First off, let me warn you I’m still feeling under the weather and suffering a lot of brain fog. But I’ll do my best.
Today is Birthright Citizenship Day. The SCOTUS is hearing arguments on the challenge to Birthright Citizenship as I keyboard.
Trump showed up this morning and is sitting in the front row, no doubt glowering at the justices to let them know they’d better come to the right conclusion. Steve M compares it to the scene in Godfather II when “Vincenzo Pentangeli was brought in from Sicily to intimidate his brother Frank when Frank was a cooperating congressional witness against crime boss Michael Corleone.” I am nearly certain no sitting POTUS has ever attended Supreme Court arguments about anything. It is, of course, grossly inappropriate.
Over a year ago I wrote a post about United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), which is the case that would be overturned if the Court sides with Trump. The Heritage Foundation appears to be the origin of the current argument against it, but Heritage’s arguments don’t square with the plain language in Kim Jong Ark. In a nutshell, Kim was born in California to parents who were “subjects of the Emperor of China,” the court decision clearly says. But the status of his parents didn’t matter to Kim’s citizenship claims. He was born in the state of California, so he was a U.S. citizen.
The Heritage foundation is trying to fuzzy up the meaning of “jurisdiction” in the 14th Amendment. But even the bleeping Reason site is running a column explaining that the “jurisdiction” clause just refers to being under the jurisdiction of U.S. laws. If you are born within the jurisdiction of U.S. laws, you’re a citizen. The exception would be if you are born to a diplomat who has diplomatic immunity to U.S. laws. And at the time the 14th was written it didn’t apply to native American reservations, which were outside U.S. laws, but that was fixed later by U.S. statute.
I have not been listening to the oral arguments, but from reading some live blogs (for example) it seems nobody is placing bets on how the SCOTUS will come down.
Also, am I crazy, or does it seem that most of the people who are leading the ccharge to end birthright citizenship are only first and second generation themselves? Trump? Miller? Marco Rubio, for pity’s sake? It’s like they just got off the boat and they want to burn the pier.
Its early, but it doesn't appear to be going well for Trump:
President Donald Trump reportedly left a Supreme Court hearing early after conservative Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, and John Roberts seemed skeptical of ending birthright citizenship.
During oral arguments, Roberts suggested that the U.S. Constitution protected the notion of birthright citizenship.
"We're in a new world where 8 billion people are one plane ride away from having a child who's a US citizen," Sauer argued.
"It's a new world. It's the same Constitution," Roberts said.
Ending birthright citizenship is a key component in the right's effort to stave off the doomsday scenario of when white people are no longer the majority in this country. I believe Trump wants part of his legacy to be "saving" white America.
It's a long shot but since Trmmp'mother is was from Scotland maybe ICE could deport him to Scotland? I might mean war of course.
I wish. But the Scots would never take him.
How about some place where the old people go out on ice floes when their time has come? I mean, we don't expect every single one of them went voluntarily, right?
Not that I would wish harm on anyone, just, random thought, "deport him to a place where old people aren't always valuable enough to feed."
(I'm sorry – I've indulged in medical marijuana, hence my irreverence.)
I believe the obvious explanation would be that they don't intend to fight against citizenship for white migrants. Like the KKK, anti-birthright people only pick up white trash.
It's simple. The constitution has legitimately established amendments, including the 14th. And the constitution, in Article V, provides the legitimate ways that the constitution can be changed (amendments). Those things are true regardless of what any current or past POTUS thinks. A presidential executive order cannot change the constitution, regardless of what the POTUS thinks. The constitution does not grant the POTUS the power to decide whether a given law is constitutional (that power is granted exclusively to the Judicial branch (Article III), regardless of how the POTUS might feel about that fact.
IMO the questioning of the meaning of the "under the jurisdiction" clause is BS or stupid or both. With the exception of legitimate official diplomats, any human being who breaks a law on American soil is "under the jurisdiction".
So this administration is just doing some grandstanding to distract from the Epstein scandal and the illegal war. And to keep in line those Americans who are terrified of the possibility of not being in the majority based on race. He wants to keep those votes.
As for his attending arguments in order to intimidate: a) SCOTUS members cannot be fired by the POTUS, and b) maybe he wanted to keep an eye on the solicitor general presenting the case. (It's been noted that the solicitor kind of lost his composure visibly and out loud when things weren't going well… I think he was playing to an audience of one at that point.)
Trump signed an executive order to end birthright citizenship on January 20, 2025, his first day in office for his second term. This was before people were focused on the Epstein files. This issue is absolutely not a "distraction" but is central to what he wants to "accomplish," along with ending DEI. Make America White "Again" (like it never was).
in advance of the POTUS special "PSA" this evening, purportedly to explain why he "started" this war…the following are my thoughts, analysis and opinion, which may incorporate part of commentary by public political analysts
Whatever he presents this evening will be BS, because, in reality, he cannot politically afford to reveal his real reason for saying yes to Bee-bee when Bee-bee asked him to be Bee-bee's wing man.
US media are calling this drumpf's war, but it is actually Bee-bee's war. Consider which nation benefits if all of the "goals" that have been floated should be achieved. It's pretty obvious. I don't know if Bee-bee would have carried out the regime decapitation assassinations if the US had stayed out of it, but that's kind of irrelevant to the question of why the US is involved.
As for POTUS statements that "we" have already "won" the war and could be out of there in a few weeks or months, that is BS. Consider this:
"As of early 2026, Israel has not indicated that it no longer needs to conduct major offensive military operations in Gaza. Instead, reports suggest the Israeli military is prepared to continue operations for weeks to come, with officials describing campaigns to achieve 'all its goals'. While temporary shifts in posture occur based on negotiations, major operations, including those in Gaza City, have continued nearly two years into the conflict.'" [a Google response to my question…] Does our POTUS seriously think that the Persians are not at least as difficult to dislodge as Hamas in Gaza???
The reason POTUS pulled us into this war is that Bee-bee sold it to him. And that's only possible sensible reason. And he cannot publicly reveal that because his Magga base includes both neo-Nazis and AIPAC.
Let me know what you think, fellow Maha fans
Also, even if we pull out militarily in three weeks, the Iranians can still hold the world economy hostage. We need to get off the petroleum habit ASAP (fewest number of years).
By the definition many maggys (my new name for magat that doesn't get me kicked off breitbart) had before Stump. his kids would be called anchor babies! If the Supremes over turn this you might as well wipe your ass with constitution!
I've been having a ball over at breitbart, my first handle was diaper don It got banned. My new handle is "tinyhands". It's a blast. the maggys over there are by far the dumbest people I have ever interacted with. It's like shooting ducks in a pond!
I heard a suggestion that the R party is in the process of casting the orangutan overboard. Maybe. It would certainly be better than letting the bull continue to stampede around the china shop. But let us not be naive. The puppet-masters are the Epstein class, and they still intend to destroy free and fair elections as we have known them, etc. etc. etc. Sounds right to me.
On birthright citizenship, the sources I read said Trump is toast. 7-2. He walked out early to badouth the USSC. That on top of a federal decision that Trump can't do ANYTHING on the ballroom without Congress. And a different decision that declared the decision to shut down NPR and PBS was unconstitutional. That's today and yesterday.
The 'message' tonight (I did not watch – just some news) aside from, "I'll huff and I'll puff and I'll blow your country down" is that we are leaving. Soon, Y'all got a problem with Hormuz. Too bad. As is the case with Trump, look for what's missing. No invasion plans – we're leaving. No plans to recover the enriched uranium fuel to make around a dozen bombs. No settlement through negotiations. No offer to Iran that might induce them to open the Straight.
Gas will stay high. Inflation will build. Growth will stop. Unemployment will climb.
And the midterms will happen.