Folks, birthright citizenship isn't just some interpretation of a few weirdly phrased passages in the 14th Amendment. We had birthright citizenship BEFORE the 14th Amendment. It's actually one of the oldest and most fundamental principles of American law. 1/

This is some top tier sports content.

I’m down to go 18 innings again.

One of the great things about baseball is as you are sitting there waiting for Shohei Ohtani to show up, Miguel Rojas does instead.

Best World Series of all time?

Happy Europa Universalis V day to all who celebrate.

FAFO, Texas.

I’m kind of surprised the Epstein stuff actually seems to move the needle on people’s views of Trump, since Trump is a creep and probable rapist is pretty old news. Figured that was all baked in by now.

Imo, the Greatest Generation is in fact the greatest generation, and Gen X is the worst. Boomers and millennials are both fine and their hate is undeserved. Too soon to tell on Gen Z.

The fun thing about Lord of the Ring in 2025 is so much of it feels like basic unoriginal high fantasy genre cliches, but it’s the source of the cliches!

“Why’d Constantinople get the works? That’s nobody’s business but the Turks’” might be the greatest song lyric ever composed.

Hot take: The Sound of Music's treatment of Austrian nationalism as distinct from greater German nationalism is anachronistic for the time period.

Yes, a lot of the doctrines giving deference to the President assume the President is acting in good faith, and there's been a failure to adjust from right leaning jurists (including on SCOTUS) in light of the overwhelming evidence that assumption does not hold right now, imo.

Ahistorical nonsense that the 14th amendment framers didn’t intend birthright citizenship. They were simply codifying the English common law rule of birthright citizenship to clarify it applies to black people too and knew exactly what they were doing and what it meant

Respectfully, there is no debate. The Anglo-American constitutional tradition of birthright citizenship has been unbroken for centuries, except for Black Americans—which is what the 14A was intended to remedy and secure in perpetuity. It’s been settled law since medieval England.

I follow SCOTUS commentary for a living, an area where experts will say flat-wrong propositions of law are "clearly X," so that some scholars weighing in on birthright citizenship can only bring themselves to say that "the question is harder than you think" is super telling.

Part of the reason I come off so harsh and dogmatic on birthright citizenship is because I am outraged at the notion that 2025 conservatives can just make up a phony constitutional interpretation and we all are supposed to pretend it is a real "debate".

This is such a bad argument. "subject to jurisdiction" refers to the CHILD, not the parent. BORN here and subject to jurisdiction. These guys' entire legal theory is corruption of blood-- the parent didn't "owe allegiance", so we will punish the child born here.