Chris Geidner at LawDork writes about the oral arguments being heard Wednesday on the "birthright citizenship" issue so dear to the hearts of our fascist white nationalists:
...On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court will be hearing oral arguments over the legality and constitutionality of Trump’s January 20, 2025 executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship in the United States.
Trump appointed three of the nine justices on the court, and, in a pair of rulings in 2024, the court made Trump’s second term possible — first by preventing states from enforcing the Insurrection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, keeping Trump on the ballot, and second by dramatically expanding the scope of presidential criminal immunity, delaying Trump’s criminal trials beyond his re-election.
Now, days after millions of people came out across the nation in protest of this man and his presidency, the Trump administration will be asking the justices to uphold Trump’s executive order as “compl[ying] on its face with“ the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, as well as federal law implementing the same.
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,” the amendment states.
No court has sided with the Trump administration on that question thus far. No district court, no appeals court, no judicial body. In Trump’s first year back, the conservative justices blocked “universal injunctions” in cases about the birthright citizenship executive order, but the opinion from Justice Amy Coney Barrett made clear the decision was only about the universal injunction remedy — not the merits of Trump’s order. When cases went back down, and a new case was filed, courts again found paths to keep the order broadly blocked — through multi-state litigation or class-action litigation.
That should not change when the Supreme Court rules — likely this June — but we will get a picture of where things stand when the justices take the bench to consider Trump v. Barbara, the new case filed after the universal injunction decision, on Wednesday.
The "brains" behind this, of course, is the Malignant Fascist's own white nationalist alter ego Stephen "PeeWee Goebbels" Miller, who harbors a pathological hatred of immigrants and their children. Geidner, however, is hopeful that the plain language and intent of the Constitution will be upheld:
Ultimately, this should not be a close case. As American Immigration Council’s Aaron Reichlin-Melnick told Law Dork on March 27, “My hope is that what we hear is that it’s going to be at minimum 7-2, and that we don’t lose any further justices than that.“ Although his view is one I share, it does reflect the alarming reality that Justices Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito are more willing to align with Trump — and Miller — in their ideological project than anyone else on the court, even more so than the three Trump appointees.
Whether they do so here — and whether they have any other support — will be front and center on Wednesday. Coming out of Wednesday, Trump — and the rest of us — will have a better idea of what people remain able and willing to stand up against Trump’s anti-immigrant authoritarian project and whether those people include a strong majority of the Supreme Court...
It's just another "how did we get to this point" moment in our history. The thought that a case that is this profoundly and absurdly un-American on its face, be slapped down by multiple lower courts, and still find its way to the Republican Supreme Court is still shocking, even though it was a central agenda item in the MF's "Project 2025" autocratic blueprint known years before the 2024 election. How the Court rules in June (?) is going to be another watershed in whether we become an authoritarian, un-Constitutional republic of the Epstein-class elite right -- or not.
(Image: Akshita Chandra / The Atlantic, Getty)
No comments:
Post a Comment