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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That’s not how it would work at all. They’d be nationless. You do not want to be nationless.
And even if they pull some bullshit about how those words mean different things back then or things have changed, people should immediately bring up the second amendment under this exact same pretenses.
These people have no issues holding multiple conflicting opinions.
Then we should “discuss” the second amendment in another forum.
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.
A Justice should have no loyalty but to the law.
First time reading about the GOP?
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.
14A S3 is also very clear, but here we are
The problem is, the people who wrote the 14th amendment didn’t specify how that is supposed to be enforced.
Criminal conviction? Well trump was only convicted of a state charge of fraud, not insurrection.
Simple majority of congress? Republican congress could just ban democrats.
2/3 Supermajority of congress? It’ll never pass
Supreme court? Well, a majority of them is republican.
If its too easy to invoke it, it could be weaponized against progressive candidates. They’d just declare BLM protests as “insurrection” and ban them from the ballot.
Had he actually been tried and convicted of an insurrection, that would matter.
Where does it say that a conviction is required? Self-executing.
Which, I mean, a court did find him responsible for the insurrection, but I suppose that doesn’t matter to you.
Crazy thing is that 2 justices will almost always happily vote to throw the constitution in the trash if it helps with party politics.
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.
At first, I thought “remove this imposter” was a quote from ACB and I was like “Damn, she really woke up to this whole thing, huh?”
You can’t “end” a Constitutional amendment with an executive order. That simply isn’t how the law works.
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.
Again, we’re open to suggestions on what to do.
Armed protests going forward.
I wouldn’t… until after mid-terms. Because he’ll declare martial law until then.
“Don’t protest or he’ll get mad” is a self-defeating thought.
More like don’t give them an excuse before the centrists wake up.
Of course, they won’t ever wake up, that’s why they’re centrists.
I’ll follow you. I am a terrible leader.
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.”
Maybe it is now.
It absolutely is now, they’re not legally challenging most of these for a reason.
So she sucks in a great many ways, but I’ve actually been surprised that Coney Barrett hasn’t been the rubber stamp i expected her to be
If it makes you feel better she basically is the rubber stamp you expected, all she did here was “show skepticism”
She mostly cares about forcing births because of her handmaiden upbringing, so with other issues she might possibly be less in lockstep with the fascists
That’s the double edge sword of a lifetime apppintment, they are beholden to no one after getting appointed (nothing short of a 2/3 senate conviction or illegal autocoups)
When the imposter is sus!
(I couldn’t resist)
I miss that game. Can’t enjoy it anymore because the kids ruined it with their constant “wHeRe?” comments and general stupidity.
Every time I see verbs such as “rips” “slams” “melts down” I stop reading because I know it’s going to be hyperbole
Or “eviscerates”
With how much these terms have been used lately, they seem to have lost all the meaning behind them.
I know.
Could you imagine if any of the articles about the right wing attacking itself were in any way realistic?
lol you just waiting for the day a Supreme Court justice literally body slams someone?? Like of course it’s hyperbole, but it’s still interesting one of the DEI judges is showing skepticism, the article isn’t hyperbolic or audacious, just informative.
Don’t they KNOW the Founders EXPLICITLY Only Protected the RIGHT to SHOOT UP A SCHOOL?
Thoughts and prayers!
Does maga realize that the more they attack someone, the more they drive that person away?
The more they attack someone verbally the more threats that person will receive from their cult.
It’s not about their rage changing anyone’s mind. It’s the threats of violence that follow. Those can make people fall in line or go into hiding and either of those is a win for the oppressors.
Its a cult, they don’t care. It just leads existing cult members to isolate harder from outsiders and stay loyal.
So far it seems to be working because most politicians are apparently spineless cowards.
SOCTUS justices aren’t politicians though. You can’t primary a justice.
If they don’t like that law, there is one path for them to change it: Constitutional Amendment. Good luck with that, fuckers.
