Did these Judges decide this issue based on what was actually the law, or did they decide it based on political necessity?
Assigning reasons or motives does not change the opinion.
With the very obvious need to the King to have Scotsmen seen as equals in England, it is incredible that two Judges saw fit to disagree.
Two justices saw fit to dissent in Roe v. Wade. That makes zero difference to the state of the law. The majority speaks for the Court, and any dissenting justice speaks only for himself.
None of this makes any difference to citizenship determinations in the United States.
I believe in objective truth. Decisions rendered for political expediency are not the same thing as objectively true.
Two dissenters tell me there is more to this story, and this with the entire pressure a king could bring to bear to make the decision come out his way.
Two justices saw fit to dissent in Roe v. Wade.
Good example. Roe v. Wade is an absolute garbage decision based on nothing more than emotions from a court that had been stacked with Liberal @$$holes who "interpreted" the law to mean whatever they wished it to mean. (Mostly thanks to the 14th amendment.)
That makes zero difference to the state of the law.
It makes zero difference to the truth. Rational people simply do not believe things because "experts" tell them such a thing is true. Rational men can weigh the evidence and decide for themselves if it is true, and in the case of Roe v Wade, it is clear that this decision is utter crap. The dissenters were correct and the majority was wrong.
None of this makes any difference to citizenship determinations in the United States.
I haven't got to the point of arguing about that yet. First we must understand the origins of how English common law came to be different from the Roman law that preceded it, and the Jus Sanguinus norms that existed on the Continent.
What made England go this way instead of the way the rest of the Continent went?
I have pointed out what I consider to be a very good motive for why it went this direction. There are other motives for England doing this, but I think Calvin's case is the smoking gun.