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.
They would be without citizenship, yes, but they would also be legally outside of the jurisdiction of the United States. They could literally do anything and not get arrested. It would be like everywhere they go they’re standing on international waters.
You can not just do anything if your nationless. Where are you getting this absurd idea from? At best you get stuck in an ok jail somewhere for eternity. You have NO Rights, at all, if you are nationless.
You can if you are outside of the jurisdiction of the presiding government body. You’re untouchable by the law of the land. That’s literally what jurisdiction means.
I think I heard a plan to argue the amendment intended “exclusively subject to the jurisdiction”, though that requires a pretty huge “reading between the lines” to just invent that extra term. In such a scenario they would argue citizenship of a foreign nation by way of a parent being able to pass on that citizenship disqualifies then for US citizenship. This means that they couldn’t be left nationless even if that sketchy interpreation prevails.
But the reading of the text pretty much seems clear cut, the only way someone born in US soil could be disqualified is if the US was invaded and it was occupied to the point where US government had no practical authority, like if Japan had kicked out all the US government, judges, and law enforcement to make it clearly obvious there no jurisdiction left…
The argument I heard initially was that irregular migrants are not, somehow, subject to the jurisdiction of the US.
In that case, they can’t be deported or be charged with any crime.
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.
Why bother, just sign an EO. /s
Crazy thing is that 2 justices will almost always happily vote to throw the constitution in the trash if it helps with party politics.
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.
Careful now, Rafael Edward Cruz does not want you using preferred names.
Did you just dead name Ted? The nerve!
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.
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.
deleted by creator
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.”
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.
It’s like they’d already been conditioned to be outraged about some other selectively-ignored sacred text…
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.
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.
One in full is the second amendment, one they read partially is the first because they know FREE SPEECH and nothing else.
I wonder how many of these “MAGA influencers” are just plants or bot accounts.
Too many.
Don’t they KNOW the Founders EXPLICITLY Only Protected the RIGHT to SHOOT UP A SCHOOL?
Thoughts and prayers!
Every time I see verbs such as “rips” “slams” “melts down” I stop reading because I know it’s going to be hyperbole
I know.
Could you imagine if any of the articles about the right wing attacking itself were in any way realistic?
With how much these terms have been used lately, they seem to have lost all the meaning behind them.
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.
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”
Of the conservative justices, she has voted the least conservative the past two years. Her skepticism may actually indicate where she’ll vote.
Maybe she’s clever enough to realize they will yank her and the other women right off the court as soon as she’s no longer necessary? Again I don’t believe she’s a good person or done an about face, but I’ll take the foxhole allies if we can get them, we kinda fucked
Agreed
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.
