Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett triggered fierce backlash from MAGA loyalists after forcefully questioning the Trump administration’s top lawyer and voicing skepticism over ending birthright citizenship during a heated Supreme Court argument.

Since taking office, Donald Trump has pushed for an executive order to end birthright citizenship, a constitutional guarantee under the 14th Amendment that grants automatic U.S. citizenship to anyone born on American soil.

During oral arguments, Barrett confronted Solicitor General Dean John Sauer, who was representing the Trump administration, over his dismissive response to Justice Elena Kagan’s concerns. Barrett sharply asked whether Sauer truly believed there was “no way” for plaintiffs to quickly challenge the executive order, suggesting that class-action certification might expedite the process.

284 points
*

Imposter? A Justice should have no loyalty but to the law. This isn’t about her opinion. It’s about reading the 14th Amendment.

Want to change it? Go for it. You’ll need half the House, 2/3 of the Senate, and 3/4 of states to amend the Constitution.

permalink
report
reply
170 points

This is the case that seems the most clear out of any in the past few years.

The text of the amendment isn’t murky at all.

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

There’s no way to interpret that being born in the US doesn’t convey citizenship.

permalink
report
parent
reply
71 points

And that’s why the GOP are reframing those deemed undesirable as illegals, invaders, and terrorists. These people by some definitions do not behave as bound to the law of the country they are in.

Any reason to justify what they are doing.

permalink
report
parent
reply
29 points

The funny thing about that is if they argue that they’re not under the jurisdiction of the United States, then we couldn’t even give them a parking ticket, let alone deport them. They’d effectively have diplomatic immunity.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

If they aren’t bound by the law, then they aren’t illegal though. I agree that’s what they’re attempting, but the logical implication is the opposite. I would never accuse them of actually being logical though.

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points

These people have no issues holding multiple conflicting opinions.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

I believe from listening to recent NPR that their lawyers aren’t even arguing about that. They are arguing about whether national injunctions can really be national injunctions or not.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

Yeah - they’re trying REALLY hard to not argue the merits because it’s extremely clear to anyone that what they’re doing is illegal, so they’re trying to make it a civil suit issue.

The next step after that is to claim Sovereign Immunity to keep civil suits from being heard.

And then they’ll have their legal justification for disappearing US Citizens without due process.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

So leaving it to the states where they can jerrymander the elections and win locally first then a few years later fuck up the entire country “legally”.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

The argument I heard initially was that irregular migrants are not, somehow, subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

In that case, they can’t be deported or be charged with any crime.

permalink
report
parent
reply
40 points

A Justice should have no loyalty but to the law.

First time reading about the GOP?

permalink
report
parent
reply
37 points

My point is that the 14th Amendment is very clear. There’s no room for interpretation as there is with something like a fetus compared to a baby in Roe v. Wade. What they want is to amend the Constitution. That’s a different process entirely.

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

14A S3 is also very clear, but here we are

permalink
report
parent
reply
22 points

Crazy thing is that 2 justices will almost always happily vote to throw the constitution in the trash if it helps with party politics.

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

Why bother, just sign an EO. /s

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Trump, “Why the /s? I’ll do it.”

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

He’ll do it, speaker of the house will say “well it’s not our job to amend the constitution so if he wants to we have no choice but to support it” and then the Supreme Court will back it 5-4

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

They wouldn’t stand a chance of doing this with the states, it would cause a civil war.

They couldnt even get it past a Republican controlled vote.

They have Republicans in office that were not even born in the USA. People forget asshats like Ted Cruz.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Careful now, Rafael Edward Cruz does not want you using preferred names.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Did you just dead name Ted? The nerve!

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

THEY CAN TAKE AWAY DRINKING BEING ILLEGAL FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS… My bad. I was just confused, because that was a right once, too.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

She is an imposter, she’s wildly unqualified for the job, she is the least qualified judge to ever sit on the bench by a wide margin, she’s a DEI hire. Shes an imposter who absolutely in no way deserves her job but she’s not an imposter for “being skeptical” of ending birthright citizenship, I do predict she will fold like a house of cards over this and do nothing to protect birthright citizenship.

permalink
report
parent
reply
98 points

You can’t “end” a Constitutional amendment with an executive order. That simply isn’t how the law works.

permalink
report
reply
75 points

It is if no one stops him. The Constitution doesn’t do anything unless people actively uphold it. So far Trump’s gotten away with so many things because no one’s actually stopping him.

I keep waiting for the American public to take a stand, but apparently they’re willing to sit there on the couch while their democracy is stripped away.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Again, we’re open to suggestions on what to do.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Armed protests going forward.

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

The thought of a clearly defined and settled case getting heard by SCOTUS is bad enough on its own. This doesn’t even coincide with any kind of real world event besides an asshole President saying, “I don’t like this rule.”

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Maybe it is now.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

It absolutely is now, they’re not legally challenging most of these for a reason.

permalink
report
parent
reply
66 points

More proof the right wing does not, nor have they ever, given one flying fuck about the Constitution that they go on so much about.

permalink
report
reply
22 points

It’s like they’d already been conditioned to be outraged about some other selectively-ignored sacred text…

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

How have I never made this connection? That’s gonna be my facepalm of the year I think…it’s so very obviously the exact same behavior.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

They have only read one of the amendments all the way through and part of another one and the rest is too boring to read.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Curious which ones? I don’t think they read all of the Second. The ding-a-lings certainly never read the First and actually understand it, because they keep acting like this is a “Christian” country, when the First says I don’t have to give two shits about the chosen lifestyle of the xtian book club. Meaning I most definitely have freedom FROM religion.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

One in full is the second amendment, one they read partially is the first because they know FREE SPEECH and nothing else.

permalink
report
parent
reply
49 points

Cult-like behavior. Literally. “You’re with us all the way and must always back anything Dear Leader does or says. If you disagree with anything, you must be kicked out, expelled, recalled, fired, or voted out!” It’s absolutely psychotic to view the world in such zero-sum, black/white terms.

permalink
report
reply
19 points

I seem to recall the right wailing about cancel culture not too long ago…

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

No see - it’s all about who’s doing the thing. Words are all made up anyway, there are just good guys and bad guys.

Remember how “precedent” stopped them from allowing Obama to appoint a new Supreme Court judge as a lame duck, but the same logic didn’t apply to Trump?

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points
*

This is the result of normalizing the practice of religiously indoctrinating children and leaded gasoline.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Cult-like behavior.

They want a policy and they’re loudly advocating that any politicians standing in their way get removed.

The thing they’re asking for is awful. But God Damn, this is the kind of FDR/LBJ style titty twisting that any major legislation needs in order to happen in this country.

permalink
report
parent
reply
49 points

I wonder how many of these “MAGA influencers” are just plants or bot accounts.

permalink
report
reply
20 points

Too many.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

But not enough.

77 million people still voted this orange shit-stain into office again. They saw what he’d done before. They saw an attempted coup. They heard all the Nazi-era rhetoric. And they thought “that’s the man for us”.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

I’d say half to 75% regret their vote now

So it’s a lot less for how firmly support him. Even less for how many will actually fight for him if civil war breaks out

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to “Mom! He’s bugging me!” and “I’m not touching you!” Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 13K

    Monthly active users

  • 22K

    Posts

  • 598K

    Comments