦 𝐵𝑖𝑟𝑡ℎ
𝑊𝑜𝑛𝑔 𝐾𝑖𝑚 𝐴𝑟𝑘 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐵𝑎𝑡𝑡𝑙𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝐶𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑧𝑒𝑛𝑠ℎ𝑖𝑝

https://files.catbox.moe/rc0p5r.pdf
https://tinyurl.com/mtsr79fs

Apparently, these people think so-called citizenship is not only a desirable status but a prize to be won and something to fight for.

There is also this...
https://tinyurl.com/2nmjzcj2

Which is but one example of curriculum they are using to indoctrinate the children.

I'm really not surprised the supremes voted this way. Statism is expansionist, totalitarian and parasitic by nature. It is only natural that statists would want to enslave everyone through so-called citizenship.

☮️

PS

"your summary of the 'legal' opinion of the most diversetard member, Jackson, is very good, and I'd like to include this as a separate post, if you're OK with that."

If you're saying you want to re-post my comments on the Ketanji concurrence in Trump v. Barbara, I am always okay with that.

By the way: If I ever drop away from activity (as I have again from Sailer-Unz for now), among the easiest ways to reach me is a comment at my wordpress site (as long as it stays up).

The "Trump v. Baraba" decision was enough to knock me back into activity for now, and maybe will return in more regular form around the middle of July.

PS

"You wouldn't be here without mass immigration, so how can you be against it?!"

1. They don't typically include the word "mass" in this moral-shaming technique.

2. Every country has some degree of immigration history even in recent/historical times. Are all nations everywhere illegitimate because at some point immigrants came in and integrated?

3. The answer to "2" is that the 'immigration' of the Saxons when the Angles had already gotten there (and Celts and some Roman leftovers were also still hanging around), does not prove Permanent Immigrationism is an Iron Law of British Isles history. Because none of it matters. These are all different elements of the same people, stable in Europe for some millennia now.

PS

-- DOAS-Blacks vs. post-1960s Immigrants / Illegals etc. --

It's interesting that Dred Scott is the 3rd-longest full decision in history up to now. (See comment by SolarWinds-123 quoted in the earlier commnet.)

The tone in which Thomas wrote about the Dred Scott decision in his Trump v. Barbara" dissent may be the main thing that got me thinking "Thomas is approaching this from a pro-Black position."

What I suspect Thomas is up to or was thinking, I mean what I detect was his thinking behind the text, is what Ann Coulter has tried, unsuccessfully, to promote:

DOAS Blacks vs. post-1960s Immigrants (including Other Blacks).

(DOAS = Descendants of American Slaves.)

Thomas, naturally, is too careful to be polemical about it, like Biden-appointed Ketanji always is.

DOAS Blacks, in this view, have a superior position within the US, by merit of history and moral right, certainly than grasping and scamming immigrants of recent stock.

Black Moral Superiority doctrine, a known phenomenon in the US, can tap into this idea. I've heard Whites say off-hand many times, "Blacks are more American than most of us," because x share of our ancestors arrived y years after the posited median Black arrival on the North American continent. (In fact, the serious Black presence in the Southern regions only starts to ramp up in the early decades of the 18th century due to labor demands, and would have ended from economic pressures some time in the later-19th century without the 1860s war.)

In most of the past three or four centuries, the idea that Blacks are a separate community and not really part of the United States was the mainstream. More recently, near-mainstream or implicit-mainstream, even in the lifetimes of older people alive today; not seen in strength now for some decades, and at some point a reverse, Black-supremacy (Black Moral Superiority doctrine) slipped into place and cruises along mostly unchallenged and tolerated.

Blacks not being a part of the United States political community gave them a role much like those American Indians who ruled themselves in tribal, sovereign governments. It must be said the Indians gained some serious degree of respect for their noble devotion to their own sovereignty, I mean after the wars with the Indians subsided and they faded into being ethnic-political internal protectorates. (The idolized Indian has always been the one wearing the head-dress, as seen on the old Washington Redskins logo; not the Indian who left the tribe, some maybe wearing suit-and-tie and others begging for alcohol money in front of fast-food restaurants.)

As I say, the Indian nations/tribes were defacto protectorates or "dependent nations" of the United States. The Thomas dissent quotes often from 19th-century sources this phrase "dependent nations."

Blacks lacked formal tribal governments but were still considered in this status in many way. Both sides thought of it this way. But the issue remained unsettled, and the economic machine of most of the Southern states and then the emotional hype of the 1861-65 war (and temporary loss of sovereignty by the occupied Southern States for some time after 1865) helped block any settlement.

The move to sponsor the permanent emigration of Blacks and help them set up some new government(s) in Africa, as with Liberia, is alone enough to prove all this, although there is plenty more. You didn't see any push like this with any other group.

As for that mythically potential "any day now!" White + DOAS-Black alliance:

To a sharp observer from Papua New Guinea who gets airdropped in and hears of this idea, it may seems logical. It seems it could work! Why not?

But I have seen little to no indication it works, or could work, or has worked, in the cultural-political dispensation we have. I hear talk in this direction often, in fact constantly, from the Republican Party in our time. There don't seem to be more than a tenth of Blacks who embrace the idea, and many times that who are aggressively and opposed with the commitment of the sports-fanatic for his team.

PS: Ha, I started writing my comment before I saw yours, Mr. Hail. I'll check that out next, but I want to start on a quick Quarter-Millennium post - I'll probably post it tonight.

PS: Mr. Hail, your summary of the "legal" opinion of the most diversetard member, Jackson, is very good, and I'd like to include this as a separate post, if you're OK with that. I meant to address this:

"Second Founding" is a term she uses throughout her concurrence. It's not her term, but may have been coined or at least popularized by Jewish writer Eric Foner in his 2019 book by that name. (She cites the book and repeatedly uses his phrase). The Second Founding is pegged to the Civil War, Reconstruction, and empowerment of Blacks. (I think her gratuitous use of "Second Founding" was one of the many phrases, many per page, that had me saying, "This is a stupid person.")

The black elite "leaders", and those who push this alt-history on them (your Eric Foners and such) really don't want to be a part of the American story. They want their own story, and White people are to play a small part in it.

If 1865 is the time of this "Second Founding", then, I suppose the Civil Rights legislation of exactly one century later should be a "Third Founding". Chris Caldwell, in his book "The Age of Entitlement", called that legislation a second Constitution or something like that.

Review of that book: https://www.peakstupidity.com/index.php?post=1921

(Those thoughts about 1960s "civil rights" were good, but I wasn't enamored with the whole book.)

PS

The SCOTUS law clerks:

If a SCOTUS justice employs four law clerks any one time and they typically earn $125,000/year (taxpayer money), with Thomas earning $300,000+ (also taxpayer money); and if Thomas devoted as much as 1/10th of aggregate time in 2026 to this case, that single dissent cost $80,000 to produce on the back-end.

SCOTUS actually takes on and rules on around 60 to 80 cases per year, making the usual time-load on any one case would mathematically be 1.5% time/effort per case per year.

To get up to 10%, the Trump v Barbara "birthright citizenship" case would have to have absorbed 7 times the usual time/effort/energy. This is plausible because the Thomas dissent was so long.

Testament to some of the points some of us are making that this is a victory even in defeat, the Thomas dissent is one of the longest in history -- and it's solid all the way through, not somebody "BSing" through long parts.

Someone found the Thomas dissent in Trump v. Barbara was the 3rd longest in US Supreme Court history, produced at about the 235th anniversary of the inaugural cases before the court (nominally in existence from Oct 1789; first ruling: August 1791).

Quote:

____________

Solarwinds-123
Reddit "Opinion of the Court: Trump v. Barbara" (r/ModeratePolitics)

At 91 pages, (THomas' dissent in Trump v. Barbara) would be the third longest dissent in Supreme Court history.

The longest is Justice Wayne's dissent in United States v. Castillero (1863) coming in at a whopping 160 pages, followed by Alito's dissent in Bostock at 107. Interestingly, Clarence Thomas also holds the now-6th place record as well for U.S. Term Limits, Inc v. Thornton, which is itself a pretty big landmark case in election law.

The entire decision itself being 194 pages puts it at the 10th longest in history. The top spot there goes to Buckley v. Valeo at 289 pages, followed by McConnell v. FEC at 252 and Dredd Scott at 235.

(End quote, Solarwinds-123, Reddit)

____________

PS: Even Americanise, haha. ;-}

Out of ~ 95 ex-Thomas-clerks I counted, I saw one black lady and another who MIGHT be a black lady. Then there's this one old black guy in the ... wait, that's Clarence Thomas! I may be off by 1, but I counted 33 women, all the rest pretty much White, and a few real cuties.

Now THERE'S a guy whose revealed preferences match his principles - completely against Affirmative Action. Your article writer takes this pretty hard:

"To me, it reflects Clarence Thomas’ deep-seated racial bigotry against Black people. Thomas gets away with his "in-your-face" bigotry because he is Black -- in skin color only."

" know of no case where Clarence Thomas ruled in favor of a Black plaintiff in a civil rights case or a Black criminal defendant during his 32 years on the federal bench. In his judicial rulings, Clarence Thomas has gone out of his way to inflict the maximum pain and suffering possible upon tens of millions of Black Americans and women."

Yes, he's right though, that Thomas can "get away with it". White bosses, maybe even White SCrOTAE, cannot "get away with" hiring people based solely on merit. Even the best of Presidents of the country can't "get away with it", it seems.

Yeah, that short article only went downhill from there...

Thanks for that info on the Soros money.

PS

Clarence Thomas’ former law clerks in a picture … you might be surprised:

https://static.wixstatic.com/media/851524_0fbc963042234427bac314be06e56674~mv2.jpg/v1/fill/w_1480,h_608,al_c,q_85,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01,enc_avif,quality_auto/851524_0fbc963042234427bac314be06e56674~mv2.jpg

Article here:
https://www.donaldwatkins.com/post/a-picture-is-worth-a-thousand-words-clarence-thomas-posing-with-his-former-law-clerks

Author suggests the Whiteness of the group is evidence of Thomas’ antipathy toward black folk.

Been doing Brit spelling for almost three decades. Spell check fights me when I Americanise. In law school, they deducted points for American spelling, though it is becoming more common.

Roberts and Barrett have benefited from Soros money, and Roberts once stayed with Lawfare-maven Norm Elias in his opulent home in Czechia a while back. Nothing to see here though.

🕉

PS: Thanks for your 1st comment too, Alarmist. The last sentence goes along with Menken's "and deserve to get it, good and hard". It's unfortunately those who try to explain the problems with this Gynocracy to the womenfolk who get dragged down - then the former will never understand what happened anyway, as they are living the Moslem version of the Handmaid's Tale.

"This ruling merely formalises what has been going on for sixty years." You're even. using the British/Commonwealth spelling now - my spell-check doesn't like it, haha.

Yes, though, it's just strange for me to see that there are people acting like this is a NEW thing. "Communist Chinese babies can be born here to infiltrate the country later." Well, yeah, it's great you're seeing some of the many problems, but this is nothing that couldn't have been happening for 60 years, right.

PS: Regarding your minor point about John Roberts, Mr. Hail, and the influence of his background on this decision.

Firstly, based on other decisions - the biggest being Roberts' finally ending all resistance to "Single Payer", i.e. Government-run healthcare back in '12 - National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius. (BTW, the case was originally brought up in Florida by none else than Pam Blondie - I'll give her credit there.) - this guy seems to always rule against the country when it really counts. What was the deal in that old case - government control of healthcare is just a tax and per the Taxing and Spending Clause (taxing power) is perfectly Constitutional? BS!

I think he's been blackmailed or something. No I can't prove anything.

That aside, the background of Robert's immigrant ancestors, at least on the one side, is not something that I'd think have him emotionally deciding this case on (of course, he'd never write that down). After all, I assume they came in legally during the Ellis Island entry era. That was no sure thing, getting in. Since that time the standard entry - immigration visa, green card, citizenship - takes even more work, and this is why many legal immigrants are against illegal immigration, probably not always, but sometimes because "not fair!" They had to go through a lot of trouble, while the illegals didn't.

Now, that's not a good enough reason to be against mass immigration, and then too, the invasion boosters will tell said people "Hey, you should be grateful and try to make it easier for those who follow", that sort of thing.

I think of the standard Jewish line that "You wouldn't be here without mass immigration, so how can you be against it?!" Well, as Steven Miller would likely say "We're full". It's different now. This is not the America with a frontier anymore. (It's true that "going West, young man" was not so much a Jewish thing rather than the teeming cities, but there was more room economically back then too.)

I think Roberts has been ruling against America in the important cases (as you say, it wasn't a solid 6-3, as Kavanaugh was concerned mostly with the E.O. method) due to his being told to.

PS: Messrs Hail and Alarmist, thanks for the legal analysis and input. For Mr. Hail first, I appreciate your taking the time to read the whole case .pdf document. I've skipped around on Thomas' dissent - then too I've read criticism of Brown's juvenile concurrence (said to be a rebuttal of Thomas, more than anything original.)

I get your point that it's not all Clarence Thomas, but his law clerks who may have written much of this. Alarmist might have some insight, but I'd guess they did the work of looking up precedents/examples for Judge Thomas's points, and Thomas put it all together. I gotta say that I am more than pleasantly surprised at how this Senior Jorge Bush appointment turned out - there's really no way to know for sure. I hope he can stay healthy for another decade!

As for the blackety-black business, I'll have to read again through Thomas' section on the obvious purpose of Amendment XIV, S-1 to see if I can glean that or not.

PS

Just to clarify my last point, I do not believe Justice Thomas’ opinion was, as Derb used to quip, about blackety-blackety-black-black-black. I think it is based on sound interpretation of legislative intent.

Having freed several million slaves with the 13th A but not properly framing their status on US soil, the Congressional Republicans now needed to fix this unforced error in the face of continuing hostility from the Southern elite, who knew they themselves were sitting on a ticking time bomb. This was not long after Haiti, a lesson not lost on former slave owners.

I might also posit that the 14A was a cynical ploy on the part of Republicans to bost their voter rolls. I might not be wrong, in which case the tables have been turned on the Repubes by the Deep Staters who started granting birthright citizenship in the 1960s. This ruling merely formalises what has been going on for sixty years.

Touché.


☯️

PS

I studied at a UK law school, but the US has similar concepts when it comes to the rules of statutory interpretation. At least half of the SCOTUS justices would have failed the question that asks them to explain this overarching topic of law.

But hey, why listen to me, when it’s on the SCOTUS website:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-9575/102239/20190611092122150_00000055.pdf

I’m going to ignore point one, because it is difficult to accept the 14th Amendment as being, no pun intended, Black Letter Law, largely due to the qualifier “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”

Skip point 2, as it is not germane at this point.

It is point three that immediately comes into play:

…….

Every word within a statute is there for a purpose and should be given its due significance. This fact only underscores our duty to refrain from reading a phrase into the statute when Congress has left it out.

" '[W]here Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another ..., it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion.' "
Russello v United States, 464 US 16, 23, 78 LEd 2d 17, 104 S Ct 296 (1983)
[Keene Corp. v United States, 508 U.S. 200 (1993)]
……..

Point four is rightly cited by many as being overlooked: What was the legislative intent?:
……
All laws are to be interpreted consistent with the legislative intent for which they were originally enacted, as revealed in the Congressional Record prior to the passage. The passage of no amount of time can change the original legislative intent of a law.

Courts should construe laws in harmony with the legislative intent and seek to carry out legislative purpose.
[Foster v. United States, 303 U.S. 118, 120 (1938)]

We are bound to interpret the Constitution in the light of the law as it existed at the time it was adopted...
[Mattox v. United States, 156 U.S. 237, 244, 15 S. Ct. 337, 39 L. Ed. 409 (1895)]
….

It is clear from the Congressional record that the 14th Amendment was intended to apply only to the former slaves, but it clearly allows some limited exceptions to those properly subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

Like it or not, slaves were lawfully present in the US prior to 1865 (some would wrongly say 1863), and they were certainly under US jurisdiction (e.g.Dred Scott). You could say the same for a Lawful Permanent Resident., i.e. someone who went through all the formalities to subject himself to US jurisdiction

This is not at all applicable to those who actively seek to avoid being subject to US jurisdiction by making unlawful entry to the US or otherwise flouting processes provided for in legislation and operated by the Executive to provide for orderly and lawful immigration into the US.

SCOTUS has violated two of the most salient principles that it alleges it follows when interpreting the laws of the US because. reasons.

If the 14th Amendment was intended to apply to every person born on US soil, it would simply say that with no further qualification, and there is no shortage in the records of debate whom were meant to not be counted as eligible (like it or not, it was the nineteenth century after all… sorry, feather Indians).

SCOTUS has once again decided to started making law in the name of social justice, but oddly enough, the guy who got it right is the black dude who is so hated that they left him out of the black Smithsonian.

That’s modern America for you.

🕉

PS

-- Observations on "Trump v Barbara" --

Hours after the ruling came out, I started reading the entire lengthy court opinions (the "Trump v Barbara" PDF linked to in the PS post, hosted at SupremeCourt-dot-gov).

It's a heavy document and puts you out many hours of time to read carefully. But to read it from the source you get a few interesting insights I'll try to summarize a few of the insights I got from the exercise:

__________

1st, The vote needs to be understood as "5-1-3." 5 votes for Upholding Birthright Citizenship for everyone and 4 not in favor (3 against, 1 taking a middle position ut basically against).

This is hardly an open-and-shut, easy defeat that the Left had been framing it as. More on the "5-1-3" below.
.

2nd, Those who read the opinions will see the "Revoke Birthright Citizenship" side wins decisively. I mean wins on weight of evidence presented.

The legal scholarship on the "Uphold Birthright Citizenship for Illegals etc" side is weak, at best. I don't mean that I disagree with its conclusions, I mean that it's "thin." If you put yourself in the role of a professor grading papers, the "Uphold" side gets a middling grade of maybe C+ or B-; the "Revoke" side gets an A.

There is a lot of "virtue-signaling" and even political-diatribing from the concurrence by Ketanji Brown-Jackson, which is what we must suspect is, to greater or lesser degree, behind all 5 of the "Uphold" votes.
.

3rd, What the "Uphold Birthright Citizenship" side does have is the precedent of practice during their lifetimes. It's inherently hard to overturn something you've known your whole life. And that makes it a surprise only 5 of the 9 voted unambiguously for the Uphold Birthright Citizenship position.
.

4th, This case is actually much more of a "win" than meets the eye (headlines), based on how decisively and authoritatively the "End Birthright Citizenship" side wins the debate and how hard it is, inherently, to go against long practice.

It's a loss in that the vote came up short. But winning the debate and planting the flag of truth and dignity are important. Sometimes court "losses" can be "wins" in disguise.

Both of the main dissents make clear that they see the majority as being in serious error, making major lapses in legal scholarship, and diluting and devaluing U.S. citizenship (definitely true).

Alito's dissent points more strongly than Thomas' towards the majority being influenced by political ideology, ideology trumping textual reading of the law. (The problem of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and "subject to no foreign power" they simply ignore.) I'd add cowardice, as already mentioned ("it's always been this way during my lifetime or thereabouts"); plus feminism.
.

5th, the "Feminism" most directly important here comes from Justice Amy Coney Barrett, which I predicted a few months ago at the Sailer Community discussion forum when people were following the oral arguments.

People have identified her as a problem for some time. She is a conservative, people said back in 2020 or so. Hey, great. What does that mean? Lots of little "red flags" that she was at heart pro-Wokeness, the kind of woman who'd adopt Black children and believe in Black Moral Superiority doctrine. I'm sure "she's a nice person and all," but this woman should not be a judge of any kind. (I'll elaborate on that just below.)
.

6th, The concurring opinion by Justice Ketanji Brown-Jackson is really interesting for its subtext. I encourage those with interest to read it. I'll elaborate a little on that below.

(The Jackson concurrence in the high-thousands of words; the dissent by Thomas is well into the tens-of-thousands of words. The Jackson concurrence is a reply to the Thomas dissent.)
.

7th, Why did Roberts vote for Birthright Citizenship? The villains here are Roberts and Barrett.

I have less of an explanation for Roberts. He is a Catholic (as is Barrett), which could contribute to it. (All things equal, I think Protestants will tend to vote for Revoke Birthright Citizenship for Illegals than Catholics, simply by merit of U.S. ethnoreligious history). Roberts' mother's-side ancestry traces to Slovakia in about the early Ellis Island period (1880s to around early 1890s?), if that means anything that isn't already implied by the Catholic identity.

__________

Elaboration on Point-1:

The 5 voting to "uphold" this crazy reading of the U.S. Constitution, law, and common good-sense, were: Roberts, Barrett, and the three block-voting Leftist judges.

The 1 taking a middle position was Kavanaugh.

Kavanaugh specified that the order to revoke "Birthright Citizenship" to illegals and birth-tourists was Kavanaugh IS constitutional, but he said Congress needs to amend some law from 1952 in order for it to be valid.

The 3 voting to end birthright citizenship for non-citizens/illegals/birth-tourists were: Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito.

I was "covering" this on the Unz Sailer Open Threads some time back, and I called it about exactly right. It was a 3-3-3 split (3 definitely would vote for, 3 definitely to vote against, 3 in middle positions who could lean either way or induce the full Court majority to take a compromise position in some way, blocking at least many of the illegal births from instant-citizenship).

I called Barrett exactly right, at the time, a few months ago, based on the oral arguments. I based it on what she said and what questions she was asking. Barrett, I said at the time, was emotionalistically going to vote to "uphold" Birthright Citizenship because babies are pure innocent people and must be protected from mean-spirited adult bullies.

The most important unclear vote was Roberts. Roberts could have gone with a middle position like Kavanaugh ended up doing, but decided instead to go with the Leftists and female-brained Barrett.

_____________

Elaboration on Point-2 and Point-5 (weak scholarship by the Uphold (Majority) side; Feminism):

The majority seemed to think it didn't matter that they were wrong on the points of law, and felt they could ignore major matters of law here, because practice during their lifetimes has been otherwise.

It's as if a judge in some murder trial said, "Okay I know there are some facts out there but, you know what, I really like this guy, so: Court adjourned, Mr Accused, you are free."

The dissenters say repeatedly how this devalues U.S. citizenship, and obviulsy birth-tourism does that (a typical example of Asian and other Non-Western flexible ethics, exploiting good-will of White societies).

But on the "Uphold" ruling by these 5, we have to understand, too, that they operate in the frame of Wokeness, which has dominated the culture for many decades now and has created an artificial consensus on things like this.

Perceived Group Consensus *IS* the-right-and-the-good for many people.

It's not necessarily that people have wrong opinions, or are deluded, or stupid (sorry, name of this website) -- though those things may apply in part -- it's that many people don't perceive truth as an objective, sacred object. Truth is instrumental or flexible for these people.

In this Birthright Citizenship case, the Left has long drumbeat that "it's in the Constitution" and simply unassailable. The non-White / post-White Left actually worships Wong Kim Ark as a Saint of Wokeness, a point I made in the Sailer threads a few months ago. (There are children's books about Wong Kim Ark praising how great he was for helping in the eternal crusade against White Racism.)

For the Consensus, anti-Birthright Citizenship-ists are on the intellectual-moral level of UFO-abduction conspiracy people. They don't feel the need to prove their case because of that Perceived Group Consensus reflex. But now you only squeezed out a weak, 5-vote majority under shaky scholarship! (Some unassailable, rock-sold consensus they've got there.)

It took me a long time in life to really understand the "Perceived Group Conesus IS Truth for many people" concept. I couldn't understand that there were people like that, especially in such large numbers.

Those who think this way should not be judges.

Women think that way much more than men (see comments on Amy Coney Barret). Nonwhites think that way more than Whites. Those with experience in the world sort of know these things, but we still live in a political dispensation of Wokeness and so the good American / Westerner suppresses such insights or knowledge, not mentioning it much, if ever, in polite company.

The job of a judge is to make rulings based on law, not on feelings, nor on self-interest, nor out of political expediency, nor pressure from a ruling power or any other group. Law is hard to "achieve" in a society. It is one of the West's super-powers. It requires a strong critical threshold of people who revere the Truth as a concept. That's what the Law is. Laws can be wrong, but there is a sacredness to them, because there is an inherent sacredness to Truth. Multi-racial diversity and Wokeness are challenges to Law on several fronts. If you need any reminder of that, just read the Ketanji Brown-Jackson concurrence.

__________

Elaboration on Point-6 (Ketanji Brown-Jackson concurrence):

When you read through the Brown-Jackson concurrence, you get certain negative feelings. One that came to me:

"This is a stupid person." The indignant writing style, the vocabulary and turns-of-phrase, I don't know quite what. It reads like something a bright-but-not-spectacular college student would come up with.

Some or many of her "stupid person" phrasings may be tone-deafness on what writing style and level of decorum is to be expected in a court of law, much less the U.S. Supreme Court.

She was admitted into Harvard in 1988, but she was probably coddled every step of the way starting around middle school and all the way to her appointment to the Supreme Court; she probably milked her Black Female status every step of the way (see: Black Moral Superiority doctrine; already in place in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and strong in the circles she was traveling in). I don't care if you went to Harvard. If I read a court opinion like Jackson's, I judge her to be not-so-bright.

Another thought that comes with the reading of Jackson's concurrence:

"This is like an op-ed for a left-leaning political magazine."

I saw little legal scholarshop in it, or any pretense to legal scholarship. I'd call it more like moral shaming. Relatedly, another thought that penetrates the mind on reading her concurrence: "This is irrelevant. How is this related to the Trump v Barbara case? It seemingly is not at all."

Another: "This is Black-ethnonarcissism, poured into writing."

A narcissist "makes everything about herself." What Jackson did in her concurrence is to "make everything about Blacks." I am not kidding. I am not even exaggerating! It really is entirely focused on Blacks, with anyone else an afterthought.

She continued praised Blacks throughout (the kind of thing an over-enthusiastic member of a Black college might do). And by the end she crescendoed to a point I could clearly see coming by about mid-way through: Blacks are so morally virtuous that any leftover virtue that the USA may have, or have had over the past 150+ years, is entirely due to Blacks and the "Second Founding" which was focused on Blacks.

It's a moral claim that Blacks are the real Americans and are thereby morally superior to Whites (the same as we got with the "1619 Project"). But their national cup that floweth over so much with Black moral virtue is still burdened with the presence of White villains, so Blacks need to balance against them using help from allies and other Nonwhite people, hence the need for Birthright Citizenship for anyone, no questions asked.

"Second Founding" is a term she uses throughout her concurrence. It's not her term, but may have been coined or at least popularized by Jewish writer Eric Foner in his 2019 book by that name. (She cites the book and repeatedly uses his phrase). The Second Founding is pegged to the Civil War, Reconstruction, and empowerment of Blacks. (I think her gratuitous use of "Second Founding" was one of the many phrases, many per page, that had me saying, "This is a stupid person.")

(But, listen, Ketanji, I've got something to tell you. Are you aware that "Second Founding" is not a legal term? It's like she thinks it is. A white judge might write an opinion with that phrase once, contextualized, and move on. She uses it repeatedly.)

The Jackson concurrence is an ode to Black Moral Superiority doctrine. It is more political-theology than law. It is a Black-tinged statement of Wokeness principles, centering Blacks as the heroes of Wokeness. Second Founding mythology that these people spin is Wokeness historiography.

To underline my points here, I say again that there is very little legal citation in Jackson's opinion-essay-like several thousand words.

But let me go further and be totally honest: the Thomas dissent also displays some influence of Black ethnonarcissism, even though his conclusions are right and his scholarship (his team of law-clerks) were so meticulous and thorough. In other words, it's pretty clear Thomas was arguing from a pro-Black frame rather than a neutral legal frame.

He says the 14th Amendment was entirely about what to do with the freed Black slaves (or, hypothetically, with any other person with no ties to a foreign power in similar condition).

No African kingdom had claims on these Blacks, freed in 1865, so they were subject to no foreign power. A Chinese birth-tourist today is subject to the jurisdiction of China, so does not fall under the 14th Amendment. Illegals today are exploiting it goes against the original intent, which was to be pro-Black. He tempers it and frames it properly and heavily legally grounds everything. I say again that his law clerks clearly did a good job.

_____________

Elaboration on how relatively easy it is to disprove the position that Birthright Citizenship is unassailable and obvious.

In one of the Unz Open Threads, I posted some things on whether the modern, "Woke-Left" understanding of "birthright citizenship" was immediately in place starting 1868 (or 1898 with the "Wong Kim Ark" case) and that it continued totally uninterrupted to our time. This is the claim from the Left and the claim by the 5 voting to uphold the practice of jus-solis Birthright Citizenship.

I know enough of 19th- and early-20th-century history and practice to know the claim is shaky at BEST, and likely outright disprovable.

I found a tangible example from early 1917, in which the State Department treated minor children of temporary sojourners from England in the US as not US citizens when a German submarine sank a vessel they were on. Birth on US soil did not, in the interpretation of the State Department at the time, automatically mean US citizenship. (And these were White children.)

I am not being paid by anyone to do this, as Thomas' law-clerks are, but I knew/know with 100% certainty I could readily find dozens more like this.

I'm glad those law-clerks were as good as they are, because Thomas' dissent flows over with examples exactly like the 1917 example I found. All across the 19th century and well into the 20th century. Actual practice, understanding of the law, back then, was not in accord with what we're told is the unsassailable truth of the matter.

__________

PS

My ex-sister-in-law once asked, after I had be out of the US for a decade, when I planned to return, and I not-so-jokingly replied, “When the Republic is restored.”

We all kind of knew this a couple decades ago, but you can stick a fork in the Republic. It ain’t coming back.

This Gynocracy (yeah, Roberts too) isn’t working out so well for the USA.

The funny thing is that our replacement population strike me as they types who won’t let their wimminfolk vote.

☯️