"Key Justices Skeptical of Limiting Birthright Citizenship."

The NYT opines.

A majority of the Supreme Court appeared skeptical of President Trump’s efforts to limit birthright citizenship during arguments on Wednesday. Key conservative justices raised doubts about the constitutionality of the president’s executive order that would end automatic citizenship for children born on U.S. soil to undocumented immigrants and some temporary foreign visitors.

But in an argument that lasted more than two hours, several of the court’s conservative justices also asked tough questions of a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, which brought the legal challenge, making the outcome of the legally complicated and hugely consequential case not fully clear....

Here's the live chat that happened on SCOTUSblog. Excerpt from the end:

"After hearing all of you talk about this, I'm even less sure of how this case will come out than I went in."

"I felt far more confident before I heard the oral arguments. I felt less confident, but still, you know, I was where I was going into this conversation and now I'm leaving, throwing my hands in the air. I do think, however, in that big picture part that when you think about Chevron doctrine... that the executive branch agencies are going to have less power to define their own scope of power.... And at the same time, I think they will give the President more power over his personnel that you don't want sort of complete vertical power in an executive branch that then also has a lot of horizontal power to get extra legislative power.... So, Mr. President, you have complete control of your executive branch and also we've taken away some of the powers of the executive branch — I think would be the best outcome of this term...."

Said Sarah Isgur at the end of the Advisory Opinions podcast yesterday, summing up after moderating a high-quality conversation about the oral argument in the tariffs case.

"Nearly half of U.S. presidents have invoked the Insurrection Act. Some (many) more than once."

"We’ve known about this problem for a long time. Plenty of people pointed it out in 2021 when Dems controlled WH+Congress. But nobody wants to give up power when their team has it."

Sarah Isgur explains the Insurrection Act in 4 quick points — I'm quoting #4 — after somebody on X calls attention to the time she trounced George Stephanopoulos on the topic:

I’d like to take this opportunity to thank the hair and makeup team at ABC as well as my hats, sunscreen, and dermatologist. https://t.co/ws0xo8TBOB

— Sarah Isgur (@whignewtons) October 14, 2025

ADDED: Here's the full clip from "This Week," which aired last Sunday:

"Can Kamala Take the Money … Legally?"

That's the new episode of the "Advisory Opinions" podcast (audio and transcript, here). 

Is the legal question too abstruse to think about? I'd say yes, but one thing jumped out at me. I'll put it in boldface:

SARAH ISGUR: It definitely won't be resolved until well after the election if it's ever resolved at all... [And Harris either] gets $96 million in the Harris campaign [or]... $96 million in the DNC coffers to help the Harris campaign. And... probably this $96 million is just not make or break for the Harris team or for the Trump team to prevent the Harris team.

LAWPROF DEREK MUELLER: That's, that's probably right. Although I would point out, and this is the slightly cynical take —right? — you know, we, we do have a candidate running who, uh, was, uh, convicted of felonies for intentionally misrepresenting paperwork relating to campaign finance funds.

"To anyone drawing a parallel between my film Bob Roberts and the attempted assassination of Trump..."

"... let’s be clear. What happened yesterday was a real attempt on a presidential candidate’s life. Those that are denying the assassination attempt was real are truly in a deranged mindset. A human being was shot yesterday. Another killed. They may not be human beings that you agree with politically but for shame folks. Get over your blind hatred of these people. They are fellow Americans. This collective hatred is killing our souls and consuming whatever is left of our humanity."

Writes Tim Robbins. 

Thanks, Tim. 

How can the it-was-staged theory get any traction when we know Corey Comperatore was shot dead? Do they think that was fake? 

"[Hunter Biden] was gonna plead guilty to misdemeanor tax charges, do deferred prosecution on the gun charges. And the judge asked a very simple question..."

"... so does this mean that Hunter Biden has immunity from all other past crimes that he has committed? And the defense said, yes, that's our understanding. And the prosecution said, no, we're still investigating him for financial crimes. And the judge said, Then, we don't have a deal. Right? There's no meeting of the minds. There's no contract that can be formed.... [T]he reason this thing blew up was related to the other Hunter Biden stuff, all of the foreign stuff going on.... I'm not figuring out this willingness to go to trial on these charges with these facts.... All of that is gonna be horrible for the Biden family. And again, politically really unpleasant for his father.... Joe Biden has said he will not pardon his son, but... why would you say you're gonna pardon your son before it's necessary and before an election?..."

From the new episode of the Advisory Opinions podcast, "Will President Biden Pardon His Son?"

... the other Hunter Biden stuff, all of the foreign stuff going on.... In my view, all this theater about taking gun statutes seriously serves at least 3 purposes.:

1. It might con people into into thinking that the government is vigorously enforcing gun statutes.

2. It might make people forget "the other Hunter Biden stuff, all of the foreign stuff" that is much more serious and that might intertwine with Joe Biden.

3. It might make people empathize with Joe Biden — that poor father! — and respect him for standing back and declining to rescue his son from what might look like the normal workings of the legal system — and maybe that will make it seem more as though Donald Trump is just another guy caught in a ruthless and neutral meat grinder called criminal justice.

NOTE: I added the words "In my view" to this post, because a commenter wasn't sure whether these 3 points were taken from the podcast. They were not! Be assured that if I were quoting or paraphrasing ideas from someone else, I would say so. Quotes are in quotes or blocked and indented. The 3 points are mine.

"So if your wife flies a flag you don't like and you can't work it out, your choices are to let her continue flying the flag and stay married or get divorced..."

"... or move out in some other capacity. And if your wife's language is flags and she's angry, and so she's decides to fly this distress flag that had been used by the George Floyd protestors by the stop the steal protestors, basically by protestors across the ideological spectrum. And you're like, Hey, but sweetheart, they're going to think that you are associating yourself with Stop the Steal. And then she goes into some sort of rant about how dare you accuse her of that. And that flag's staying up because you know what? They called me, they followed me in front of my home and their car and called me the C word. And then she like goes to bed and refuses to take down the flag.... What are you supposed to do?... This is like a feminist rant for me.... [T]his is private conduct by a private individual who is married to a Supreme Court justice. Why isn't she entitled to that?.... Think he should recuse because we can't prove that he wasn't involved?"

Says Sarah Isgur in the new episode of the "Advisory Opinions" podcast.

David French insists that he wouldn't allow a flag he didn't agree with to fly in front of his house, and the two go back and forth about how a man would physically accomplish the removal of the flag his wife insisted on flying.

For reference, here's what Alito wrote:

"Evangelical tradition has built a public identity around being pro-family and pro-children, and many adherents are inclined to see I.V.F. positively..."

"... because it creates more children.... But the Alabama decision 'is a very morally honest opinion,' said Andrew T. Walker, associate professor of Christian ethics and public theology at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. The ruling, he said, shows the direct line of reasoning between belief that life begins at conception, and opposition to abortion and I.V.F. 'It’s going to force conservative Christians to reckon with potentially their own complicity in the in vitro fertilization industry,' he said. The Roman Catholic Church is perhaps the largest institution in the world that opposes I.V.F. Nearly all modern fertility interventions are morally forbidden. The I.V.F. process typically includes many elements that the Catholic Church opposes. There’s masturbation — an 'offense against chastity,' according to the catechism, or teaching — often required to collect sperm. There’s the fertilization of an egg and sperm outside a woman’s body — outside the sacramental 'conjugal act' of sex between a husband and wife. And there is the creation of multiple embryos that are often destroyed or not implanted — an 'abortive practice.'..."

From "What Christian Traditions Say About I.V.F. Treatments/While Catholic teaching expressly forbids in vitro fertilization, Protestants tend to be more open" (NYT).

"The hosts seem to pride themselves on making [the podcast] 'Advisory Opinions' a venue for 'abject legal nerdery,' separate from partisan politics..."

"When the Colorado Supreme Court issued a ruling, in December, that blocked Trump from the Republican primary ballot, [Sarah] Isgur and [David] French convened an 'emergency pod' to discuss the case. French argued that the court was probably correct to disqualify Trump, in light of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states that former officeholders who have 'engaged in insurrection or rebellion' after taking an oath of office are ineligible to serve. Isgur, by contrast, was wary. 'The whole point of the Fourteenth Amendment was to strip the states of power, because they had, y’know, not behaved well,' she said—the Amendment was ratified three years after the end of the Civil War. 'So the idea that we then empowered each state to decide who’s qualified to be on the ballot seems insane to me.' But both were dismayed by the idea that Republicans might be able to retaliate by disqualifying Biden, perhaps by claiming that he had failed to protect the country from invading immigrants. 'Give me an effing break,' French said during a recent episode, coming about as close as he ever does to cursing. Isgur reacted as if she had just unwrapped a thoughtful birthday gift. 'Wow,' she said. 'I got an "effing" from David!'"

Writes Kelefa Sanneh, in "Sarah Isgur’s Majority Report/On 'Advisory Opinions,' the lawyer and former Trump Administration spokesperson argues that the Supreme Court is good, even—or especially—in its current incarnation" (The New Yorker).

I have a tag already for David French. He's a NYT columnist. I'll make a tag for Sarah Isgur. I hadn't noticed her until this New Yorker profile came out, and now I've listened to a podcast and a half, and I intend to keep listening. Nice work! Listen to them here.