Jason M. Shepherd 🇺🇸🇮🇱🇺🇦 @JasonShepherd

Let’s now deal reasonably, instead of hysterically, with what to do. First, the flow of illegal aliens into the country has collapsed to negligible numbers. So securing the border mitigates that issue. Second, the President could issue a new executive order on birthright citizenship to apply to American territories. It is an existing and well-settled piece of law that the 14th Amendment does not automatically apply to American territories. Much of the birth tourism industry focuses on Guam and other American territories in the Pacific. The President could use a narrowly tailored executive order in American territories to shut down birth tourism there. Third, the Secretary of State, under existing laws, could crack down on pregnant women traveling to the United States to engage in birth tourism and use his clout to pressure foreign governments to help with compliance. There are plenty of executive actions that could be taken without the hysteria of those online declaring an end to America. Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court declared that the United States will continue interpreting the 14th Amendment as it has been interpreted for the last 140 years. That’s all that happened. The President can continue to secure the border, deport illegal aliens, and crack down on birth tourism without running afoul of the Court’s opinion. The Congress, too, can and should crack down on birth tourism. For all of you blasting the conservatives on the Court, remember that the President could have more narrowly tailored his original executive order. The maximalist position always tends to lose in the Supreme Court, and that’s the President and his advisors’ problem, not the Supreme Court’s problem. ewerickson.substack.com/p/calm-down

The Supreme Court just ruled that the 140-year-old immigration practices of the United States will continue. And, by the way 8 of 9 Justices found there would be categories of children of illegal aliens who'd be citizens under the 14th Amendment.

James Lindsay, anti-Communist @ConceptualJames

19 hours ago

Every conservative attorney I follow is either whitepilling or making jokes. None of them are shocked. Every right-wing pundit or influencer I see is blackpilling, dooming, and flailing around like a baby bird that fell out of its nest. There's something important here.

70 101 1K 90K 69

@baseballcrank @NRO Too many are relying on Howard’s spoken statement defining who isn’t included. There were no audio recordings, no modern verbatim transcripts... We’re reading a 19th-century published account of an oral debate. Spoken remarks are less precise than written text.

Just spoke to @POTUS and thanked him for newly approved $318.3M in Disaster Declaration Relief funds for continued Hurricane Helene cleanup and rebuilding. We’re grateful for the White House’s support as Georgians continue to recover from this historic and devastating storm.

@PBosanquet @baseballcrank But the historical record did address who could and could not become citizens under existing law. That’s why the debate is about the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction,” not whether illegal immigration existed in 1868.

I remain convinced, in the birthright citizenship case, that the children of transients (or birth tourists) case was a close one, but that the majority's decision was just obviously correct as a textual & historical matter on the children of illegal immigrants.

Conservatives have argued for decades judges shouldn’t rewrite the Constitution to achieve policy outcomes. We shouldn’t abandon that principle simply b/c we dislike the policy consequences here. Legally, much stronger than Roe. Politically, it may prove just as consequential.

Jonah Goldberg @JonahDispatch

20 hours ago

Is the birthright decision the new Roe? Not legally, it’s on much more solid footing. But politically? Maybe. thedispatch.com/article/suprem…

38 13 100 44K 12

Justice Thomas is probably my favorite Justice. I’ve had the privilege of meeting him several times over the years. I admire his originalism. Respectfully, I think he got this one wrong.

Rarely do I find myself agreeing with David French, but on the constitutional question, I think he’s right. I oppose unrestrained birthright citizenship as a matter of policy. I just don’t believe judges are free to rewrite the 14th Amendment to reach that policy outcome.

David French @DavidAFrench

19 hours ago

An absolutely remarkable meltdown is underway on the MAGA right. We've had this policy for generation after generation, it's right in line with the vision of the Founders, and our country is the most powerful and prosperous free nation in world history.

436 368 3K 263K 99

I agree unrestrained birthright citizenship is bad policy. My April 2 article wasn’t about policy. It was about what the Fourteenth Amendment means. If you disagree, critique my constitutional analysis…not my policy views. peachpundit.com/we-already-had…

This decision can still be reversed if Mike Pence has the courage.

@JonahDispatch Darn it @JonahDispatch…you beat me to it!!!

We will never get 38 states? Well…if you say so. Maybe we need more conservative commentators with courage and fewer whining cowards searching for clicks who give up immediately on what has already been done 27 times before. Want to fix this? Then get to work on 28.

Megyn Kelly @megynkelly

a day ago

It takes 38 states. We’ll never get that. We needed this Supreme Court to have courage.

1K 497 8K 1.4M 162

Justice Barrett: Voted to get rid of Roe v. Wade. Voted to get rid of Chevron. Gave President Trump immunity from prosecution. Blocked states from removing President Trump from the ballot. Ended affirmative action. Ended temporary protected status for Haitians and Syrians. Allowed states to prohibit transitioning for minors Empowered the President to fire appointed commissioners of independent agencies. Ended the Lemon rule and expanded religious liberty. Expanded gun rights. Ended majority-minority districts. Gave Congress the power to end mail-in balloting. "Terrible pick."

Matt Walsh @MattWalshBlog

a day ago

It turns out that Amy Coney Barrett is a DEI hire, little better than Kentanji Jackson. Terrible pick. When’s the last time we had a Republican president who didn’t put a liberal justice on the court?

2K 2K 35K 1.8M 438

Disagree with Justice Barrett's jurisprudence all you want—that's your prerogative. But discrediting her reasoning by appeal to her sex or her status as an adoptive mother—as some on the populist right now do—is a category error. It's also textbook Bulverism, C.S. Lewis's name for the trick of explaining why someone is wrong without first showing that they are wrong: "you only think that because you're a woman." A legal argument is sound or unsound on its own terms. The sex of the one making it has no bearing on whether it tracks with the truth—the intellect's apprehension of reality is not indexed by sex. And the human intellect, male or female, is equally capable of apprehending truth. Truth corresponds to human nature's fittedness to reality as such, not truth qua sex. That sex carries real teleological weight for vocation and embodiment is true and beside the point here. The adoptive-mother line is worse because it isn't even about her reasoning. It infers bias from biography. A judge's conclusions stand or fall on the law's construction (for good or for ill), not on the shape of her family. Attack the argument, or concede you don't have one. I'm no expert on the Constitution and immigration. Justice Barrett could be wrong—if so, make that argument on the basis of text and history—not sex. Doing so on the basis of sex denies the ontological and epistemological equality of the sexes as made in God's image.

🇺🇸💪

Rick Jackson @RickJacksonGA

18 hours ago

I’m running for every single Georgian who feels forgotten, overlooked, or left behind by politicians like Keisha Lance Bottoms who stopped listening. This campaign is about them. Thank you to everyone who joined us in College Park today!

keyboard_arrow_left Previous keyboard_arrow_right Next

23 41 289 30K 3

"And at that, his dreams of the Tartan Army in Atlanta being smashed, Jason quietly sighed, put his kilt back on the hanger, and gently placed it back in his closet saying, 'maybe next time, old friend...maybe next time.'" #Scotland #TartanArmy nytimes.com/athletic/live-…

From The Forum: Opinion: Georgia’s hemp loophole is closing; Congress must not reopen it @JasonShepherd #gapol jamesmagazinega.com/2026/06/25/opi…

It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to get on a bicycle with your flag and remove all doubt.

Greg Bluestein @bluestein

a week ago

This dude is trying to interrupt the Juneteenth celebration on the Marietta Square today by riding around his bike with a Confederate flag. Cobb NAACP organizers are ignoring his intrusion and proceeding with the event. “Maybe he needs some exercise.”

keyboard_arrow_left Previous keyboard_arrow_right Next

70 154 1K 98K 56

@ZaidJilani Why do you have to lie to make friends?