4 hours ago, VanHammersly said:

Although apparently 4 justices thought overturning an amendment was no big deal (looks like Kavanaugh disagreed on some kind of statute, but didn't have a problem with the Constitutional question). That's a pretty damning indictment of the court, even though sanity held the line in the end.

I wouldn't say that 4 justices thought overturning an amendment was no big deal. Kavanaugh basically said making new exceptions to the birthright citizenship via EO isn't allowed. If they want to change it, then it must be changed through congress. Thomas and Alito argued that the 14th amendment was never meant to apply to temporary visitors and illegal immigrants. They aren't trying to "overturn" an amendment, they're saying the majority of the court is not interpreting the amendment correctly. Gorsuch concurred with Thomas' opinion regarding the relationship between your domicile and citizenship, so he agrees that birthright citizenship shouldn't be conferred to the children of temporary visitors, but he asks the question what about the children of an illegal immigrant who has made their permanent home here?

"The government insists that aspect of the order can survive any possible legal challenge, too, because individuals can secure domicile in this country only if they do so in compliance with federal law. See ante, at 57–58, n. 10 (THOMAS, J., dissenting). About that, however, I harbor doubts. Perhaps Wong Kim Ark does not squarely foreclose the government’s position. After all, that case addressed a child born to parents who lawfully resided in this country. Still, I wonder: Is a child born here to parents who have long chosen to make this Nation their permanent home not a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment solely because his parents’ presence violates statutory law? If those parents are not domiciled here, then where are they domiciled? And if the answer is nowhere, how can we reconcile that conclusion with this Court’s longstanding recognition that every person is domiciled somewhere? See Desmare v. United States, 93 U. S. 605, 610 (1877). Because the executive order is not facially invalid, these questions may not be properly before us. But their answers are undeniably important to a Nation committed to a view of citizenship open to all children born here to parents who can call this country their home.

15 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

Lots of people boycotting the WNBA because it’s full of dudes now

You mean like all 10 of the fans?

Just now, DrPhilly said:

You mean like all 10 of the fans?

Even Philly is getting a team. And they’ll probably be more popular than the Sixers

1 hour ago, paco said:

Then you arn't paying attention. There were lots of college women boycotting their own sport because they were letting trans athletes participate. It wasn't just swimming. Volleyball, basketball, etc. You name it there was probably a boycott.

Highest estimate I've seen of the number of trans athletes in the NCAA was under 40. The president of the NCAA said it was less than 10 in his testimony. Out of over half a million total athletes.

Doesn't mean it isn't worth ruling on, or that it isn't deeply personal to the athletes affected. But "lots" is huge a stretch.

2 hours ago, Dave Moss said:

Even Philly is getting a team. And they’ll probably be more popular than the Sixers

If they were that popular the NBA wouldn't be propping them up.

8 hours ago, VanHammersly said:

Although apparently 4 justices thought overturning an amendment was no big deal (looks like Kavanaugh disagreed on some kind of statute, but didn't have a problem with the Constitutional question). That's a pretty damning indictment of the court, even though sanity held the line in the end.

Yeah the fact this wasn't 8-1 or 7-2 at worst, is insane. I get that Thomas is bought and paid for but wtf Gorsuch.

5 hours ago, DrPhilly said:

How about we just have the "Open League" and the "Biological Female League"?

That's basically what we already have. Females aren't barred from playing in the NBA, NFL, MLB, NHL, etc... Multiple women have tried to make the cut at the PGA tour, only one has successfully done it, Babe Zaharias back in 1945.

5 hours ago, VanHammersly said:

Uh-oh. There's...a lot of wiggle room in there.

That is an INSANELY dangerous statement

6 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

That is an INSANELY dangerous statement

Modern situations? Send the militia, I mean the 2A crowd as the first wave of boots on the ground in Iran.

I'm getting a kick out of seeing these GOP congressmen complain on twitter and falsely claim that the supreme court made some sort of "new" ruling today. "Now, illegal aliens can just come here and have a baby and that baby is a citizen!" Ummm yeah it's been that way for over 150 years numbnuts.

Do these people not realize that back when the 14th amendment was passed, there was no such thing as "illegal immigration" as we know it today? There was no visa system. You showed up at a point of entry and as long as there wasn't some rare circumstance going on, you were admitted to the country.

1 hour ago, Phillyterp85 said:

I'm getting a kick out of seeing these GOP congressmen complain on twitter and falsely claim that the supreme court made some sort of "new" ruling today. "Now, illegal aliens can just come here and have a baby and that baby is a citizen!" Ummm yeah it's been that way for over 150 years numbnuts.

Do these people not realize that back when the 14th amendment was passed, there was no such thing as "illegal immigration" as we know it today? There was no visa system. You showed up at a point of entry and as long as there wasn't some rare circumstance going on, you were admitted to the country.

The Chinese Exclusion Act was first passed in 1882. And Japan had the Gentleman’s Agreement (to avoid an outright ban). The quota system to limit immigrants from Europe passed in 1924.

5 hours ago, Phillyterp85 said:

That's basically what we already have. Females aren't barred from playing in the NBA, NFL, MLB, NHL, etc... Multiple women have tried to make the cut at the PGA tour, only one has successfully done it, Babe Zaharias back in 1945.

No we don’t. We have NCAA men’s teams and NCAA women’s teams. Not the same as saying "open” and "biological female”. Not when we can’t define the term "woman”.

4 hours ago, DrPhilly said:

No we don’t. We have NCAA men’s teams and NCAA women’s teams. Not the same as saying "open” and "biological female”. Not when we can’t define the term "woman”.

The men’s teams is the "open” league. A female would be allowed to play on the men’s teams if one was good enough. It has happened already in football with some colleges having a female kicker come in for a play.

11 hours ago, Phillyterp85 said:

That's basically what we already have. Females aren't barred from playing in the NBA, NFL, MLB, NHL, etc... Multiple women have tried to make the cut at the PGA tour, only one has successfully done it, Babe Zaharias back in 1945.

Now do men making women’s teams

4 hours ago, Phillyterp85 said:

The men’s teams is the "open” league. A female would be allowed to play on the men’s teams if one was good enough. It has happened already in football with some colleges having a female kicker come in for a play.

Yeah, but we don't have a "biological female" designation.

3 hours ago, paco said:

Now do men making women’s teams

not sure what you mean? that's the whole point of women's teams. If there wasn't women's teams then there wouldn't be women's sports because men would just be in all the leagues.

32 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Yeah, but we don't have a "biological female" designation.

Well, that's because in the past we didn't need to call it the "biological female" league because it's always been understood that women's sports leagues are for biological females.

31 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Well, that's because in the past we didn't need to call it the "biological female" league because it's always been understood that women's sports leagues are for biological females.

Well, I can remember this being a topic locally decades back. We had guys wanting to join the HS field hockey team for instance. It is much more visible now but it isn't new. We can go back to Renee Richards in professional tennis to find a national/worldwide example which was in the 70s (look it up).

22 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Well, I can remember this being a topic locally decades back. We had guys wanting to join the HS field hockey team for instance. It is much more visible now but it isn't new. We can go back to Renee Richards in professional tennis to find a national/worldwide example which was in the 70s (look it up).

Remember when DeSantis wanted to show someone impacted by trans athletes so he had a girl flown in from Connecticut?

19 hours ago, DEagle7 said:

Highest estimate I've seen of the number of trans athletes in the NCAA was under 40. The president of the NCAA said it was less than 10 in his testimony. Out of over half a million total athletes.

Doesn't mean it isn't worth ruling on, or that it isn't deeply personal to the athletes affected. But "lots" is huge a stretch.

That depends on your definition of lots I guess

For some reason this is an insanely important topic for "lots" of people.

29 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

Remember when DeSantis wanted to show someone impacted by trans athletes so he had a girl flown in from Connecticut?

Nope but I know the numbers of situations of this happening in sports is very small which is exactly why the Dems should saddle up and just tell their nutballs on the fringe to slag off.