[matthewowen]

The problem (which Sotomayor raises in her dissent, pages 94 and 95 of the PDF) is that it may never reach the supreme court:

> There is a serious question, moreover, whether this Court will ever get the chance to rule on the constitutionality of a policy like the Citizenship Order. Contra, ante, at 6 (opinion of KAVANAUGH, J.) (“[T]he losing parties in the courts of appeals will regularly come to this Court in matters involving major new federal statutes and executive actions”). In the ordinary course, parties who prevail in the lower courts generally cannot seek review from this Court, likely leaving it up to the Government’s discretion whether a petition will be filed here. These cases prove the point: Every court to consider the Citizenship Order’s merits has found that it is unconstitutional in preliminary rulings. Because respondents prevailed on the merits and received universal injunctions, they have no reason to file an appeal. The Government has no incentive to file a petition here either, because the outcome of such an appeal would be preordained. The Government recognizes as much, which is why its emergency applications challenged only the scope of the preliminary injunctions

[Tadpole9181]

Wait, doesn't this just... End the constitution as a whole? So long as the current executive wants some unconstitutional thing, they get that unconstitutional thing in every state on their side in perpetuity? The constitution is now... per-litigant?

[eschaton]

That’s the end goal. And to take over the other states too.

[bluecalm]

That's a good point. I was under the impression that the current administration thinks it can win a case about 14th amendment in case both parents are not legally in US with current majority but if they are in fact not appealing it would mean they think they would lose.

[kelnos]

It's also possible that someone with Sotomayor's experience can see the government's position for what it is: complete bullshit.

[fzeroracer]

No, there is no other reading here. The 14th amendment is incredibly clear about the exact text and meaning in this scenario. I don't think people need to entertain opinions otherwise from those that either refuse to read the amendment or choose to ignore what it plainly says.

[magicalist]

> That is terrible jurisprudence, but at least it’s honest. Sotomayor is overtly stating that she’s made up her mind and will not consider the possibility that maybe the 14th Amendment might mean something other than she already thinks

can you quote that part where she says this or even offers her own opinion? Because the only relevant part

> Every court to consider the Citizenship Order’s merits has found that it is unconstitutional in preliminary rulings

seems like a statement of fact?

(of course, it's also beyond silly to suggest it's bad or even unusual for issued opinions (dissents or otherwise) not to contain, you know, opinions).