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.

      • Blackmist@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        29 days ago

        But not enough.

        77 million people still voted this orange shit-stain into office again. They saw what he’d done before. They saw an attempted coup. They heard all the Nazi-era rhetoric. And they thought “that’s the man for us”.

        • atmorous@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          29 days ago

          I’d say half to 75% regret their vote now

          So it’s a lot less for how firmly support him. Even less for how many will actually fight for him if civil war breaks out

          • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            29 days ago

            75 might be hesitant but the media and these influencers are still bending everything they can to sanewash it all. So only about 5 percent would likely admit they regret their vote.

  • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    30 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
      ·
      30 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
        1
        ·
        30 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
        ·
        30 days ago

        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.

            • obvs@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              30 days ago

              Which, I mean, a court did find him responsible for the insurrection, but I suppose that doesn’t matter to you.

                • obvs@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  27 days ago

                  It IS true.

                  Anderson v. Griswold:

                  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.

    • Wilco@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      30 days ago

      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.