MAGA melts down after Trump-appointed justice argues against ending birthright citizenship: 'Remove this imposter'
MAGA melts down after Trump-appointed justice argues against ending birthright citizenship: 'Remove this imposter'
Trump supporters erupted in fury after Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett pushed back on the administration's arguments against birthright citizenship.
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.
You're viewing a single thread.
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.
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.
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.
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.
If they aren't bound by the law, then they aren't illegal though. I agree that's what they're attempting, but the logical implication is the opposite. I would never accuse them of actually being logical though.
I believe from listening to recent NPR that their lawyers aren't even arguing about that. They are arguing about whether national injunctions can really be national injunctions or not.
Yeah - they're trying REALLY hard to not argue the merits because it's extremely clear to anyone that what they're doing is illegal, so they're trying to make it a civil suit issue.
The next step after that is to claim Sovereign Immunity to keep civil suits from being heard.
And then they'll have their legal justification for disappearing US Citizens without due process.
So leaving it to the states where they can jerrymander the elections and win locally first then a few years later fuck up the entire country "legally".
No, they aren't arguing it should be at state level, their argument is much worse, they are arguing it needs to be at the individual level. So every single person harmed would need to get their own lawyer.
Darn! Thanks for clarifying. That sucks.
The argument I heard initially was that irregular migrants are not, somehow, subject to the jurisdiction of the US.
In that case, they can't be deported or be charged with any crime.
A Justice should have no loyalty but to the law.
First time reading about the GOP?
My point is that the 14th Amendment is very clear. There’s no room for interpretation as there is with something like a fetus compared to a baby in Roe v. Wade. What they want is to amend the Constitution. That’s a different process entirely.
14A S3 is also very clear, but here we are
Had he actually been tried and convicted of an insurrection, that would matter.
Which, I mean, a court did find him responsible for the insurrection, but I suppose that doesn't matter to you.
I wish that were true. Not only was he not convicted of having anything to do with an insurrection, he wasn’t even charged with it. His attempt to remain in power is not the same as an attempt to overthrow the current power of the government.
It IS true.
2023 C O 63 No. 235A300, Anderson v. Griswold - Election Law - Fourteenth Amendment - First Amendment - Political Questions - Hearsay. In this appeal from a district court proceeding under the Colorado Election Code, the [Colorado] supreme court considers whether former President Donald J. Trump may appear on the Colorado Republican presidential primary ballot in 2024. A majority of the court holds that President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Because he is disqualified, it would be a wrongful act under the Election Code for the Colorado Secretary of State to list him as a candidate on the presidential primary ballot. The court stays its ruling until January 4, 2024, subject to any further appellate proceedings.
WAS true. If you read SCOTUS’s ruling, you’ll see they came to the same conclusion that Jack Smith made. If Trump was part of the insurrection while he was the President, then it was not an insurrection. If he was not part of it, then it was an insurrection. They determined that you can’t violently overthrow the government in which you lead.
IS true.
The Supreme Court made up bullshit that didn't exist, just like they tend to do whenever it suits them.
They are NOT arbiters of what is true and what is false or what is law.
They have power, not legitimacy. That's a BIG difference.
Trump was absolutely part of the insurrection, and it was NOT legal, despite the Dred-Scott-quality reasoning in their recent rulings.
It is absolutely possible to violently overthrow the government which you lead. It's called a self-coup.
Where does it say that a conviction is required? Self-executing.
Exactly. I'd doesn't say convicted of participating in an insurrection. It says if you participate in an insurrection you are automatically intelligible for office unless the disability is removed by congress.
The Fifth Amendment.
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury…”
Disqualification from holding office is not punishment for a crime. If it were, everyone under age 35 would have a 5th Amendment argument to make.
Try again.
Held to answer does not mean sentenced. It means held responsible, or convicted. Accusations or charges are insufficient for accountability according to the Constitution.
Otherwise, you could just accuse every President you don’t like of an insurrection and they’d immediately be removed from office.
“Held to answer” in this context, with the reference to a grand jury, is talking about criminal charges, convictions, and punishment.
Or are you suggesting that a 34 year old would have to come before a grand jury before being disqualified from the office of President?
Are you suggesting there’s logic to your argument? You can’t just say, “he was part of an insurrection” and disqualify him from office. It needs to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law and he must be found guilty by a jury of his peers. Otherwise, anyone could accuse a sitting President of an insurrection and they’d be removed from office. Think about it.
There's a difference between being thrown in jail without a trial and... Being barred from the highest office of the country - a position of public service.
You have a right to freedom, not to a specific job
Without conviction, what is to stop anyone from simply accusing a President of participating in an insurrection and immediately having them removed from office?
Firstly, there's a difference from being barred from the election proces, and already being in office and removed from it...
So you think that someone can say “he was a part of an insurrection” the night before an election and allow the contender to automatically win?
You’re arguing semantics and completely missing the point. Conviction or adjudication is how we prove things happened. It’s how the law works.
The fifth amendment doesn't apply to impeachment, nor does it in the event of ballot qualifications. Like, the 5th amendment doesn't apply to age restrictions on holding public office.
The law says,"If you engaged in insurrection, you are ineligible to hold federal office". Just like is says,"If you are under 35, you are ineligible to hold the office of President".
Correct. How do we determine that someone was involved in an insurrection? You can’t hold him accountable to the crime without conviction or adjudication. Otherwise it’s merely an accusation, and anyone could just say a person was part of an insurrection to bar them from holding office.
You watch them on TV doing it. And after you see them on TV doing it, they become unqualified for office, based on the due process afforded by the state attorney generals, and/or departments that manage who is and who isn't qualified and can be placed on a ballot, per due process.
You don't need a court to adjudicate being of improper age, do you? Certain items can be considered "prima facie"... Basically: You, and everyone else watched it happens is considered prima facie for processes like this.
The problem is, the people who wrote the 14th amendment didn't specify how that is supposed to be enforced.
Criminal conviction? Well trump was only convicted of a state charge of fraud, not insurrection.
Simple majority of congress? Republican congress could just ban democrats.
2/3 Supermajority of congress? It'll never pass
Supreme court? Well, a majority of them is republican.
If its too easy to invoke it, it could be weaponized against progressive candidates. They'd just declare BLM protests as "insurrection" and ban them from the ballot.
No idea why you’re getting downvoted for pointing this out. This is literally the flaw with the insurrection clause of yes 14th amendment and precisely why it wasn’t enforced. SC ruled that states don’t get to enforce it on their own authority, but failed to specify who does. If the amendment had specified an enforcement mechanism, there would be no need for interpretation.
The same way the minimum age limit for president is enforced.
So, by the supreme court?
Well, we're fucked with this conservative-ass court. They already stuck down Colorado's court ruling.
Crazy thing is that 2 justices will almost always happily vote to throw the constitution in the trash if it helps with party politics.
Why bother, just sign an EO. /s
Trump, "Why the /s? I'll do it."
He'll do it, speaker of the house will say "well it's not our job to amend the constitution so if he wants to we have no choice but to support it" and then the Supreme Court will back it 5-4
They wouldn't stand a chance of doing this with the states, it would cause a civil war.
They couldnt even get it past a Republican controlled vote.
They have Republicans in office that were not even born in the USA. People forget asshats like Ted Cruz.
Careful now, Rafael Edward Cruz does not want you using preferred names.
Did you just dead name Ted? The nerve!
She is an imposter, she’s wildly unqualified for the job, she is the least qualified judge to ever sit on the bench by a wide margin, she’s a DEI hire. Shes an imposter who absolutely in no way deserves her job but she’s not an imposter for “being skeptical” of ending birthright citizenship, I do predict she will fold like a house of cards over this and do nothing to protect birthright citizenship.
THEY CAN TAKE AWAY DRINKING BEING ILLEGAL FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS... My bad. I was just confused, because that was a right once, too.