The Trump Administration’s case is like a failed cold call. We all sat back and felt schadenfreude second-hand embarrassment when Solicitor General Sauer didn’t have the foresight to tee up a reply to the biggest advocate for Native sovereignty in the history of Supreme Court Justices asking about how the administrations domicile requirement would impact Native American citizenship. But like a cold call gone bad, sometimes an instructor’s brilliance seeps through and condenses high theory into an approachable, easily consumable thing. Like batteries and lasagna!
If you were to asked to explain a battery, you’d probably provide an example: one AAA Energizer battery suffices. But we all know that despite how useful examples can be, they aren’t in themselves explanations. Not to mention that without a clear understanding of the concepts you may give faulty examples: you could define a battery as a thing that stores energy, but that would include odd things you’d want to exclude like fat reserves and uranium. What a battery is is simple: a thing that changes chemical reactions into electrical energy using an anode, cathode and an electrolyte. Or, to bring the theory back down to earth, think about a tray of lasagna! You ever prepare a tray of lasagna, cover it with aluminum foil, throw it in the oven to find out that the aluminum foil is sticking to the damn cheese? That’s because you made a battery!
It’s a simple, concrete example that drives home the essential parts of a battery and how easy they can be to make, but if someone mishandles your explanation and takes it to mean that you should try to power a Tesla with comfort food, you should take that as a sign that they’re stupid and move on.
Justice Jackson used a hypothetical about an American stealing in Japan to shed some light on the legal concept of “allegiance” and dumb dumbs who didn’t understand the purpose of the example are trying to spin it as some big DEI gotcha moment. You can hear her below:
In a case about the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” chunk of the birthright clause, the stealing in Japan example shows, in a very common sense way, how even a non-citizen would be subject to Japan’s laws penalizing theft if they stole something while they were visiting the country. Further, non-citizens would still be able to (at least in theory) employ legal avenues to get their property back via the Japanese government because of the same local allegiance, which clarifies how the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” bit of the clause would engage with foreign nationals acting within the parameters of the US. Still, people somehow found a way to misunderstand her entirely:
Sometimes the children left behind are grown ass adults. The funniest thing about this is that the most vocal critics have all the qualifications of being some dude in a car. Skip to about 1:24 for a big dose of weaponized ignorance:
Just because it didn’t make sense to you doesn’t mean it didn’t make sense. There are some ideas people aren’t ready for; I for one am still trying to wrap my head around how gut microbiomes can effect mood and happiness, but I also know better than to bash scientists who specialize in this because I don’t understand the mechanics of a regular diet of grilled cheese sandwiches making the dark thoughts come at 3 AM. I give unto Caesar what is his and go about my lunch. Scientists enjoy a (dwindling) expertise deference that judges don’t get the benefit of. It is understandable for lay people to make the mistake of thinking law is an easily accessible discipline because it really just boils down to words on a page and they can read. But there is a problem with that approach. They probably don’t actually read that well — most Americans read on a 7th-8th grade reading level which makes interpreting the Constitution a hard chestnut to crack when the Hemingway App (admittedly not the end all be all of evaluating reading level) clocks the Constitution and the first 14 amendments at being post-graduate level. Reading well also goes further than being able to just identify words: it also factors in being able to read author intent, comparative analysis and all sorts of other things you miss when your first response to hearing Ketanji is to start bashing former President Biden. It is almost like thinking like a lawyer takes more work than listening to a sound clip and sounding off as you drive to do your errands.
Tough crowd, Justice Jackson. Dumb too, but that’s not polite to say.
Chris Williams became a social media manager and assistant editor for Above the Law in June 2021. Prior to joining the staff, he moonlighted as a minor Memelord™ in the Facebook group Law School Memes for Edgy T14s . He endured Missouri long enough to graduate from Washington University in St. Louis School of Law. He is a former boat builder who is learning to swim and is interested in rhetoric, Spinozists and humor. Getting back in to cycling wouldn’t hurt either. You can reach him by email at christopherrashadwilliams@gmail.com and by Tweet/Bluesky at @WritesForRent.
The post Responses To Justice Jackson’s Birthright Citizenship Argument Show There’s Some Stupid You Shouldn’t Argue With appeared first on Above the Law.
The Trump Administration’s case is like a failed cold call. We all sat back and felt schadenfreude second-hand embarrassment when Solicitor General Sauer didn’t have the foresight to tee up a reply to the biggest advocate for Native sovereignty in the history of Supreme Court Justices asking about how the administrations domicile requirement would impact Native American citizenship. But like a cold call gone bad, sometimes an instructor’s brilliance seeps through and condenses high theory into an approachable, easily consumable thing. Like batteries and lasagna!
If you were to asked to explain a battery, you’d probably provide an example: one AAA Energizer battery suffices. But we all know that despite how useful examples can be, they aren’t in themselves explanations. Not to mention that without a clear understanding of the concepts you may give faulty examples: you could define a battery as a thing that stores energy, but that would include odd things you’d want to exclude like fat reserves and uranium. What a battery is is simple: a thing that changes chemical reactions into electrical energy using an anode, cathode and an electrolyte. Or, to bring the theory back down to earth, think about a tray of lasagna! You ever prepare a tray of lasagna, cover it with aluminum foil, throw it in the oven to find out that the aluminum foil is sticking to the damn cheese? That’s because you made a battery!
It’s a simple, concrete example that drives home the essential parts of a battery and how easy they can be to make, but if someone mishandles your explanation and takes it to mean that you should try to power a Tesla with comfort food, you should take that as a sign that they’re stupid and move on.
Justice Jackson used a hypothetical about an American stealing in Japan to shed some light on the legal concept of “allegiance” and dumb dumbs who didn’t understand the purpose of the example are trying to spin it as some big DEI gotcha moment. You can hear her below:
In a case about the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” chunk of the birthright clause, the stealing in Japan example shows, in a very common sense way, how even a non-citizen would be subject to Japan’s laws penalizing theft if they stole something while they were visiting the country. Further, non-citizens would still be able to (at least in theory) employ legal avenues to get their property back via the Japanese government because of the same local allegiance, which clarifies how the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” bit of the clause would engage with foreign nationals acting within the parameters of the US. Still, people somehow found a way to misunderstand her entirely:
Sometimes the children left behind are grown ass adults. The funniest thing about this is that the most vocal critics have all the qualifications of being some dude in a car. Skip to about 1:24 for a big dose of weaponized ignorance:
Just because it didn’t make sense to you doesn’t mean it didn’t make sense. There are some ideas people aren’t ready for; I for one am still trying to wrap my head around how gut microbiomes can effect mood and happiness, but I also know better than to bash scientists who specialize in this because I don’t understand the mechanics of a regular diet of grilled cheese sandwiches making the dark thoughts come at 3 AM. I give unto Caesar what is his and go about my lunch. Scientists enjoy a (dwindling) expertise deference that judges don’t get the benefit of. It is understandable for lay people to make the mistake of thinking law is an easily accessible discipline because it really just boils down to words on a page and they can read. But there is a problem with that approach. They probably don’t actually read that well — most Americans read on a 7th-8th grade reading level which makes interpreting the Constitution a hard chestnut to crack when the Hemingway App (admittedly not the end all be all of evaluating reading level) clocks the Constitution and the first 14 amendments at being post-graduate level. Reading well also goes further than being able to just identify words: it also factors in being able to read author intent, comparative analysis and all sorts of other things you miss when your first response to hearing Ketanji is to start bashing former President Biden. It is almost like thinking like a lawyer takes more work than listening to a sound clip and sounding off as you drive to do your errands.
Tough crowd, Justice Jackson. Dumb too, but that’s not polite to say.
Chris Williams became a social media manager and assistant editor for Above the Law in June 2021. Prior to joining the staff, he moonlighted as a minor Memelord™ in the Facebook group Law School Memes for Edgy T14s . He endured Missouri long enough to graduate from Washington University in St. Louis School of Law. He is a former boat builder who is learning to swim and is interested in rhetoric, Spinozists and humor. Getting back in to cycling wouldn’t hurt either. You can reach him by email at christopherrashadwilliams@gmail.com and by Tweet/Bluesky at @WritesForRent.
The post Responses To Justice Jackson’s Birthright Citizenship Argument Show There’s Some Stupid You Shouldn’t Argue With appeared first on Above the Law.
