[Abd al-Rahiim]

So you're saying that an opinion written by an Indiana Court of Appeals Judge appointed by a Republican governor who yesterday defunded Planned Parenthood in his state is judicial activism because it concluded that persons born within the borders of the United States are "natural [*29] born Citizens" for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person "born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject" at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those "born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens" based on Justice Gray's analysis in Wong Kim Ark?

Is that what you're saying?

[WhiskeyX]

Yes, it is very much judicial activism, and it based upon gross misstatements and misrepresentations of fact. Furthermore, it is not a binding precedent. It is a false opinion, despite its claim to be an authoritative opinion. Remember, the Republican Party is responsible for the ineligible and unlawful Arthur Administration, and responsible for the unlawful appointment of Justice Gray. The votes and decisions of Justice Gray and other Arthur appointments should have been voided and nullified for ineligibility and conflict of interest, insofar as Justice Gray's appointment to SCOTUS was utterly dependent upon Chester Arthur not being removed from the Office of the President for ineligibility.