ListNook

8bitmorals Apr 1, 2026 +1

Don't forget that part of Project 2025 is to create a constitutional crisis.

1

if420sixtynined420 Apr 1, 2026 +1

We’ve been in one since the Merrick Garland appointment to the Supreme Court was blocked

1

Prior_Coyote_4376 Apr 1, 2026 +1

We’ve been in one since Nixon and Reagan took the conservatives into an imperial executive framework by tapping into Confederate resentments and desire to restore an old racial caste system. War Powers have always been fraying away through repeated attacks by hawkish Presidents who try to circumvent Congress, which is usually too pathetically submissive to fight back.

1

DukeOfGeek Apr 1, 2026 +1

Please say this early and often brother, people born in this century really don't know how we got to this dark place and how long it took them to get us here.

1

All_Hail_Hynotoad Apr 1, 2026 +1

We’ve been in one since Nixon was allowed to resign and was then pardoned.

1

Dry_Instruction8254 Apr 1, 2026 +1

Garland would have probably voted for this. TERRIBLE person, and one of the main reasons Trump is in office right now.

1

Ancient_Popcorn Apr 1, 2026 +1

We’ve already had a few of those.

1

Jeremisio Apr 1, 2026 +1

I know Congress is too cowardly to actually make it a crisis since they keep enabling him and just tsk tsk him

1

PipXXX Apr 1, 2026 +1

I mean, it takes heat off them so they can do their own grifts.

1

genuineshock Apr 1, 2026 +1

"He said he's already got one, you silly English pig dog!"

1

TheShipEliza Apr 1, 2026 +1

The part they forgot was being popular. Nothing in their plan is gonna work with trump sub 30 and the worst stuff from iran isnt even here yet.

1

plowingthrougsanity Apr 1, 2026 +1

We'll see. These right wing justices like to put on a front of logic and then side with the devil and against the constitution.

1

canadiuman Apr 1, 2026 +1

Yeah, but I'll be damned if I can find a way for the justices, who are all lawyers and understand legal phrases, to turn "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" into anything other than "If you are born within the borders of the US, you're a citizen." "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means you are under the legal control of the US (i.e. not a diplomat or part of a foreign invading army). Trump has been pushing the invasion angle, but individuals coming across the border to work are not part of an army or coordinated as an invasion force.

1

Feral80s_kid Apr 1, 2026 +1

Right? If they were to say that babies born here were NOT “under the jurisdiction of” then wouldn’t that mean that none of our laws applied to them?

1

apk5005 Apr 1, 2026 +1

Or taxes

1

CanWeTalkEth Apr 1, 2026 +1

Yes? Isn’t that the argument?

1

Feral80s_kid Apr 1, 2026 +1

If none of our laws applied to them, then how would we ever arrest them or deport them? They’d by free to cause whatever mayhem they wanted, because we wouldn’t have any legal recourse, right?

1

patentattorney Apr 1, 2026 +1

I mean just look at the second amendment. “A well regulated militia” they changed this into “anyone”

1

canadiuman Apr 1, 2026 +1

Well to be whatever with that, "a well regulated militia, being necessary..." kind of hints at, "we need a militia, militias often bring their own weapons, so in order to make sure we can put together a well regulated militia, we need armed citizens who know how to use a gun." Of course that was in the days of black powder muskets.

1

patentattorney Apr 1, 2026 +1

I mean, it also means that we have a militia. Where people go to for training. There is literally no orginization. In 2008, the SC ignored this, and essentially said that the rights to own guns was an individual rights, and the well relegated portion means what you are saying "to have a militia you need guns, so people should have guns to form the militia" Its incredibly circular and makes no sense. ESPECIALLY when you look at past rulings from the justices.

1

sdn Apr 1, 2026 +1

Because US law regulates things and it also states that the “militia” is all males over 18. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title10/subtitleA/part1/chapter12&edition=prelim So pretty hard to argue that it’s “not well regulated”

1

patentattorney Apr 1, 2026 +1

I think in 2008 the SC stated that all people had the rights to own guns and that was separate from the militia clause. The SC said that this clause should be looked at for its purpose rather than being restrictive. So the SC literally just ignore this restriction and said it should apply. ALSO, if everyone joins something - and there are no meetings, discussions, etc. it is not well regulated. Literally no regulations other than being of age.

1

sargonas Apr 1, 2026 +1

Yes but that’s the thing about interpreting wording. Widening the coverage of what something means is a lot easier to justify than narrowing it or outright ignoring what it says entirely. You would have to do the latter for the current case.

1

GearBrain Apr 1, 2026 +1

My money's on some sort of AirBud nonsense. Like how "person" isn't defined in the text and therefore is open to bad faith interpretation.

1

Gekokapowco Apr 1, 2026 +1

exactly, a "person" born in the United States but only citizens can be considered people born in the united states so if you aren't a citizen and legally no person was born in the united states so you aren't a citizen it makes perfect sense, all very logical

1

DukeOfGeek Apr 1, 2026 +1

Members of a foreign army on U.S. soil are 100% subject to the jurisdiction of U.S. military and police forces, where is this idea they are not coming from?

1

canadiuman Apr 1, 2026 +1

Invading army, not just any foreign army. If you invade the US and a pregnant woman among your troops has a kid on us soil, the kid wouldn't be a citizen.

1

BoobyChess Apr 1, 2026 +1

That's my fear, but i listened to majority of the 2 hr. hearing and Barrett/Gorsuch really did sound annoyed and highly skeptical. Roberts and Kavanaugh to me sounded skeptical. Alito and Thomas were their typical loser selves. We'll see. Also, Sauer sounds like RFK Jr talking a million words a minute. Made the hearing sound more excruciating.

1

0utlaw-t0rn Apr 1, 2026 +1

Right. This is a long shot for Trump and against the clear meaning of the constitution, but the conservatives have come up with some creative legal theories before to justify what they want to do.

1

DocJenkins Apr 1, 2026 +1

Well, "originalist" means you can essentially ignore 140+ years of judicial precedence and subsequent law in the United States, as long as you can handwave at some vague statement a colonial magister made in 1607. It's legal voodoo, smothered in sophistry.

1

Writer_In_Residence Apr 1, 2026 +1

Unless money is involved. Then they side with money, specifically their and their friends’/family’s money (tariffs).

1

Slade_Riprock Apr 1, 2026 +1

It should be 9-0, quick, and eviscerating to the Administration to even challenge this. But I guarantee it will be something like 8-1 or 7-2 with some nuanced, I'm not a Nazi racist... But, tview by the conservatives

1

orangesfwr Apr 1, 2026 +1

This court gave Presidents blanket immunity. Never doubt their unlimited potential for bad decision making.

1

gorginhanson Apr 1, 2026 +1

I disagree. They are crazy enough The only thing is that Trump's legal team is f****** incompetent so they'll probably lose anyway

1

patentattorney Apr 1, 2026 +1

One thing (among the many) that grinds my gears about trump supporters and trump. Is that this has already been litigated. It has already been decided. Trump isn’t “asking the hard questions” or pushing boundaries, he is literally just saying that the old rules shouldn’t apply.

1

AdHopeful3801 Apr 1, 2026 +1

Since the GOP of today was built in no small part on re-litigating Roe v. Wade, it's pretty clear that getting rid of the old rules in favor of the older rules is part of the appeal.

1

timesuck47 Apr 1, 2026 +1

Pun intended?

1

AdHopeful3801 Apr 1, 2026 +1

Yup.

1

evanliko Apr 1, 2026 +1

I mean. Sometimes changing the old rules should happen. But! We have a system for that. It's how we gave women and poc the right to vote, and abolished slavery, etc. You can't just do that via the supreme court.

1

patentattorney Apr 1, 2026 +1

Congress. Thats what happens. Congress changes laws. Then the SC rules on these new laws. Thats how its supposed to happen. Not relitigating things to get them updated for modern times.

1

evanliko Apr 1, 2026 +1

Yep. Exactly. Thats the process. But Trump knows he can't get this shit through congress so, he's depending on a court he's done his best to rig and the average american not paying attention in highschool civics enough to know that he's doing it wrong.

1

patentattorney Apr 1, 2026 +1

exactly. it just angers me. Because in the past people would have denounced/criticized the president for wasting everyone's time. The SC is on a tight docket, the president's staff should be handling other things, etc. Just a complete waste of everyones time to just be racist.

1

Ozzman770 Apr 1, 2026 +1

My favorite part of the whole article is this one. "Sauer responded with a long-winded explanation of how the authors of the 14th Amendment couldn’t possibly have approved and that today we live in a “new world where 8 billion people are one plane ride away from having a child who’s a U.S. citizen.” “It’s a new world, but it’s the same Constitution,” Roberts responded." They tried to use the liberal anti-gun argument of "the founding fathers clearly didn't forsee how bad it would get when they wrote that" and got, surprisingly, smacked down by the same logic republicans dismiss the gun argument.

1

Noiserawker Apr 1, 2026 +1

And it's actually a much more logical argument when talking about guns because a musket and a modern AR15 are about as similar as a Toyota Prius and a tank. Sure let everyone have a musket, to do a mass shooting you'd have to get all the victims to agree not to move for 30 minutes.

1

DukeOfGeek Apr 1, 2026 +1

The wheels are coming off his clownshow and they know it, that's all it is. They are already planning for how they are going to keep as much of what he has given them in a post MAGA world.

1

feignapathy Apr 1, 2026 +1

The argument is idiotic. Don't get me wrong, some of the amendments have interesting language. But the 14th clearly says "all persons born or neutralized..."

1

Mind_Killer Apr 1, 2026 +1

I dunno. I’m bettin money they hedge their bets. Say something like “This isn’t about birthright citizenship, it’s about the authority of the executive order to challenge an amendment” or something like that. Get around it entirely and put the burden on Congress

1

Packolypse Apr 1, 2026 +1

Who are we kidding, two for sure are going to side with him, no doubt. Im betting Neil Gorsuch or Brett Kavanaugh as the third, 50/50 for either of them.

1

Icy-Clerk-7715 Apr 1, 2026 +1

Trump is a piece of shit

1

glitterandnails Apr 1, 2026 +1

F*** these Christian Nationalists who want to overturn what America has been all about since both its independence and since after the Civil War. They want to make America into a religious oppressive hellhole that favors them and subjugates and punishes everyone else.

1

vroart Apr 1, 2026 +1

Trump lives in a bubble….. to avoid his own problems!

1

Oceanbreeze871 Apr 1, 2026 +1

I’ll believe it when I see the ruling

1

HellaTroi Apr 1, 2026 +1

*"Barrett cut him off, “Yeah, yeah, yeah, but what about the Constitution?” And again, *"“It’s a new world, but it’s the same Constitution,” Roberts responded.'"* Sick burns from the court. Now I'm wishing I had listened to the whole hearing.

1

DREG_02 Apr 1, 2026 +1

Ill believe it when they vote. This is the fever dream of Rpublicans since the 1990s. This supreme court has shown time and again that when logic and history doesnt comfort with their desired outcome that the Republican justices will just make shit up to justify their lickspittling

1

its-a-baka Apr 1, 2026 +1

I mean, I hate saying this but it's appropriate to quote a certain felon-in-chief: "never say never".

1

MiddleAgedSponger Apr 1, 2026 +1

Crazy? Did they misspell corrupt?

1

randomnighmare Apr 1, 2026 +1

In my opinion they just going to find a way to give Trump a "soft" L. Like not making a ruling and moving it to a lower court.

1

BlooDoge Apr 1, 2026 +1

This hasnt been decided yet. I think I f I were a justice on his side, I would put on a big show in not appearing like I’m siding with him during oral argument.

1

Vegetable-Walrus-246 Apr 1, 2026 +1

Just more of wasting everyone’s time and money on nonsense.

1

Ihathreturd Apr 1, 2026 +1

It's not that they aren't crazy(they very much are) it's that they have principles that they abide by, a foreign concept to Trump. I know for a fact Thomas has an originalist viewpoint of the Constitution.

1

ken-davis Apr 1, 2026 +1

Thomas and Alito will.

1

EasternDirt1341 Apr 1, 2026 +1

It is long shot but He wins regardless of the outcome the Republicans will hammer this issue the economy is heading for a down turn . Immigration and Trans fear may keep the Blue wave at bay.

1

Not Even Trump's Justices Are Crazy Enough To Side With Him On Birthright Citizenship

💬 Send a Message

62 Comments