By Jeffrey A. Rendall
The Supreme Court extended its streak of common-sense defying and divisive decisions
Coming off the weekend where Americans celebrated the beginning of something so many of us hold dear – namely, the adoption of the Declaration of Independence and the founding of our republic – perhaps it’s fitting that we should address another, much more controversial, form of birth, that being last week’s illogical and not-historically-supported Supreme Court ruling that upheld Birthright Citizenship for illegal aliens.
Leftists and Democrats rejoiced as the nation’s highest judicial entity ostensibly rubberstamped into law the heinous and unjustified practice of birth tourism.
No doubt the human smuggling Mexican crime cartels were also gladdened by the 5-4 result, as the cretins were granted an official greenlight to ramp up their smuggling operations of those who would gain a foothold into the U.S. using any bodily means possible.
Ca-ching! Can’t you just hear it now? The bigger the woman’s (or “birthing parent’s”, as Democrats would prefer) abdomen, the more dough the sleazy south-of-the-border lawbreakers will demand for an ill-begotten one-way ticket through the golden door!
It’s hard to make light of the potential ramifications from the Supreme Court’s sadly impulsive conclusion last week. But the offshoots of bad policy could have consequences in other ways, too. Stay tuned.
In an opinion piece titled, “Supreme Court birthright citizenship decision renews conservative feud with GOP-appointed justices”, W. James Antle III wrote last week at the Washington Examiner:
“The Supreme Court’s birthright citizenship decision continued a pattern of conservative disappointment with Republican-appointed justices many hoped would end with President Donald Trump’s nominees…
“The Republican base is more result-oriented than the conservative legal networks from which the current conservative majority is drawn. Trump is even more results-oriented and was especially outraged when the court struck down his tariffs earlier this year. Conservative policy goals aren’t always consistent with an originalist interpretation of the Constitution, and sometimes legal conservatives disagree among themselves (as do political conservatives in the MAGA age) …
“But the birthright citizenship case highlights that conservative disaffection with the court isn’t over. Justice Amy Coney Barrett bears the brunt of the criticism, though not even Justice Neil Gorsuch, the only Trump-nominated dissenter, appeared ready to disqualify the children of illegal immigrants from birthright citizenship. Trump is on the outs with the Federalist Society, an important conservative legal network that helped him build the current court majority, and Republican lawmakers are likely to push a constitutional amendment to reverse the birthright citizenship decision.”
One such reversal effort is currently underway, led by Kentucky Senator Rand Paul. Republican legislators will speechify and mourn the unfairness of the Supreme Court’s action on birthright citizenship, and conservative media outlets will hem and haw and gripe and moan to vent their frustration as well. In the end, the gassing will amount to little more than a tale told by idiots, with lots of sound and fury, but ultimately signifying nothing as delivering a Constitutional Amendment to counteract the Court’s pronouncement doesn’t have a Banquo’s ghost of a chance of passing.
Conservative commentators aren’t idiots, but pragmatically speaking, it’ll be nearly impossible to correct the Constitution’s 14th Amendment ambiguities through the arduous revision process.
Congress itself can act, but I wouldn’t wager a meaningful sum on real reform actually happening. We’re stuck with birthright citizenship, at least until the politics shifts on the issue. But, as the fight over safeguarding voting practices (SAVE America Act) has demonstrated, not even an 80-plus-percent popularly-backed issue will automatically run through the legislative gauntlet.
As long as the socialism loving/America hating Democrats occupy a filibuster sustaining number of Senate seats, they’re free to oppose and stall and obstruct all they desire. Senate Minority Leader “Chucky” Schumer loved the Court’s decree last week. Let all the illegal aliens in! No abortions for them! Where’s senile Joe Biden when you need him?
Amnesty/cheap labor-promoting establishment Republicans probably thought the same thing, though they’d be less likely to say so with their identities exposed. That’s just the way it is.
In one sense, though, conservatives should be heartened by the Supreme Court’s action last week – Republicans have just been handed a couple (the first giving the okay for mail-in ballots and the other the Birthright Citizenship ruling) tailor made issues to campaign on later this fall. No one has to remind Americans that President Trump will “only” have two more years left starting next year, and he’ll surely prioritize the pushing-through of his Supreme Court (if there are vacancies) and lower federal court appointments with a renewed vigor.
Nothing shouts “presidential legacy” quite like federal bench appointments, since a president’s name is cited whenever a judge or justice hands down a ruling. “Judge X was a Reagan appointee, and he joined with others to issue the opinion.”
Heck, does anyone even remember George H.W. Bush’s presidency? Few details remain from the late elder Bush’s tenure (perhaps other than “Read my lips, no new taxes!”), but Americans sure were talking about the early 1990’s last week when Justice Clarence Thomas, an H.W. Bush appointee, issued several thought-provoking liberty-loving common sense concurring or dissenting opinions in response to this Court’s latest string of logical travesties.
Of course, H.W. Bush was also responsible for sending the awful turncoat Justice David Souter to the Court, which just goes to show you can’t get everything right.
It’s often argued that life-saving surgeons develop a “God complex”, but in the mortal realm, Supreme Court justices are just as ego-driven.
Supreme Court justices are about as officially untouchable as they come in our constitutional system. But if the current ones keep going like they have been, they just might become as unsinkable as the Titanic turned out to be.
How’s that for offering a visual?
Conservatives took the rulings in stride, most of us having been thoroughly conditioned to periodic (regular?) betrayals from the Court’s Republican-nominated “moderates”, the usual suspects who appear quite promising when they’re sent to the Hill for confirmation but then perform their best Benedict Arnold impressions once they’ve chosen a comfortable and long-lasting chair on the Bench.
Recall how liberals cried foul when Justice Amy Coney Barrett was nominated by President Trump to replace the departed Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the fall of 2020. Democrats had to stretch their imaginations to come up with new insults for the very Trumpian move, but here’s thinking the opposition party is in a much better frame of mind towards her now that Barrett has helped them out in a number of instances.
Theoretically speaking, liberals should be licking their wounds from the unending parade of conservative victories liberty-proponents were supposed to have racked up by now with a virtual 6-3 voting majority. But it hasn’t worked out that way in practice. Maybe it was because the hazing Barrett went through during her confirmation run wasn’t nearly as offensive as that of Justice Brett Kavanaugh before her – or Clarence Thomas himself.
Politics shouldn’t play a role in a Justice’s thought process, but humanity surely intervenes when one looks up from the case briefs and remembers the awful, sneering Democrats glaring at him or her while under the spotlight. Democrat-appointed justices rarely defect from their “living Constitution” orthodoxy, but Republican black robe wearers go rogue with little hesitation. All too often, it seems.
What are the chances of Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson or Sonia Sotomayor or Elena Kagan ever changing their ideological stripes? Like next to nothing.
It should be noted that Justice Amy Coney Barrett has joined the majority on a number of pro-conservative rulings, too, so there’s little question she’s a huge improvement over her predecessor on the bench (RBG). 
Nevertheless, Barrett’s philosophical defections have been hard to explain, much less reconcile. Chief Justice John Roberts has a well-earned reputation for being a malleable vote on a host of issues (Obamacare, anyone?), but the highly qualified Barrett has flabbergasted a lot of former fans.
Who can say whether politics played a role in the against-Trump Court rulings? The desire to be popular or well-liked doesn’t abate at the Supreme Court’s front door.
But the Supreme Court’s rebuke of Trump on the birthright citizenship issue was hardly unexpected given the gist from oral arguments on the case previously. Republicans will lament the setback, but conservatives shouldn’t see it as an excuse to give up. Trump is still in the White House, and Republicans can now use immigration as a “keep us in the majority” selling point this fall.
As the party in power, Republicans must find the good in any situation.
Jeff Rendall is editor and publisher of GolfintheUSA.com and has written about golf and politics for over a quarter of a century. A non-practicing attorney from California, he moved to the east coast three decades ago to pursue and combine his interests in all things American history and culture. Jeff has worked as an intern on Capitol Hill and in various capacities in grassroots organizing and conservative organizations and publications, including a nearly two-decade stint at ConservativeHQ.com. Column republishing or other inquiries: Rendall@msn.com .