No. of Recommendations: 9
Roberts being snarky?
At least he was on the right side of this one, for a change. He goes on to point out that "the Government and the dissent identify no source that defined allegiance at birth as being based on domicile in the period from 1776 to 1868." In the end, Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch (and Kavanaugh to an extent) hang their so-called interpretation on the meaning of 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' and come up with a result that goes against plain meaning, and, as Roberts points out, all previous judicial writings and thinking.
This **should have been** a 9-0 opinion, but 3 1/2 members of the court found the constitution itself unconstitutional. Quite scary.
Pete
