this post was submitted on 05 Dec 2025
76 points (97.5% liked)

Politics

967 readers
407 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Rule 1-3, 6 & 7 No longer applicable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
 

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.

top 16 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] QueenHawlSera@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 hours ago

Since this is Trump's supreme court, I can safely say; So it doesn't, good to know.

[–] UnspecificGravity@piefed.social 33 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

How many of you can actually PROVE that your parents were here legally when they were born?

I don't mean "of course, my parents were Americans." I mean what do you have actually ON PAPER in your pocket or in your home that PROVES that? Do you have your parents birth certificates handy? Got their passports with you? This can be used to fuck over just about everyone in this country if they want it to, and guess what? They do.

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 3 points 6 hours ago

More importantly: would paper make a difference?

[–] apftwb@lemmy.world 0 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

Got their passports with you?

You mean the fraudulent passports your parents acquired with their fraudulent birth certificates? Don't worry about trying to figure out which hospital they were born at, we already booked their tickets to Cambodia

[–] plateee@piefed.social 46 points 13 hours ago (4 children)

Fucking.... Fuck.

The constitution literally says:

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.

How can a presidential order.... effectively a wishlist or at best guidance for how the executive branch should behave overturn the fucking Constitution.

Does that mean the next Democrat can do an executive order wiping out the 2nd amendment?

What in that absolute fuck is Roberts thinking?

[–] azertyfun@sh.itjust.works 6 points 7 hours ago

Some americans unironically believe that piece of parchment to be almighty, self-evident, irreproachable, and universally revered.

Unfortunately those in power have transferred that belief to Trump. That's all it took to abolish the rule of law.

[–] ryper@lemmy.ca 8 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

subject to the jurisdiction thereof

They're not going to directly overturn anything, they're going to argue that people who aren't in the US legally aren't "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", even though they're subject to it's jurisdiction enough to be arrested, tried and convicted. It's generally been understood that the clause was meant to exclude people with diplomatic immunity or something like it, but SCOTUS will ignore that in the name of "originalism".

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 9 hours ago

If they're not subject to its jurisdiction, that would mean that other laws do not apply to them

[–] plateee@piefed.social 1 points 9 hours ago

So being born here becomes illegal, therefore no citizenship? To whom would that amendment then apply? Only white folk?

Not to mention the craziness of applying this to births. There have been people harassed by ICE with Real IDs who have been told those are forgeries - do we expect parents to bring passports to the hospital to make sure their kids "count"?

[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 22 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Does that mean the next Democrat can do an executive order wiping out the 2nd amendment?

No. Keyword there being Democrat. It will be unconstitutional because a Democrat wants to do it, it would be ruled the other way if it was a Republican trying to do it.

It's the product of the clown show fake SCOTUS we have currently: desired outcomes first, rational to justify second.

[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 hours ago

"Calvinball jurisprudence"

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago

Because the constitution is just words unless people act as though they are binding to all government officials. The republican party pushed through cynical movements to ensure that those who truly believe weren't going to be nominated to the court under their presidencies

[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 15 points 13 hours ago

Trump'll just give a crisp $1 bill to Clarence to vote his way.

[–] Hylactor@sopuli.xyz 9 points 13 hours ago

Trump's about to make the ice cream flavors he doesn't like illegal and it will be upheld by the supreme court.

[–] velindora@lemmy.cafe 8 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

I think we all know how Scotus will go

[–] thesohoriots@lemmy.world 1 points 13 hours ago

6-3 unsigned, drops Friday evening