ListNook

ChiGuy6124 Apr 1, 2026 +1

*So what's new right? But I mean, he's only is off by 32 countries, so don't we have to point that out?. Or should we just throw it in the pile of other BS he throws our there?* "President Donald Trump is not letting facts get in the way of his argument as he pushes to end birthright citizenship in the United States." "Trump, 79, took to social media after being the first president to attend Supreme Court oral arguments, where the country’s highest court heard the case on his executive order signed on day one back in office." "The president is trying to end birthright citizenship for all babies born in the U.S. and restrict it to the children of U.S. citizens and those legally in the country permanently." “We are the only Country in the World STUPID enough to allow ‘Birthright’ Citizenship!” Trump posted on Truth Social, which is simply not true." "32 other countries have birthright citizenship laws similar to the U.S., according to a Pew Research Center analysis." "Other countries with similar birthright citizenship include Canada, Mexico, Brazil, and Argentina, to name a few." "Trump was in court on Wednesday as the conservative-majority Supreme Court heard arguments on birthright citizenship, but he did not stay through the entire hearing." "He instead abruptly exited the court after his Solicitor General, D. John Sauer, made his case before the justices. "Despite the court’s makeup, including three justices appointed by Trump during his first term, several conservative justices expressed deep skepticism of the Trump administration’s argument for ending birthright citizenship." "Chief Justice John Roberts, along with Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, both Trump appointees, made a series of critical observations and posed probing questions, signaling they were troubled by the president’s executive order."

1

Infamous_Employer_85 Apr 1, 2026 +1

> he is off by 32 countries, Yep, and his restrictions would be more expansive than those of many European countries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli#Europe

1

FeelingPixely Apr 1, 2026 +1

The "do your own research" crowd is awfully quiet lately. But how could they understand the domestic policies abroad when they can't figure out what's even real here?

1

patentattorney Apr 1, 2026 +1

Birthright citizenship in the new world makes sense. If they were to argue that reasons for this meaning have ceased - sure. We could argue that. But if you can’t change the holding of the laws based on that or nothing would have meaning. Trump the great negotiator, should go to congress and make his arguments

1

glasnostic Apr 1, 2026 +1

Yup. Get the constitution changed if you want that change. I'm not even against switching to the model of most European countries. I sure am against Trump shitting on our constitution though.

1

Glum_Gate_9444 Apr 1, 2026 +1

Yup, citizenship, like gun ownership, are constitutional issues. I hear the right say amend the constitution if you want to have gun control. The same applies here. I wonder why they don't treat it the same?

1

patentattorney Apr 1, 2026 +1

I mean the main thing for gun control is the SC read the constitution in a bonkers way. Scalia also decided to not use originalism in the case. The SC justices are all incredibly smart people, and if they are not sticking to how they decide cases, they can pretty much lean into anything to come to the conclusion they want. For 100s of years, we had a group right - the right of the well regulated militia to have guns. But this was translated to an individuals right. The court ignored how colonial laws/wild west laws operated (store gun powder in secure locations/leave your guns with the sheriffs. etc. The court decided that the term "well regulated militia" doesnt really matter. Just bonkers.

1

Glum_Gate_9444 Apr 1, 2026 +1

Yeah, the NRA successfully convinced conservatives that guns are some near absolute right by ignoring what the words actually say.

1

JojenCopyPaste Apr 1, 2026 +1

And it doesn't matter if "we're the only country stupid enough" to do it. We were the only country stupid enough to elect him twice. You can't just change the constitution with an executive order. If you think it's stupid you have to get enough people to agree to actually amend the constitution.

1

Maleficent_Durian564 Apr 1, 2026 +1

So a new EO coming our way

1

Defiant_Tomatillo907 Apr 1, 2026 +1

Next EO says EO’s are instant Laws

1

Wezzleey Apr 1, 2026 +1

I wish the people calling him out on lack of facts actually cared about them too. Trump didn't leave abruptly. He had a scheduled event at the White House. Nobody there expected him to stay for the entire argument. This was all known beforehand. There are countless FACTUAL things we can use to tear this f***** down. Why make shit up?

1

KenScaletta Apr 1, 2026 +1

He did leave abruptly because he didn't wait for the recess, just got up and walked out, which is atypical and rude. Thanks for providing the Fox News spin, though.

1

iwerbs Apr 1, 2026 +1

Lie for a lie until he dies?

1

CountyKyndrid Apr 1, 2026 +1

I love seeing the spin machine at work.

1

No_Tone1704 Apr 1, 2026 +1

Then why the rant from him? Like he couldn’t blow off an event like he blows off anything he doesn’t want to do. Why make shit up as if you serve him?

1

mattyoclock Apr 1, 2026 +1

Not mentioned is it looks like sotamayor might rule for trump, which makes this all far dicier than it has any reason to be.

1

stevenmoreso Apr 1, 2026 +1

What did you hear in her questioning that leads you to believe that?

1

mattyoclock Apr 1, 2026 +1

It was on scotusblog

1

No_Tone1704 Apr 1, 2026 +1

So you’ve just lied your ass off? Bot

1

mattyoclock Apr 1, 2026 +1

What are you on about? You asked where I saw it, I told you. Specifically the livechat.

1

Full_Honeydew_9739 Apr 1, 2026 +1

Lol. "Justice Sonia Sotomayor has emerged as a key defender of birthright citizenship during 2026 Supreme Court proceedings regarding challenges to executive actions aimed at ending it. She has argued that the 14th Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship and that attempts to restrict it contradict longstanding legal precedent." https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/03/scotustoday-for-tuesday-march-31/#:~:text=In%20their%20words:%20What%20judges%20have%20said%20about%20birthright%20citizenship&text=Ahead%20of%20Wednesday's%20argument%20on,birthright%20citizenship%2C%E2%80%9D%20she%20wrote.

1

georgepana Apr 1, 2026 +1

Nothing in her questioning made me believe that. Where do you get that notion from? Looks like nonsense, actually.

1

No_Tone1704 Apr 1, 2026 +1

Your source for that. Seems hugely unlikely. In a spectacular way.

1

mattyoclock Apr 1, 2026 +1

The scotusblog live update feeder and their assessment of how they felt the judges were leaning

1

ChromaticDragon Apr 1, 2026 +1

There several matters at play here: * Is the desired policy change good or appropriate? * Is the method suggested or employed (or under review) for the policy change appropriate and legal and constitutional? * Is it appropriate for the President to appear to attempt to bully the SCOTUS to ignore either of the above? If the policy one desires to change is baked into the US Constitution itself rather explicitly, then the method to use to enact the policy change is the process to create and ratify a US amendment. This entire issue should be dead-on-arrival because of this simple fact. We can quibble over whatever in the world "natural born" means. And the courts have done this over the years already. It seems unwarranted, however, to try to shove whatever we want through that clause when the spirit (and letter arguably) of the US Constitution is so much at odds with the desired policy.

1

Big_Bookkeeper1678 Apr 1, 2026 +1

Kind of like 2A. It was meant to allow citizens to bear arms...in a regulated way...not the free-for-all we have currently in which you don't know WHO might just pull out a gun and shoot you for giving them a dirty look.

1

literallytwisted Apr 1, 2026 +1

They actually meant it the way it was written, It gives both the right to form militias and to own firearms without restrictions. Obviously it's an issue now but back then after the revolution it was a big deal that the government not be able to restrict rights, It also took an hour by horse to visit your neighbor so they weren't too concerned about misuse of firearms. They also assumed that we would write amendments for anything that needed to be fixed later, They likely didn't think we would ignore the situation for generations.

1

TheBatemanFlex Apr 1, 2026 +1

It also took a half a minute to reload a firearm at the time.

1

literallytwisted Apr 1, 2026 +1

And they were better at it than we are! When I tried loading a replica musket I almost hit myself in the head since the things are like six feet long, Couldn't get the hang of loading it either! Those guys had some skills back then.

1

Imp0ssibleBagel Apr 1, 2026 +1

I mean, they had pistols, also. Not that they used different ammunition, but they certainly were a lot easier to not hit yourself in the head with.

1

Orwells_Roses Apr 1, 2026 +1

One of the first things George Washington did as president was to take guns away from American farmers during the Whiskey Rebellion. Our first president, and the "Father of our Country," was a "gun-grabber," to use the schoolyard language of the right wing.

1

Chengar_Qordath Apr 1, 2026 +1

Exactly. The Second Amendment is a case of “rules that made a lot more sense in the 1700s than in the 2000s.” The problem is way too many people treat the Constitution as a sacred text that cannot be deviated from or altered. The founders would be the first to say that Americans should change anything in it that’s outdated or out of step with the modern world.

1

Plastic-Librarian253 Apr 1, 2026 +1

There is a way to alter it, but not enough people want it altered to go through the amendment process.

1

Plastic-Librarian253 Apr 1, 2026 +1

The meaning of "regulated" has changed quite a bit after more than two centuries.

1

Okey_Dokey_Tokey Apr 1, 2026 +1

This.

1

Orwells_Roses Apr 1, 2026 +1

Another paywalled Daily Beast piece of shit. I really wish I could block all Daily Beast articles.

1

malignantz Apr 1, 2026 +1

Create a bookmarklet! This is a bookmark that's actually a little bit of javascript: javascript:(function(){var u=window.location.href.replace(/^https?:\/\//,%27%27);window.location.href=%27https://removepaywall.com/%27+u;})(); This will open the current page in [RemovePaywall.com](http://RemovePaywall.com) and will 1-click defeat TDB paywall.

1

K12onReddit Apr 1, 2026 +1

If you're using RES on desktop you can. Until the mods here decide to do anything about the clickbait trash we keep getting inundated with. https://www.listnook.com/prefs/#res:settings/filteListnook

1

catachip Apr 1, 2026 +1

Daily Beast pays Listnook to promote their articles. They aren’t going anywhere.

1

flexbuffstrong Apr 1, 2026 +1

I figure this sub is here just to feed traffic to New Republic and Daily Beast.

1

[deleted] Apr 1, 2026 +1

[removed]

1

Distant_Utility_504 Apr 1, 2026 +1

First thing I do if I become a mod is quietly take them down

1

[deleted] Apr 1, 2026 +1

[removed]

1

lodestar72 Apr 1, 2026 +1

Why do you feel the need to feed us clickbait trash?

1

professorxc Apr 1, 2026 +1

Me too. I tried blocking but it keeps showing up

1

Madcap_Miguel Apr 1, 2026 +1

I wish they would block all for profit journalism, their profession is a plague.

1

Boiiing Apr 1, 2026 +1

Yes, if only I could instantly know everything happening in the world without having to read or hear about it, there would be no need to pay journalists for anything

1

hobard Apr 1, 2026 +1

Profit != pay. See lawfare, propublica, and every non-profit on earth.

1

Madcap_Miguel Apr 1, 2026 +1

_PBS_ is owned by the guys from atlas shrugged, CNN is running poly market ads and I'm the villain because _I don't want journalists to be paid for their work._ This is the journalistic equivalent of you can't criticize Israel because that's antisemitic, I can't criticize the industry without wanting little kids to go hungry because Mommy or Daddy couldn't sell her book.

1

ChiGuy6124 Apr 1, 2026 +1

Stop making sense. This is neither the time or the place.😏

1

Madcap_Miguel Apr 1, 2026 +1

You posted the entire article to the comments, you hack.

1

[deleted] Apr 1, 2026 +1

[removed]

1

Th3_Admiral_ Apr 1, 2026 +1

Oh man, you took that very personally for some reason.

1

Distant_Utility_504 Apr 1, 2026 +1

Hilarious

1

ChiGuy6124 Apr 1, 2026 +1

Oh man I really did. It get old, and I really think this could be a good discussion. Let's get into it. If you don't want anymore Daily Beast articles let me know. I will stop posting.

1

Th3_Admiral_ Apr 1, 2026 +1

What would you like to get into? The fact that the article is pay walled so isn't even readable to most users, or that the Daily Beast is sensationalized to the point it's barely better than a tabloid? Every article they post is about someone or something being "destroyed", "obliterated", "crushed", or "torn to shreds". And that's the only reason their articles always do so well in this sublistnook. People love hearing that "Trump, 79, was obliterated in latest explosive poll" because it tells them what they want to hear. It doesn't even matter that the articles are pay walled because they get everything they need from the headline. These articles aren't useful to anyone, and there are a thousand better sources for actual political news.

1

ChiGuy6124 Apr 1, 2026 +1

That is a well though out argument and perhaps you are right. I get nothing from posting, zilch nada, nothing. I do it because its fun and I like the discussions. I post paywalled articles because I though it benefited the community. If I am wrong than I will stop.

1

KohlsCashOfficial Apr 1, 2026 +1

How does a paywalled article benefit the community?

1

Orwells_Roses Apr 1, 2026 +1

Yeah, let’s get into it! Why do you post paywalled clickbait articles?

1

Orwells_Roses Apr 1, 2026 +1

How about you just stop posting Daily Beast garbage instead?

1

frenchezz Apr 1, 2026 +1

Lol daily beast has no value. I could post a turd and it would have more value than ANYTHING daily beast has ever published. You're literally gobbling up OAN for the left.

1

ChiGuy6124 Apr 1, 2026 +1

And yet, here you are.

1

frenchezz Apr 1, 2026 +1

To spread the word about this garbage publication, otherwise known as providing value. But please keep responding, it only boosts my comments so more people see them.

1

steveparker88 Apr 1, 2026 +1

Actual link to the actual article so we can actually read it: https://archive.is/jkovH

1

WilsonPhillips6789 Apr 1, 2026 +1

Doing the Lord's work... 🙏🏼

1

1iIiii11IIiI1i1i11iI Apr 1, 2026 +1

Trump's playing his favorite card, bullying. We'll see if the justices have the balls to stand up against him.

1

obolobolobo Apr 1, 2026 +1

Godfather overtones. Don’t mind me I’m just sitting here for no reason.

1

thisusedyet Apr 1, 2026 +1

Loses some of the effect if the person who’s trying to be intimidating is audibly filling their diaper, though

1

bgthigfist Apr 1, 2026 +1

If they don't rule the way he wants he'll just ignore them and/or stack the court with MAGA judges who have little legal training and are just sycophants

1

Zipzorpzap Apr 1, 2026 +1

Lying pedophile continues to lie.

1

AFlockOfTySegalls Apr 1, 2026 +1

fact-free is fitting for a proud know-nothing.

1

Imaginary_Audience_5 Apr 1, 2026 +1

Offer unrestricted birthright citizenship: Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Barbados Belize Bolivia Brazil Canada Chad Chile Costa Rica Cuba Dominica Ecuador El Salvador Grenada Guatemala Guyana Honduras Jamaica Lesotho Mexico Mozambique Nicaragua Panama Paraguay Peru St. Kitts and Nevis St. Lucia St. Vincent and the Grenadines Trinidad and Tobago Tuvalu United States Uruguay Venezuela :

1

moocowtracy Apr 1, 2026 +1

Well, yes, technically... but what he MEANT was no "white" countries... whatever that's supposed to mean... >!This post was sarcasm, and should not be taken literally unless you're a kleptomaniac...!<

1

Imp0ssibleBagel Apr 1, 2026 +1

I'm not sure you understand what kleptomania is.

1

moocowtracy Apr 1, 2026 +1

old school joke. ..."That's the problem with kleptomaniacs... They always take things literally." i didn't say it was a -good- joke...

1

Korzag Apr 1, 2026 +1

"Fact free rant" suggests he over rage-posts any legitimate facts. He does not.

1

Jhewitt1111 Apr 1, 2026 +1

Baby back b****

1

BrianThatDude Apr 1, 2026 +1

Pretty soon he'll be lashing out at Barrett and Gorush as being Biden appointees

1

fcatw Apr 1, 2026 +1

Are we calling lies “fact free” now?

1

Low-Astronomer-7009 Apr 1, 2026 +1

Fox News: now fully FACT FREE!

1

ripChazmo Apr 1, 2026 +1

Why is this piece of shit site allowed here? It's not a possible paywall, it is. There's nothing to read here beyond the headline.

1

Keshire Apr 1, 2026 +1

> Why is this piece of shit site allowed here? It's the other side of the coin for allowing Townhall and Bretbart.

1

ArticulateRhinoceros Apr 1, 2026 +1

This, Daily Beast and Meidas Touch make me feel gross for reading. Bring back dry-ass just the facts articles! Make politics boring again! It shouldn't be entertainment, it's serious shit.

1

ChiGuy6124 Apr 1, 2026 +1

And yet, here you are

1

ArticulateRhinoceros Apr 1, 2026 +1

Yes, here I am, downvoting your garbage article.

1

ChiGuy6124 Apr 1, 2026 +1

I mean you did that already. So I repeat; And yet here you are.

1

ailish Apr 1, 2026 +1

Daily Beast is like Fox News, get a real source.

1

KohlsCashOfficial Apr 1, 2026 +1

Why are you so hurt over people responding that they don’t like the daily beast lmao

1

KrakenOmega112 Apr 1, 2026 +1

I mean, we're also the only country in the world* that apparently prohibits gun control laws in our constitution, and yet that's apparently no big deal. *please correct me if I'm wrong here, I don't have knowledge of every country's governance

1

[deleted] Apr 1, 2026 +1

[deleted]

1

KrakenOmega112 Apr 1, 2026 +1

You need to note the word "apparently" that is essential to my point, since conservatives have always used the second amendment to curb regulating gun access.

1

obolobolobo Apr 1, 2026 +1

You know as well as anyone how gun nuts will refer you to the 2nd. Bump stocks are legal again because of its perverse magic.

1

Comfortable-Trip-277 Apr 1, 2026 +1

Actually, the bump stock ban was struck down because no federal law on the books actually bans them.

1

akestral Apr 1, 2026 +1

I like that I spent my Wednesday day drinking on vacation and he spent his at SCROTUS watching his DoJ get dogwalked by (checks) Brett "I Like Beer [and R***]" Kavannaugh.

1

dawgz525 Apr 1, 2026 +1

He's got a television address tonight. I do expect that he's just going to get on TV and lie about all this.

1

RLewis8888 Apr 1, 2026 +1

What a snowflake. Maybe he should try reading the constitution - even if he doesn't think he needs to defend it.

1

9ersaur Apr 1, 2026 +1

If you want to amend the constitution, make your case to congress and the american people.

1

factbased Apr 1, 2026 +1

*rants, and before SCOTUS tears apart his case, and probably during SCOTUS tearing apart his case

1

gasciousclay1 Apr 1, 2026 +1

You can get a proper spanking if you don't show up and bend over.

1

Wildfathom9 Apr 1, 2026 +1

You won't believe this but the conservative sublistnook has no posts concerning Trump being incorrect about 32 countries. /s I mean they dont, but you can completely believe it because they care nothing for the truth.

1

Chazkuangshi Apr 1, 2026 +1

You'd think SCOTUS would be sick of his whining.

1

BaconISgoodSOGOOD Apr 1, 2026 +1

Oh, to be there and hear DJT stomping the hell out of his Florsheim Lexington Oxfords as he retreats out of SCOTUS..

1

Soggysleuth Apr 1, 2026 +1

Ted Cruz for example, is an anchor baby. His father's from Cuba, his parents moved to Canada where he was born. Yet, he's a U.S. Senator. 🤯

1

Trump posts fact-free rant after SCOTUS tears apart his case

💬 Send a Message

104 Comments