[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
▼ Settings Mobile Home
/pol/ - Politically Incorrect
Return Catalog Bottom Refresh
Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.
[Advertise on 4chan]
[Return] [Catalog] [Bottom]
Anonymous (ID: S2TO0kh1) Archived
Could Supreme Court sidestep t(...) No.538097649
File: GGVVvt6bsAA0jot.jpg (87 KB, 1004x1034)
87 KB JPG
Could Supreme Court sidestep the issue? (ID: S2TO0kh1)  No.538097649 Archived
Is there any way they could rule without actually addressing birthright citizenship at all? Like by saying the President couldn't put it into controversy? Any legal experts here?
>>
Anonymous (ID: L18KJ6G7)
No.538097698
(ID: L18KJ6G7)  No.538097698
Paki, go back
[Return] [Catalog] [Top]
Post a Reply
Return Catalog Top Refresh
[Advertise on 4chan]
Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.