Search the Lounge

Categories

« When Birthright Citizenship was last "Reconsidered": REGAN v. KING and Asian Americans Part IV | Main | Law Dean Named as Trustee of Disaster Fund »

August 10, 2010

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

TJ

Bit anti-climatic, isn't it? I mean, the appellant conceded there was an adverse Supreme Court decision directly on point, so the lower court decision seems a foregone conclusion. The real action is getting the Supreme Court to take the case, and this narrative just skips right over that part.

Matt Lister

Thanks for these very interesting and informative posts- I knew of the cases but didn't know much about the details behind them. Learning more makes me feel more strongly about the claim I made in my first blog-post here, that the U.S. in particular has good reason to maintain a strong jus soli rule:

http://www.thefacultylounge.org/2010/07/should-the-us-maintain-its-strong-jus-soli-rule.html

Greg Robinson

Actually, it was a bit of a surprise that the Supreme Court did not take the case. Hugh MacBeth was evidently quite suprised that the Court denied cert. it is true that, in strictly legalistic terms, the case has not been a powerful precedent. Nevertheless, I think that it is a mistake to say that, because the cases were not argued before the Supreme Court, they lack value as historical guideposts. Rather, I agree with Matt Lister that the cases remind us why the jus soli rule is worth defending.

coach outlet

That is too cool! thanks.*

The comments to this entry are closed.

StatCounter

  • StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad