Politics

967 readers

19 users here now

For civil discussion of US politics. Be excellent to each other.

Rule 1-3, 6 & 7 No longer applicable

Rule 4: Keep it civil. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a jerk. It’s not acceptable to say another user is a jerk. Cussing is fine.

Rule 5: Be excellent to each other. Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, ableist, will be removed.

The Epstein Files: Trump, Trafficking, and the Unraveling Cover-Up

Info Video about techniques used in cults (and politics)

Bookmark Vault of Trump's First Term

USAfacts.org

The Alt-Right Playbook

Media owners, CEOs and/or board members

Video: Macklemore's new song critical of Trump and Musk is facing heavy censorship across major platforms.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

pelespirit@sh.itjust.works

The Supreme Court will decide whether Trump's birthright citizenship order violates the Constitution (apnews.com)

submitted 2 days ago by pelespirit@sh.itjust.works to c/politics@sh.itjust.works

18 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The Supreme Court agreed on Friday to take up the constitutionality of President Donald Trump’s order on birthright citizenship declaring that children born to parents who are in the United States illegally or temporarily are not American citizens.

The justices will hear Trump’s appeal of a lower-court ruling that struck down the citizenship restrictions. They have not taken effect anywhere in the country.

The case will be argued in the spring. A definitive ruling is expected by early summer.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world -1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

OK, bet you a crisp $20 bill they uphold birthright citizenship. Meet me back here next summer.

SCOTUS makes or defers to lower court's decisions on "liberal" matters all the time. They defy Trump all the time. It's like no one here actually reads the news and thinks they get real-life points for cynicism.

[–] pjwestin@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

I mean, this case is so blatantly meritless that it's a pretty bad sign that they even took it. You would have to intentionally misinterprete both the spirit and letter of the 14th Amendment to even begin to believe that the EO is constitutional, and every lower court has come to that conclusion. There's really no reason for them to not decline the case and let the lower courts' decisions stand.

Also, their earlier decision to limit lower courts power to grant national injunctions means they've functionally ruled in this cases' favor once already. I would like to think that even a court as nakedly partisan as this one wouldn't let a President's EO overrule the Constitution, but so far, the signs aren't good.