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.

    • obvs@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      5 days ago

      It IS true.

      Anderson v. Griswold:

      2023 C O 63 No. 235A300, Anderson v. Griswold - Election Law - Fourteenth Amendment - First Amendment - Political Questions - Hearsay. In this appeal from a district court proceeding under the Colorado Election Code, the [Colorado] supreme court considers whether former President Donald J. Trump may appear on the Colorado Republican presidential primary ballot in 2024. A majority of the court holds that President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Because he is disqualified, it would be a wrongful act under the Election Code for the Colorado Secretary of State to list him as a candidate on the presidential primary ballot. The court stays its ruling until January 4, 2024, subject to any further appellate proceedings.

      • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
        11·
        5 days ago

        WAS true. If you read SCOTUS’s ruling, you’ll see they came to the same conclusion that Jack Smith made. If Trump was part of the insurrection while he was the President, then it was not an insurrection. If he was not part of it, then it was an insurrection. They determined that you can’t violently overthrow the government in which you lead.

        • obvs@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          18 hours ago

          IS true.

          The Supreme Court made up bullshit that didn’t exist, just like they tend to do whenever it suits them.

          They are NOT arbiters of what is true and what is false or what is law.

          They have power, not legitimacy. That’s a BIG difference.

          Trump was absolutely part of the insurrection, and it was NOT legal, despite the Dred-Scott-quality reasoning in their recent rulings.

          It is absolutely possible to violently overthrow the government which you lead. It’s called a self-coup.