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.

  • Archangel@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    23 days ago

    You can’t “end” a Constitutional amendment with an executive order. That simply isn’t how the law works.

    • OutlierBlue@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      23 days 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.

  • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    23 days 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.

  • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    23 days 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.

    • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      23 days 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.

      • einlander@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        23 days ago

        And that’s why the GOP are reframing those deemed undesirable as illegals, invaders, and terrorists. These people by some definitions do not behave as bound to the law of the country they are in.

        Any reason to justify what they are doing.

        • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          23 days ago

          The funny thing about that is if they argue that they’re not under the jurisdiction of the United States, then we couldn’t even give them a parking ticket, let alone deport them. They’d effectively have diplomatic immunity.