647

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] ssfckdt 8 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

Somedays I really have to question whether such people really exist. I mean really? What do they think America is?

Edit: I mean, I get it from the people in power, they want to cozy up to that power and so they will parrot its rhetoric. So companies, lobbyists, etc., sure.

But like, regular people? With day jobs? Who function in regular society going to stores and cooking food and cleaning homes and all that? What is their actual vision of America here?

[-] clutchtwopointzero@lemmy.world 3 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

or a bot farm impersonating MAGAs and the press fall for it because nowadays no one verifies anything and X's verification is meaningless since Elon made it so anyone who pays get one, bot or not

[-] Empricorn@feddit.nl 38 points 15 hours ago

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.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 5 points 11 hours ago

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.

[-] Mossheart@lemmy.ca 14 points 14 hours ago

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

[-] andros_rex@lemmy.world 9 points 13 hours ago

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?

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 56 points 18 hours ago

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.

[-] bitjunkie@lemmy.world 17 points 16 hours ago

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

[-] PolarKraken@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 hours ago

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.

[-] markovs_gun@lemmy.world 6 points 16 hours ago

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.

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 6 points 15 hours ago

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.

[-] markovs_gun@lemmy.world 3 points 15 hours ago

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

[-] ubergeek@lemmy.today 5 points 14 hours ago

They only read part of the 2A, as well, and none of the context in the rest of the document about it, either.

The whole "well regulated militia", and who and why the militia is.

[-] Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 23 points 19 hours ago

Is it wrong that I'm thankful for Amy Coney Barrett? She might be the key to stopping this madness.

[-] burgerpocalyse@lemmy.world 7 points 16 hours ago

they fast tracked her to the highest court in the country thinking she was properly trained to be their good little soldier

[-] LMurch@thelemmy.club 14 points 18 hours ago

If we can't have a progressive, Coney-Barrett would be a better chief justice. She seems to at least try to follow the Constitution (most of the time). Eff her for lying about RvW in her confirmation hearing, though. Eff all those guys.

[-] QuincyPeck@lemmy.world 10 points 18 hours ago

She’s certainly performed better than expected. She actually seems to give a damn about the application of law in most cases.

[-] Toneswirly@lemmy.world 47 points 21 hours ago

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

[-] Phoenicianpirate@lemm.ee 18 points 21 hours ago
[-] kandoh@reddthat.com 5 points 18 hours ago

Okay, she doesn't have to be sent to El Salvador when Empress Cortez assumes control

[-] Chocrates@lemmy.world 7 points 16 hours ago

It'll be a cold day in hell before they let us vote for AOC

[-] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 266 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

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.

[-] JollyBrancher@lemm.ee 1 points 7 hours ago

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.

[-] Treczoks@lemmy.world 19 points 20 hours ago

Why bother, just sign an EO. /s

[-] LMurch@thelemmy.club 7 points 18 hours ago

Trump, "Why the /s? I'll do it."

[-] Soulg@ani.social 7 points 17 hours ago

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

[-] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 160 points 1 day ago

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.

[-] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 12 points 21 hours ago

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.

[-] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 10 points 20 hours ago

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (40 replies)
[-] Archangel1313@lemm.ee 94 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 73 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.

load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 15 May 2025
647 points (100.0% liked)

politics

23520 readers
2057 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