Why the snarky reply? I was only trying to be helpful in explaining the Supreme Court process to those who might not know it. Why do you say my version of a Civics lesson? Isn't that the process? Correct me if I am wrong.

My comment about the unlikeliness of a Court challenge was non-partisan. No, neither of us knows what might be done so I really do not understand the reason you had a snarky reply and the emoticon sticking out the tongue. What was it for?

Because your post was condescending.

And this one's passive aggressive. ...I was only trying....

TROLL ALERT

Make that a sputtering troll!

Time to get back on topic.

The 14th Amendment does state that the children would be US citizens. Trump is wrong. Sessions is wrong.

Moot point. No President is going to have illegals rounded up. Some will be deported but more will come. Live with it.

No, the Amendment is INTERPRETED by the Supremes as saying the children would be citizens. It actually does NOT say that, if you read it. It was not even written to include illegals and their children, if you knew anything about history. Someone ought to give a history lesson to the Supremes so that they too can understand the reasoning behind the amendment. This is another good reason for term limits for members of the supreme court. They let their staff read and they decide.

Once again, read your Constitution. In order to impose term limits on either Congress or The Court, amendments would have to be added to the Constitution. Remember, there had to be an amendment added to have a term limit on the Presidency.

You are totally missing the point. Term limits has nothing to do with the comment, other than a small side line that suggested that I am in favor of term limits. What did what I say have to do with amending the constitution? Besides, just because you feel that something is difficult, does not mean that it can't be done. That has been the whole problem with deportation....."it can't be done....it's too hard....." whine, whine and more whine. We have a country that does NOT consider anything impossible. That's why we have folks that want European socialism here, because life without a babysitter (Gov.) is just too hard.

Are you saying that term limits for Supreme Court justices should or should not be set? If so, it would have to be done by Constitutional amendment just as for Congress term limits.

Do you realize the process for this to take place? Read the Constitution before making rash statements. Research can do you a lot of good.

Still missing the point. What is "rash" about it? Maybe you should learn the vocabulary word, before using it. Sorry, just working on my first cup of coffee. Spent yesterday upgrading my computer OS.

Term limits was a suggestion. Congress gets paid a pretty good salary plus benefits to do a particular job. Legalizing gay marriage, marijuana and abortions is not the only legislation that they are limited to. So, don't get your panties in a wad when someone suggests that maybe they could be challenged with doing something reasonable with their time such as imposing term limits. They said Obamacare couldn't be done too, but it was done without the GOP vote.
The issue or subject of this thread deals with whether or not children born in America by illegal aliens are legal citizens. Until you got sidetracked I was suggesting that the Amendment did not address it directly and was not intended to handle the issue of illegals of today. It was directed at a totally different matter. Read up on the back ground of the Amendment.