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.

  • Archangel@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    97
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    You can’t “end” a Constitutional amendment with an executive order. That simply isn’t how the law works.

    • OutlierBlue@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      75
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      It is if no one stops him. The Constitution doesn’t do anything unless people actively uphold it. So far Trump’s gotten away with so many things because no one’s actually stopping him.

      I keep waiting for the American public to take a stand, but apparently they’re willing to sit there on the couch while their democracy is stripped away.

          • Empricorn@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            15 hours ago

            He’ll immediately declare martial law. This is bad, but that would be worse. Much worse…

            • Manifish_Destiny@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              12 hours ago

              Oh yeah let’s not protest in case we anger the totally rational dictator who certainly won’t declare martial law at the first sign he might lose power no matter the scenario. That would be terrible.

          • j0ester@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day ago

            I wouldn’t… until after mid-terms. Because he’ll declare martial law until then.

            • ...m...@ttrpg.network
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              21 hours ago

              …the sad fact is that fascists won a mostly-free-and-fair election, so i think many of us are sitting tight until midterms lest we give them ammunition to rationslise martial law; if midterm elections aren’t proprietous, though, that ammunition’s f*cking coming out…

              • Empricorn@feddit.nl
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                15 hours ago

                armed protests

                That’s a huge difference. Please don’t use false strawman arguments. I haven’t heard “don’t protest or he’ll get mad”, here or anywhere.

              • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                10
                ·
                1 day ago

                More like don’t give them an excuse before the centrists wake up.

                Of course, they won’t ever wake up, that’s why they’re centrists.

          • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            22 hours ago

            It’s getting close to that. Someone’s going to be armed in one of those ICE videos eventually.

    • BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 day ago

      The thought of a clearly defined and settled case getting heard by SCOTUS is bad enough on its own. This doesn’t even coincide with any kind of real world event besides an asshole President saying, “I don’t like this rule.”

      • Zenith@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        It absolutely is now, they’re not legally challenging most of these for a reason.