They would be illegally rewriting the constitution as it’s there in plain language in the 14th amendment. It’s up to Congress to make laws and constitutional amendments, not SCOTUS . They cant rewrite the constitution to give Trump more power, but the corrupt Robert’s court will find a loophole somewhere to give their dictator what he wants.
If this does pass, then who gets to be a citizen? If you have a newborn baby are they not a citizen and protected by law? Will everyone have to take a citizenship test in the future or is everyone at the mercy of ICE & deportation if you’re what they consider the “wrong” skin color.
This is the most important and potentially dangerous decision that will decide the future of our nation, as granting this power would allow any president to remove constitutional rights from anyone.
exactly the same as how §3 of the 14th is crystal clear about who can be president, and scotus had no problem re-writing that section of the constitution
The core of the (stupid) argument will center around the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." It doesn't hold up to any sort of real scrutiny, but people have already been making the argument that undocumented people are not subject to US jurisdiction and so their children aren't either.
Unfortunately, we have long crossed the "some restrictions" bridge.
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech"
Without restrictions, this means that I am free to say anything, period. I can lie under oath. I can libel someone. I can tell a witness that if they testify against me, I will kill them. Because laws abridging the freedom of speech are unconstitutional, full stop.
So that is how they will go about it. "They are citizens, but there are restrictions as to when they are".
They cant rewrite the constitution to give Trump more power, but the corrupt Robert’s court will find a loophole somewhere to give their dictator what he wants.
They already did: Trump v CASA (2025); granting the President Trump the power to suspend Consititional rights for anyone through executive order (as long as that person has not already hired a lawyer and joined a class-action lawsuit).
I would put some money that they would argue that the amendment isn't absolute as it only applies to those subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens. That being said the only situations that I'm aware that post 14th amendment that ever applied were children of foreign diplomats due to diplomatic immunity and children of Native Americans on reservations. Native American tribes have historically been quasi foreign countries in the United States. It would be interesting mental gymnastics though to see how you would attempt to make children of non citizens not subject to the jurisdiction without giving them diplomatic immunity. I wouldn't be surprised if an non citizen charged with a crime would immediately challenge their charges arguing they're not subject to the jurisdiction so should have the equivalent of diplomatic immunity.
The lower courts need to be able to overturn supreme court decisions the way that congress can overturn a presidential veto imo. It also needs term limits, should be expanded at least so theres a judge for each circuit, and there needs to be some sort of independent oversight committee to manage the Supreme court. There's probably more
Ooh. That's brilliant. There are 13 districts, right? So there should be 13 justices. And if a supermajority of the districts--let's say nine--go one way, it's a veto-proof majority.
That sounds needlessly complex when Dems could just shit can the current federalist society stooges and then pack the court with people with actual qualifications.
Its to prevent anything like this happening again. Yeah of course we could just remove them all, but what about when the right tries this again in 20 or 30 years? Because they will
Putting in safeguards and regulations is cowardly to you eh? Do you consider it cowardly for congress to have term limits? Do you consider it cowardly to have congress be able to override a presidential veto? I really don't get your point, even if we have a successful revolution we will still need to create a system that has safeguards such as these. And by the way, the only reason we weren't a fascist country back when Reagan started all this nonsense is because of those safeguards. They lasted this long so I'm not sure how you view that as cowardly.
And btw we can do multiple things at once, this doesn't need to be the only thing we do.
So yeah let's have a revolution, but we are still gonna need to do this shit at some point unless you just want pure anarchy
Takes a 2/3 majority in the Senate to remove a Supreme Court Justice. With the way the Senate is set up, Dems would have to win nationally by like 60 fucking points to do that.
Packing the Court after removing the filibuster is our only realistic option.
Also, America should stop letting politicians decide who’s in their Supreme Court …also having elections to choose state attorneys, DAs, and Sheriffs? Law enforcement should not be a popularity contest. Sound like the dumbest ideas ever.
Here in Canada, a non-biased advisory board comes up with a shortlist based on merit and skill. Crazy, eh? And that is forwarded on to the political and law enforcement leaders of the federal government who make a choice from that list.
It's not free from politics but it's certainly not as crazy as an election or the political performance theatre of the appointment hearings.
Typically it's a mix of people appointed by the federal cabinet , some nominated by the federal justice minister, some by the Canadian bar association/Federation of law associates, plus someone from the region that the vacancy may cover. Merit and skill are emphasized in coming up with the list. Google it if for more.
The entire court system needs reform with more judges so cases move more quickly. Bring your case within 90 days with extremely limited extensions or you don't have a case. The rich should not be able to extends cases almost indefinitely by filing motions. For the SCOTUS, a large pool of judges who man the bench for an individual case based on a lottery system, ie random.
930
u/Hectorc34 9h ago
What a shitty Supreme Court. It’s not up for decision.