The Supreme Court agreed on Friday to take up the constitutionality of President Donald Trump’s order on birthright citizenship declaring that children born to parents who are in the United States illegally or temporarily are not American citizens.
The justices will hear Trump’s appeal of a lower-court ruling that struck down the citizenship restrictions. They have not taken effect anywhere in the country.
The case will be argued in the spring. A definitive ruling is expected by early summer.
24 Comments
plateee@piefed.social · 69 pts · 251d
Fucking.... Fuck.
The constitution literally says:
How can a presidential order.... effectively a wishlist or at best guidance for how the executive branch should behave overturn the fucking Constitution.
Does that mean the next Democrat can do an executive order wiping out the 2nd amendment?
What in that absolute fuck is Roberts thinking?
Asafum@feddit.nl · 30 pts · 251d
No. Keyword there being Democrat. It will be unconstitutional because a Democrat wants to do it, it would be ruled the other way if it was a Republican trying to do it.
It's the product of the clown show fake SCOTUS we have currently: desired outcomes first, rational to justify second.
atzanteol@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 250d
"Calvinball jurisprudence"
PK2@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 250d
I seem to remember that same group saying that a president (using core constitutional powers - like commander in chief of the military) was basically above the law.
So, if a different president were to use that power to say "create some vacancies on the bench" I guess that would be 100% okay with them.
ryper@lemmy.ca · 15 pts · 251d
They're not going to directly overturn anything, they're going to argue that people who aren't in the US legally aren't "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", even though they're subject to it's jurisdiction enough to be arrested, tried and convicted. It's generally been understood that the clause was meant to exclude people with diplomatic immunity or something like it, but SCOTUS will ignore that in the name of "originalism".
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 9 pts · 251d
If they're not subject to its jurisdiction, that would mean that other laws do not apply to them
plateee@piefed.social · 4 pts · 251d
So being born here becomes illegal, therefore no citizenship? To whom would that amendment then apply? Only white folk?
Not to mention the craziness of applying this to births. There have been people harassed by ICE with Real IDs who have been told those are forgeries - do we expect parents to bring passports to the hospital to make sure their kids "count"?
azertyfun@sh.itjust.works · 8 pts · 251d
Some americans unironically believe that piece of parchment to be almighty, self-evident, irreproachable, and universally revered.
Unfortunately those in power have transferred that belief to Trump. That's all it took to abolish the rule of law.
captainlezbian@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 251d
Because the constitution is just words unless people act as though they are binding to all government officials. The republican party pushed through cynical movements to ensure that those who truly believe weren't going to be nominated to the court under their presidencies
UnspecificGravity@piefed.social · 51 pts · 251d
How many of you can actually PROVE that your parents were here legally when they were born?
I don't mean "of course, my parents were Americans." I mean what do you have actually ON PAPER in your pocket or in your home that PROVES that? Do you have your parents birth certificates handy? Got their passports with you? This can be used to fuck over just about everyone in this country if they want it to, and guess what? They do.
apftwb@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 251d
You mean the fraudulent passports your parents acquired with their fraudulent birth certificates? Don't worry about trying to figure out which hospital they were born at, we already booked their tickets to Cambodia
Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 251d
That's the idea. But of course they'll primarily target non-white people.
Kolanaki@pawb.social · 20 pts · 251d
Trump'll just give a crisp $1 bill to Clarence to vote his way.
velindora@lemmy.cafe · 13 pts · 251d
I think we all know how Scotus will go
thesohoriots@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 251d
6-3 unsigned, drops Friday evening
shalafi@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 251d
OK, bet you a crisp $20 bill they uphold birthright citizenship. Meet me back here next summer.
SCOTUS makes or defers to lower court's decisions on "liberal" matters all the time. They defy Trump all the time. It's like no one here actually reads the news and thinks they get real-life points for cynicism.
pjwestin@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 251d
I mean, this case is so blatantly meritless that it's a pretty bad sign that they even took it. You would have to intentionally misinterprete both the spirit and letter of the 14th Amendment to even begin to believe that the EO is constitutional, and every lower court has come to that conclusion. There's really no reason for them to not decline the case and let the lower courts' decisions stand.
Also, their earlier decision to limit lower courts power to grant national injunctions means they've functionally ruled in this cases' favor once already. I would like to think that even a court as nakedly partisan as this one wouldn't let a President's EO overrule the Constitution, but so far, the signs aren't good.
Fredselfish@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 251d
I'll take that bet.
Hylactor@sopuli.xyz · 11 pts · 251d
Trump's about to make the ice cream flavors he doesn't like illegal and it will be upheld by the supreme court.
QueenHawlSera@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 250d
Since this is Trump's supreme court, I can safely say; So it doesn't, good to know.
TommySoda@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 251d
SCOTUS about to rule the constitution unconstitutional, basically. If they can do it with one they can do it with all of them.
homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 251d
Y’know how many people outside this comm know or understand this bullshit?
Not many. Hardly any. Maybe enough to fill an average sports stadium.
timewarp@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 251d
Remind me again why we have a constitution if a court can ignore its plain language without Congress making a constitutional amendment? Remind me what the Revolutionary War was about?
Narauko@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 250d
That's the issue with plain language. Plenty of people get upset about gun bans for the "shall not be infringed" part while their opponents get upset about gun bans being overturned based on the word "militia".
I'm with you on SCOTUS pulling a bunch of bullshit "interpretation", but technically that is how the 3 Branches checks and balances are supposed to work. A failure of the Legislative to impeach for Executive overreach since Bush Jr has a lot to do with this, and Court failures for Legislative violations like the Patriot Act.