662

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Archangel1313@lemm.ee 95 points 1 day ago

You can't "end" a Constitutional amendment with an executive order. That simply isn't how the law works.

[-] OutlierBlue@lemmy.ca 75 points 1 day ago

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.

[-] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 day ago

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

[-] Manifish_Destiny@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

Armed protests going forward.

[-] Empricorn@feddit.nl 2 points 20 hours ago

He'll immediately declare martial law. This is bad, but that would be worse. Much worse...

[-] Manifish_Destiny@lemmy.world 1 points 17 hours ago

Oh yeah let's not protest in case we anger the totally rational dictator who certainly won't declare martial law at the first sign he might lose power no matter the scenario. That would be terrible.

[-] j0ester@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I wouldn’t.. until after mid-terms. Because he’ll declare martial law until then.

[-] myrrh@ttrpg.network 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

...the sad fact is that fascists won a mostly-free-and-fair election, so i think many of us are sitting tight until midterms lest we give them ammunition to rationslise martial law; if midterm elections aren't proprietous, though, that ammunition's f*cking coming out...

[-] OutlierBlue@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 day ago

"Don't protest or he'll get mad" is a self-defeating thought.

[-] Empricorn@feddit.nl 3 points 20 hours ago

armed protests

That's a huge difference. Please don't use false strawman arguments. I haven't heard "don't protest or he'll get mad", here or anywhere.

[-] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 10 points 1 day ago

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.

[-] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

It's getting close to that. Someone's going to be armed in one of those ICE videos eventually.

[-] socsa@piefed.social 1 points 1 day ago

I'll follow you. I am a terrible leader.

[-] Manifish_Destiny@lemmy.world 3 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

you can tape your signs to your guns too

[-] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 15 points 1 day ago

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."

[-] Nougat@fedia.io 5 points 1 day ago
[-] Zenith@lemm.ee 3 points 1 day ago

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

this post was submitted on 15 May 2025
662 points (100.0% liked)

politics

23520 readers
1986 users here now

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

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS