President Trump to Attend SCOTUS Oral Arguments on Birthright Citizenship

[catfish1957]

This is VASTLY bigger than Trump! The entire future of this country hangs in the balance!

You are 100% right.  A Bad SCOTUS ruling basically institutionalizes anchor baby-ing, and the flood will start.

They just thought social security had solvency problems. 

[libertybele]

This is VASTLY bigger than Trump! The entire future of this country hangs in the balance!

Yes, it is bigger than Trump, but I applaud him for showing up.  You are right, the future of our entire country hinges on this case.

[Cyber Liberty]

Even bigger news might be Trump starts railing, interrupting,  and becomes the second person in history charged with Contempt there, and the first since 1906.

Not gonna happen.  He may laugh a little....

[Kamaji]

???  Biden and Obama .... they could have done the same thing, but didn't and who in the heck cares are this point? 

Trump is making history.  Good for him.

Remember all the gnashing of teeth, banshee wailing, and cries of calumny when Obama took the Supreme Court justices to task at his State of the Union address for their decision in Citizens United?

What you’re proposing Trump do - what you want Trump to do - is infinitely worse than what Obama did during his state of the union speech. 

There’s a word for that; it starts with ’hypo’ and it ends with ‘crisy’. 

[Kamaji]

Kavanaugh, Barrett, Jackson, Kagan, Sotomayor, makes five. 

Roberts and Gorsuch makes seven.

[Cyber Liberty]

I figured Alito would back Trump's side because he's the most slimy of the Justices.

The text of the 14 Amendment uses the word "persons", which is an unqualified pronoun.

I guess Alito is not a text-ualist.  Also, there was not electricity when the 14 Amendment was written, so, that should negate the text, as written?

I am not in favor of Birth Right Citizenship, but, the TEXT of the 14th Amendment says "persons" - not citizens, not residents, not eligible voters.

The old heterosexual white male Christian genocidcal former slave owners were pretty crafty to put an unqualified prononoun in the text.  Looks like we'll need a Constitutional Amendment to end Birth-Right Citizenship.  Maybe GOP Congress will get to work when they return from Spring Break.

Laws are written text, not figments of a jurist's imagination.

Apparently you missed the "And Subject to the Jurisdiction" clause....

[Kamaji]

Apparently you missed the "And Subject to the Jurisdiction" clause....

Apparently you don’t know what that phrase means. 

[Cyber Liberty]

Apparently you don’t know what that phrase means.

I am not a lawyer, so I only know what the plain words in the 14th Amendment mean.

[Bigun]

Apparently you don’t know what that phrase means.

Apparently YOU don't but I doubt that will make any difference.

[mystery-ak]

17 mins ago

Trump delivers first public reaction after attending birthright citizenship arguments

President Donald Trump offered his first public reaction after attending the Supreme Court's oral arguments on birthright citizenship on Wednesday.

"We are the only Country in the World STUPID enough to allow 'Birthright' Citizenship!" Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social
Posted by Anders Hagstrom

[mystery-ak]

22 mins ago
Inside Supreme Court: How Trump reacted during birthright citizenship hearing

President Donald Trump attended Wednesday's oral arguments for more than an hour, with sources in the room telling Fox News he remained focused on the arguments.

Trump arrived roughly 10 minutes before the session began and stayed through the entirety of Solicitor General John Sauer's argument, which lasted 65 minutes.

Trump then stayed for seven minutes of argument from ACLU legal director Cecillia Wang's reply,

Trump did not speak for the duration, as court rules require. He left without making comment to the press.
Posted by Anders Hagstrom

[mystery-ak]

The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling on President Trump's effort to limit birthright citizenship in late June or early July after wrapping up oral arguments on Wednesday.

The court does not announce when it will had down specific opinions.
Posted by Anders Hagstrom

[libertybele]

Remember all the gnashing of teeth, banshee wailing, and cries of calumny when Obama took the Supreme Court justices to task at his State of the Union address for their decision in Citizens United?

What you’re proposing Trump do - what you want Trump to do - is infinitely worse than what Obama did during his state of the union speech. 

There’s a word for that; it starts with ’hypo’ and it ends with ‘crisy’.

Oh for crying out loud.  Get a flippin' grip.  I did NOT propose that President Trump do anything other than give the justices whom he appointed a look in the eyes. 

[libertybele]

The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling on President Trump's effort to limit birthright citizenship in late June or early July after wrapping up oral arguments on Wednesday.

The court does not announce when it will had down specific opinions.
Posted by Anders Hagstrom

Until then ... expect continued protests which will try to sway the justices.

[Kamaji]

Apparently YOU don't but I doubt that will make any difference.

I do, actually, and it doesn’t mean what you so desperately want it to mean.

[libertybele]

I am not a lawyer, so I only know what the plain words in the 14th Amendment mean.

Most lawyers think that they are some kind of 'god'.  Nothing could be further from reality!

[Cyber Liberty]

Oh for crying out loud.  Get a flippin' grip.  I did NOT propose that President Trump do anything other than give the justices whom he appointed a look in the eyes.

Exactly, Trump did not put on the show some here wanted him to do.  I expected what we got, no more and no less!

[Kamaji]

Oh for crying out loud.  Get a flippin' grip.  I did NOT propose that President Trump do anything other than give the justices whom he appointed a look in the eyes. 

So they do what?  Modify their conclusions to satisfy Trump because of his personal presence?

You are precisely suggesting that Trump try to use personal presence, and the threat that implies, to alter the decision-making process of the Court.

That is much worse than what Obama did.  And it’s pretty damning of you that you cannot see that fact through your blind hatred.

[mystery-ak]

https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2039382444273475989

[Cyber Liberty]

Until then ... expect continued protests which will try to sway the justices.

...in front of the Justices' homes.  There had better be a Law Enforcement presence lest we get another assassination attempt like before Dobbs.

[Kamaji]

https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2039382444273475989

So, courts should be deciding what the law says based on their perceptions of contemporary policy issues?  I thought courts enacting policy choices was supposed to be anathema.  Silly me.

[Cyber Liberty]

So they do what?  Modify their conclusions to satisfy Trump because of his personal presence?

You are precisely suggesting that Trump try to use personal presence, and the threat that implies, to alter the decision-making process of the Court.

That is much worse than what Obama did.  And it’s pretty damning of you that you cannot see that fact through your blind hatred.

It's no worse than Schumer making threats of violence against two Justices by name.  Chill, Trump being present in the courtroom is nothing so back off.  @libertybele is not motivated by hatred, blind or otherwise!

[Bigun]

I do, actually, and it doesn’t mean what you so desperately want it to mean.

“Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is, by virtue of natural law and national law, a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great issue in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”

Senator Jacob Howard, Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) pg. 2890

[Bigun]

https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2039382444273475989

 

[Kamaji]

It's no worse than Schumer making threats of violence against two Justices by name.  Chill, Trump being present in the courtroom is nothing so back off.  @libertybele is not motivated by hatred, blind or otherwise!

Ahhh, so now it’s kosher for everyone, including the sitting president, to threaten Supreme Court justices, even during the course of oral argument. 

Got it. 

[Kamaji]

“Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is, by virtue of natural law and national law, a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great issue in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”

Senator Jacob Howard, Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) pg. 2890

Exactly. It includes everyone other than accredited ambassadors, their accredited staff, and Indians who are members of semi-sovereign tribes. 

Pretty clear what it means, and it does not exclude illegal immigrants, who are neither ambassadors of native Americans.

[Bigun]

Exactly. It includes everyone other than accredited ambassadors, their accredited staff, and Indians who are members of semi-sovereign tribes. 

Pretty clear what it means, and it does not exclude illegal immigrants, who are neither ambassadors of native Americans.

Did you note the presence of commas? Do you know what they mean?

[DCPatriot]

Did you note the presence of commas? Do you know what they mean?

LOL!  Feel a lot better if they had been semi-colons. (;)

[Bigun]

LOL!  Feel a lot better if they had been semi-colons. (;)

https://grammarinsights.com/english-grammar/commas-in-a-series/

[mystery-ak]

HUH!

https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/2039389578998464593

[libertybele]

HUH!

https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/2039389578998464593

She's the intelligent one of the  justices, doncha know??   

[Cyber Liberty]

“Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is, by virtue of natural law and national law, a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great issue in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”

Senator Jacob Howard, Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) pg. 2890

Now, now!  Don't go quoting the people who wrote the 14th Amendment!  Next thing you know, people will be quoting The Federalist Papers!

[Cyber Liberty]

Ahhh, so now it’s kosher for everyone, including the sitting president, to threaten Supreme Court justices, even during the course of oral argument. 

Got it.

Did Trump threaten SCOTUS Justices like Schumer did?  I'd like to see a source for that quote!

[Bigun]

Now, now!  Don't go quoting the people who wrote the 14th Amendment!  Next thing you know, people will be quoting The Federalist Papers!

  What would those @$$holes know about anything?

[libertybele]

What would those @$$holes know about anything?

Exactly!   

[Timber Rattler]

Exactly, Trump did not put on the show some here wanted him to do.  I expected what we got, no more and no less!

Yeah, Trump conducted himself with quiet dignity, decorum, and respect, so no complaints here.

[Kamaji]

Did you note the presence of commas? Do you know what they mean?

“Aliens” is not a separate group of people who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.   the phrase pretty clearly is limited by the two examples that follow. 

If that were not the case, then every illegal alien who has ever been arrested for violating a U.S. criminal statute, prosecuted, convicted, and imprisoned has a claim for monetary damages against the federal government for false imprisonment because they weren’t subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. and therefore could not lawfully be prosecuted, convicted, or imprisoned.  A sovereign state may only do those things to a person who is subject to that sovereign’s jurisdiction.  That is why, when an ambassadors son is pulled over for a DUI, the only thing the US can do is send him back home.  It cannot jail him for the crime.

If there were any sense to your position, then the same would apply to every illegal woke. Who gets blotto, drives a car, and kills someone. 

[libertybele]

Yeah, Trump conducted himself with quiet dignity, decorum, and respect, so no complaints here.

Exactly. He did well.  TDS runs deep with those that had a hissy fit about his attendance.

[bigheadfred]

🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸

@mrddmia
·
57m
It appears as though the Supreme Court is going to constitutionalize birthright citizenship for Chinese birth tourists.

This means Chinese nationals have their babies in America, return to China with these new American citizens, vote in our elections, and receive our benefits.

[bigheadfred]

Jack Posobiec

@JackPosobiec
·
22m
Well well well

Notice that the liberal justices suddenly refer to unborn babies as people with full rights when the subject changes from abortion to immigration

Like magic

[Kamaji]

Yeah, Trump conducted himself with quiet dignity, decorum, and respect, so no complaints here.

Good for him.  At least he had the good sense to eschew the advice being proffered here about him giving the eye to the justices. 

[DCPatriot]

Truth is if SCOTUS rules in favor of "No Birthright Citizenship", the entire SCOTUS would have to be moved to a secure compound...ala when the Corleone Family went "To The Mattresses"

THAT is where this bleeping media has brought us today.

[Cyber Liberty]

Truth is if SCOTUS rules in favor of "No Birthright Citizenship", the entire SCOTUS would have to be moved to a secure compound...ala when the Corleone Family went "To The Mattresses"

THAT is where this bleeping media has brought us today.

I'm expecting more protests in front of the Justices' houses and probably another assassination attempt or two.  Leftists are losing their minds.

[Fishrrman]

I wish I could believe otherwise, but I sense our side is going to lose on this one.
I put up my prediction post yesterday, here:
https://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php?topic=580013.msg3292856#msg3292856

[Bigun]

“Aliens” is not a separate group of people who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.   the phrase pretty clearly is limited by the two examples that follow. 

If that were not the case, then every illegal alien who has ever been arrested for violating a U.S. criminal statute, prosecuted, convicted, and imprisoned has a claim for monetary damages against the federal government for false imprisonment because they weren’t subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. and therefore could not lawfully be prosecuted, convicted, or imprisoned.  A sovereign state may only do those things to a person who is subject to that sovereign’s jurisdiction.  That is why, when an ambassadors son is pulled over for a DUI, the only thing the US can do is send him back home.  It cannot jail him for the crime.

If there were any sense to your position, then the same would apply to every illegal woke. Who gets blotto, drives a car, and kills someone.

Bovine scat! 100%

In the Slaughterhouse Cases, the Court wrote that “[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of … citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” That is as absolute and complete a statement as can be imagined, and it would deny birthright citizenship to a child born in this country to undocumented immigrants or to a transient alien mother. Then, two years later, in Minor v. Happersett, the Court unanimously and expressly recognized the existence of “doubts” that citizenship was automatic for “children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents,” after noting that citizenship attaches only when the immigrant owes “allegiance” to this country. These two Supreme Court rejections of automatic birthright citizenship for anyone born in this country, without regard to the parents’ citizenship status, are supported by facts undoubtedly known to those Justices, and certainly known to us.

During the same session in which Congress approved the 14th Amendment, it had already enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1866, providing that, for a U.S.-born baby to be a citizen, the baby must “not [be] subject to any foreign power.” A child, although born in this country, who, after birth, returns with foreign citizen parents to, and lives in, the foreign country of which the child remains a citizen, is subject to that foreign power. Thus, that statute mandated that such U.S.-born children be denied U.S. citizenship. The record makes clear that, in considering the 14th Amendment, Congress did not repudiate the statute it had just enacted. Not even a single member introduced a bill to rescind that legislation. The absence of any attempts to walk back the statute suggests that Congress remained satisfied with that law, and that the same-session approval of the 14th Amendment did not signal any change of view.

[Kamaji]

Bovine scat! 100%

In the Slaughterhouse Cases, the Court wrote that “[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of … citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” That is as absolute and complete a statement as can be imagined, and it would deny birthright citizenship to a child born in this country to undocumented immigrants or to a transient alien mother. Then, two years later, in Minor v. Happersett, the Court unanimously and expressly recognized the existence of “doubts” that citizenship was automatic for “children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents,” after noting that citizenship attaches only when the immigrant owes “allegiance” to this country. These two Supreme Court rejections of automatic birthright citizenship for anyone born in this country, without regard to the parents’ citizenship status, are supported by facts undoubtedly known to those Justices, and certainly known to us.

During the same session in which Congress approved the 14th Amendment, it had already enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1866, providing that, for a U.S.-born baby to be a citizen, the baby must “not [be] subject to any foreign power.” A child, although born in this country, who, after birth, returns with foreign citizen parents to, and lives in, the foreign country of which the child remains a citizen, is subject to that foreign power. Thus, that statute mandated that such U.S.-born children be denied U.S. citizenship. The record makes clear that, in considering the 14th Amendment, Congress did not repudiate the statute it had just enacted. Not even a single member introduced a bill to rescind that legislation. The absence of any attempts to walk back the statute suggests that Congress remained satisfied with that law, and that the same-session approval of the 14th Amendment did not signal any change of view.

So tell me, what are you going to blame it on when you lose?   Will you “discover” that Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and  Barrett were all on Epstein’s flight manifest as well?

The only open questions are whether Thomas will beclown himself and how badly alito will beclown himself.

And, how desperate you will be to avoid the clear logic of the opinion.

[Bigun]

So tell me, what are you going to blame it on when you lose?   Will you “discover” that Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and  Barrett were all on Epstein’s flight manifest as well?

The only open questions are whether Thomas will beclown himself and how badly alito will beclown himself.

And, how desperate you will be to avoid the clear logic of the opinion.

If we lose, I will mourn for my country and all those who have been brainwashed in schools of law!

And BTW: I will stand with Justice Thomas rather than you and Ketanji Brown Jackson all day every day.

[Kamaji]

If we lose, I will mourn for my country and all those who have been brainwashed in schools of law!

And BTW: I will stand with Justice Thomas rather than you and Ketanji Brown Jackson all day every day.

The lies and deflections start already.

So, instead of organizing and contributing to getting the Constitution amended to change the problem, you’re just going to slink into your rabbit hole and blame everyone else for being so much less intelligent than you. 

The one thing you will not do is face adverse facts fair and square and deal with them.

What a waste. 

[Bigun]

The lies and deflections start already.

So, instead of organizing and contributing to getting the Constitution amended to change the problem, you’re just going to slink into your rabbit hole and blame everyone else for being so much less intelligent than you. 

The one thing you will not do is face adverse facts fair and square and deal with them.

What a waste.

https://twitter.com/RealAmVoice/status/2039416908727124363

[Bigun]

https://twitter.com/StephenM/status/2039360279792795664