this post was submitted on 23 Jan 2025
262 points (98.9% liked)

News

36867 readers
2686 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 77 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Pending a ruling. Not uncommon.

Then the ruling will get challenged to the next court up and so on until it hits the Supreme Court which will issue a 6-3 ruling agreeing with Trump.

[–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 34 points 1 year ago (3 children)

It's kinda written right there into the 14th ammendment. You'd have to agree that they are not subject to our laws, which would be a pretty hard sell even to this supreme court.

[–] BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world 35 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This supreme court has shown repeatedly that they don’t care what the Constitution says, no matter how clear or obvious. Their “interpretive” power is so broad that they can, have, and will casually override it whenever they feel like it.

[–] Bronzebeard@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

They've always used some kind of ambiguity in wording to hide behind. There is none in regards to this. It is directly spelled out.

[–] samus12345@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

They're basically like an evil genie. They'll find SOME way to twist the words to mean whatever they want no matter how clear they appear to be.

[–] kn33@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think they might actually buy the argument around jurisdiction, which is... scary.

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If they aren't under our jurisdiction, we can't arrest them for murder

[–] kn33@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

No, you see, the argument will go that as long as they're here illegally and free, they're "unsuccessfully under jurisdiction" and once they're arrested, they're "under jurisdiction" and therefore the child isn't a US citizen but "obviously while they're here they'll be punished for their crimes" once they're "successfully under jurisdiction"

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.

[–] growsomethinggood@reddthat.com 11 points 1 year ago

SCOTUS seemed to not like a lot of Biden's EOs though, I wonder why that could be...

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

14A S3 didn't count, why should 14A S1?

[–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This one is plain language, and very explicit about who is a citizen. There was at least wiggle room to argue semantics about 14A S3, even though everybody knew what was intended by it. It is clear, concise, and very to the point.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

[–] usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

SCOTUS is insane but they pick and choose when to be insane. Don't assume all cases will go a given way

The judge who just put a temporary injunction was even a Ronald Regan appointee

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'd think the only way they'd rule against him would be to say "Interpreting the Constitution is our job, not yours." But then they'd maintain the interpretation under their branding.

[–] usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 year ago

The right wing SCOTUS has ruled against more directly against Trump before, and has done so recently. For instance, he called for them to block the TikTok law, and they ruled 9-0 the other way.

Or they also might just not pick up the case. SCOTUS often just lets rulings like this happen by letting the lower court rulings stand

Every fight is worth having

[–] Bronzebeard@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The moment they directly contradict specific plain text of the Constitution, they invalidate the document giving them their own authority.

[–] GraniteM@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Which would also be the end of their usefulness to Trump et al.

[–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah, that's what I think this is about. I don't think they care at all about the birthright citizenship. They are testing what they can get away with, and how far they can push right now to tear up the constitution.