IMHO - Today's Supreme Court hearing on Birthright Citizenship will lead to Civil War

[maxrandb]

The "press" is already setting the stage. My local news "media-splained" it this morning.

Don't believe your lying eyes. Today's hearing is NOT about whether the 14TH Amendment is "constitutional" (wrap your head around that), or whether the 14TH Amendment says what it says. Hell, it's not even about what the word is, "is".

No! What they "really" are deciding is whether Federal District Judges can issue injunctions that "preserve constitutional protections" for ALL persons in the United States, or if their injunctions will "preserve constitutional protections" ONLY for "persons" in their states, or jurisdictions.

I have no doubt how, at least 5 of the 6 justices of the Confederate States, will rule...do you?

Don't fret "subjects". They will surely wrap up their decision in flowery legaleese like; "not regarding the underlying merits of the case", "the limited scope", "the standing", "the power of the executive", "the separation of powers" or "what's the harm in letting constitutional protections worm their way through 18-24 months of arguments, appeals and rulings".

It's strictly a "both sides" issue, right? I heard the media spokesmodel explaining that there were only 30 such injunctions over the first 3 years of President Bidens term, but 39 in Donnie Dipshits first 3 months.

I think we can all agree that trying to provide some debt relief to student loan borrowers is JUST THE SAME as snatching people off the streets for a one-way trip to a foreign death prison.

The "court" must treat authoritarian dictators with "deference".

When they decide that these injunction DON'T apply "nationally", that will clear the way for chaos, secession and war.

If you live in a "red state", a child born on US soil WON'T be a citizen". If in a "blue state"...maybe you are! The harm that would cause is akin to the first artillery barrage on Fort Sumpter.

When a president wants to break things, he must be able to do so quickly, right?

Taken to its extreme, you could be snatched off the streets and renditioned to a Salvadoran Death Camp because of a tattoo, but that's OK...your case may make it through the courts in a couple of years.

What's the "harm" in waiting.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/05/questions-about-thursdays-oral-argument-in-the-birthright-citizenship-dispute-we-have-some-answers/

[sop]

1. Thanks for the link.

It's necessary to read the entire summary to grasp the very narrow legal issue before the SC. This stands out:

"If the justices were to agree with the Trump administration, the Maryland challengers posit, 'chaos would ensue,' because birth certificates – the documents normally used to establish U.S. citizenship – will not be enough even for children born in the U.S. whose parents are U.S. citizens. Instead, they suggest, state and local governments will have to develop new systems to verify citizenship, at significant expense, 'and anxious parents-to-be will be caught in the middle.'"

"On the issue of birthright citizenship, they emphasize that the text of the 14th Amendment 'guarantees citizenship to all born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof' – which the Supreme Court’s cases and the federal government have long recognized to include virtually all children born in the United States, regardless of (among other things) the immigration status of their parents."

"And although the federal government attempts to narrow the scope of the phrase 'subject to the jurisdiction,' the Washington challengers tell the justices, 'the group of U.S.-born individuals not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is both extraordinarily small and well defined.' For example, they write, it includes the children of foreign diplomats who are born in the United States, as well as those of foreign troops who are in the United States because they are at war with this country."

[maxrandb]

2. If they rule against injuctive relief, that's not "limited in scope"

Is it?

Especially considering how the fascists will "interpret" it as a "win".

The immunity ruling was described as "limited in scope".

How's that working out?

[sop]

4. The fascists will say children of "foreign troops who are in the United States because they are at war with this

country" means the children of undocumented immigrants born in the U.S. Trump's legal henchmen are already justifying deporting undocumented immigrants, citing the Alien Enemies Act of 1789, claiming they are terrorists at war with the U.S.

[maxrandb]

7. Yes! Some "very narrow" legal issues, right?

You are correct in that they will attempt to justify their ruling by declaring it "limited in scope".

It's only "narrow" if you ignore the real world significant legal implications a ruling favorable to Donnie Dipshit will have.

Then Johnny KKK Roberts can pull his best Steve Erkle imitation out.

?feature=shared

[ecstatic]

3. What if only one of your parents is American born?

Or what if both parents have green cards but not full citizenship? Or just one has a green card? Are any of these changes going to be retroactive? How many millions of American citizens would be affected?

This is nuts!

The corrupt six better rule the right way this time. They have done enough damage to last generations.

[Hotler]

5. Merick Garland, 23-months. .... nt

[BannonsLiver]

6. I'll bet the under.