|
|
|
|
|
|
by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF
350 days ago
|
|
|
> what about my comment makes that ironic? It sounds like they’re referring to this: > This is roughly equivalent to the EPA or BATFE changing the way it interprets an longstanding statute in a new way — which, by the way, they do very frequently. The recent Supreme Court ruling that overturned Chevron deference limited the ability of such organizations to interpret the law. If the law does not make it clear then it (now) must be interpreted by a judge. I assume the irony they are referring to is in thinking this Supreme Court would have ruled in a seeming contrary way in this case. (It is a bit ironic but is also beside the point, which I guess explains why they put it in a parenthetical.) ---- > I believe birthright citizenship should be ended. I am curious to understand why you take this position. Would you mind explaining your perspective? |
|
|