Trump Becomes First Sitting President to Attend Supreme Court Oral Arguments, Showing Up to Hear Discussion About His Birthright Citizenship Executive Order

Oh no Trump is threatening the Supreme Court with his presence or something

President Donald Trump plans to sit in on Wednesday's Supreme Court hearing on birthright citizenship, making him the first sitting president to attend oral arguments at the nation's highest court.
The Republican president's official schedule, sent out by the White House, included a stop at the Supreme Court, where justices will hear Trump's appeal of a lower court ruling that struck down his executive order limiting birthright citizenship.
The order, which Trump signed on the first day of his second term, declared that children born to parents who are in the United States illegally or temporarily are not American citizens. It's an about-face from the long-standing view that the Constitution's 14th Amendment and federal law since 1940 confer citizenship to everyone born on American soil, with narrow exceptions.
It's not the first time Trump has considered showing up for a high court hearing. Last year, Trump said that he badly wanted to attend a hearing on whether he overstepped federal law with his sweeping tariffs, but he decided against it, saying it would have been a distraction.
On Tuesday, however, Trump seemed more sure he'd be in court for Wednesday's hearing while he spoke with reporters in the Oval Office.
"I'm going," Trump said, when the upcoming arguments in the birthright citizenship case were mentioned. To a follow-up question clarifying that he planned to go in person, Trump said, "I think so, I do believe."

The argument is about the 14th Amendment's declaration that any person "born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is a citizen. This was intended to make it clear that slaves released from bondage after the Civil War were now citizens. The whole point of the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" line was to make it clear that this did not apply to foreigners, who are subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign sovereign.

We should win this case on the merits, but we're fighting against more than logic here.

Meanwhile, a drunk Congresskaren overreacted as we've come to expect AWFULs to overreact 24/7/365:

In a now deleted post, Rep. Susie Lee (D-NV) said of President Trump going to SCOTUS this morning:

"So fucking fucked up. I'll pray they fuck him to his face." pic.twitter.com/tSW5jJnnlC
— Bill Melugin (@BillMelugin_) April 1, 2026

The only thing more powerful than hate is love 💛 https://t.co/fMd1csdGJB
— Susie Lee (@SusieLeeNV) February 9, 2026

It continues to amuse me that Blueskyers abandoned twitter to avoid the toxicity, only to discover that they *were* the toxicity. https://t.co/8ZHlNlqQpA
— Andy Grewal (@ProfGrewal) March 31, 2026

Posted by: Disinformation Expert Ace at 12:18 PM

Comments

(Jump to bottom of comments)

1 You know it ain't easy
Running out of thrills
You know it ain't easy
When you don't know what you want
WHAT DO YOU WANT?

You want to FIRST now, FIRST the night
Till early in the morning light

Posted by: Elric The Blade at April 01, 2026 12:18 PM (iFTx/)

2 FIRST!!!!!

Posted by: Sponge - F*ck Cancer at April 01, 2026 12:19 PM (Zz0t1)

3 Trump's Executive Orde instituting "The Purge" should this faik will be Epic!

Posted by: Stateless - Day 13 of 14 or so - extreme dog care at April 01, 2026 12:19 PM (Sco7b)

4 top 10

Posted by: Sturmtoddler at April 01, 2026 12:19 PM (578V/)

5 If BlueSky wasn't started as a FBI honeypot, Kash and Bondi need to treat it as one.

Posted by: gKWVE at April 01, 2026 12:20 PM (gKWVE)

6 How did I time this so well?

Posted by: Diabeetus at April 01, 2026 12:20 PM (fq8Zx)

7 classic! hitler used to do that all the time, then they'd have hot dogs and schnitzel pie

Posted by: gnats local 678 at April 01, 2026 12:20 PM (CWTWj)

8 I love this worm's self-exculpation for using such crude language:

“Clearly my language touched a nerve — my nerve was touched by the attacks on our Constitution and its separation of powers. I took an oath to protect and defend it,” Lee wrote.

That's it. You act like a poorly raised middle schooler because you CARE SO MUCH!

Posted by: Archimedes at April 01, 2026 12:21 PM (Riz8t)

9 I don't expect SCOTUS to rule in Trump's favor on this but it was worth a try...

Posted by: It's me donna at April 01, 2026 12:21 PM (eANu3)

10 What was the announcement on Iran?

Posted by: Tammy al-Thor at April 01, 2026 12:21 PM (Vvh2V)

11 th!

Posted by: RedMindBlueState at April 01, 2026 12:21 PM (bFu5X)

12 "That's just stupid!" -- Trump commentary on an opposing argument.

Posted by: Axeman at April 01, 2026 12:21 PM (Q4cxx)

13 At some point Bluesky will be exceptionally helpful for rounding up the mentally ill once asylums are reopened.

Posted by: the lower depths at April 01, 2026 12:22 PM (Dg7ng)

14 What do we want ?
WE DON'T KNOW
When do we want it?
NOW!!

Posted by: Commissar of plenty and festive little hats at April 01, 2026 12:22 PM (sZ+hC)

15 Today is going to a busy and vigorous news day. So, let's hope Ace got enough sleep.

Posted by: Orson at April 01, 2026 12:22 PM (dIske)

16 10 What was the announcement on Iran?
Posted by: Tammy al-Thor at April 01, 2026 12:21 PM (Vvh2V)

Tonight a 9 ET

Posted by: It's me donna at April 01, 2026 12:22 PM (eANu3)

17 Bullet the Bluesky.

Posted by: Sponge - F*ck Cancer at April 01, 2026 12:23 PM (Zz0t1)

18 It continues to amuse me that Blueskyers abandoned twitter to avoid the toxicity, only to discover that they *were* the toxicity.
---
Well put.

Posted by: Axeman at April 01, 2026 12:23 PM (Q4cxx)

19 The whole point of the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" line was to make it clear that this did not apply to foreigners, who are subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign sovereign.

It took later legislation to make the Indians citizens.

Why? They weren't subject to the jurisdiction of the US government

This is also true for illegals. Because if they were subject they wouldn't be here.

It still allows the children of legal visitors to get citizenship, which is stupid, but at least this would stop 90%+ of these cases.

Posted by: 18-1 at April 01, 2026 12:23 PM (sKqQm)

20 At some point Bluesky will be exceptionally helpful for rounding up the mentally ill once asylums are reopened.
Posted by: the lower depths at April 01, 2026 12:22 PM

Start with Reddit and DU.

Posted by: RedMindBlueState at April 01, 2026 12:23 PM (bFu5X)

21 President Trump just wanted to shoe The SCROTUMs what big balls really look like.

Posted by: Abolish The SCROTUMs at April 01, 2026 12:23 PM (/1l9x)

22 I'm just going to write 'First! To avoid typos....

Posted by: Stateless - Day 13 of 14 or so - extreme dog care at April 01, 2026 12:24 PM (Sco7b)

23 Oh, thank you, Donna, I thought is was 9 this morning!

Posted by: Tammy al-Thor at April 01, 2026 12:24 PM (Vvh2V)

24
willowed (I knew it!)

Anyway, the San Francisco Examiner is downright Hochul-esque in editorializing for anchor babies:

>>thousands of residents would lose their eligibility for federal programs that provide needed food, housing and health care, forcing the city to spend millions of dollars it cannot afford — or turn its back on children of immigrants.

We don't have enough OPM in San Francisco for the kids of "immigrants," so in order to uphold our lefty generosity, we must have OPM from all American taxpayers.

Posted by: Blonde Morticia at April 01, 2026 12:24 PM (n7rxJ)

25 It continues to amuse me that Blueskyers abandoned twitter to avoid the toxicity, only to discover that they *were* the toxicity.
---
Well put.
Posted by: Axeman at April 01, 2026 12:23 PM (Q4cxx)

but they aren't self-aware enough to realize it...

Posted by: Sturmtoddler at April 01, 2026 12:24 PM (578V/)

26 thousands of residents would lose their eligibility for federal programs that provide needed food, housing and health care, forcing the city to spend millions of dollars it cannot afford — or turn its back on children of immigrants.

Send them home. Their home countries won't let them starve because they're more socialist than the US.

Posted by: Sponge - F*ck Cancer at April 01, 2026 12:25 PM (Zz0t1)

27 >>thousands of residents would lose their eligibility for federal programs that provide needed food, housing and health care, forcing the city to spend millions of dollars it cannot afford — or turn its back on children of immigrants.

This is Orwellian.

Removing the requirement to feed, clothe, and give medical care to the children of foreigners would dramatically improve the financial results for American citizens.

Posted by: 18-1 at April 01, 2026 12:25 PM (sKqQm)

28 I'm just going to write 'First! To avoid typos....

Posted by: Stateless - Day 13 of 14 or so - extreme dog care at April 01, 2026 12:24 PM (Sco7b)

Solid plan.

Posted by: Sponge - F*ck Cancer at April 01, 2026 12:25 PM (Zz0t1)

29 Rubio better think on his feet if SCOTUS agrees with Trump.

Posted by: Diabeetus at April 01, 2026 12:25 PM (fq8Zx)

30

What a cunt.

Susie Lee
@SusieLeeNV
Clearly my language touched a nerve — my nerve was touched by the attacks on our Constitution and its separation of powers. I took an oath to protect and defend it.

Posted by: Rev Dr E Buzz PhD Esq at April 01, 2026 12:26 PM (et1vG)

31 >>thousands of residents would lose their eligibility for federal programs that provide needed food, housing and health care, forcing the city to spend millions of dollars it cannot afford — or turn its back on children of immigrants.

This is Orwellian.

Removing the requirement to feed, clothe, and give medical care to the children of foreigners would dramatically improve the financial results for American citizens.

That can't be correct. I was assured by my betters that illegals actually used LESS resources than the native born.

Posted by: Archimedes at April 01, 2026 12:26 PM (Riz8t)

32 Rubio better think on his feet if SCOTUS agrees with Trump.
Posted by: Diabeetus at April 01, 2026 12:25 PM (fq8Zx)

He got fourteen job, mon.

Posted by: Sponge - F*ck Cancer at April 01, 2026 12:26 PM (Zz0t1)

33 I've stopped reading tweets, etc. from Congresskarens and other AWFLs spraying their political dysentery all over the internet. Do. Not. Care.

Posted by: 15 Tiny Cities at April 01, 2026 12:26 PM (qUkBO)

34 I'm just going to write 'First! To avoid typos....

Posted by: Stateless - Day 13 of 14 or so - extreme dog care at April 01, 2026 12:24 PM (Sco7b)

Solid plan.
Posted by: Sponge - F*ck Cancer at April 01, 2026 12:25 PM

You should listen to this guy, Stateless. He's FRIST!

Posted by: RedMindBlueState at April 01, 2026 12:27 PM (bFu5X)

35 @SusieLeeNV
Clearly my language touched a nerve — my nerve was touched by the attacks on our Constitution and its separation of powers. I took an oath to protect and defend it.

Posted by: Rev Dr E Buzz PhD Esq at April 01, 2026 12:26 PM (et1vG)

Yet you constantly vote to destroy it.

Posted by: Sponge - F*ck Cancer at April 01, 2026 12:27 PM (Zz0t1)

36 Flounce Stern Flounce!!!

Punish them with your absence.

Guess what, they are communists, they don't give a shit if you live or die, but they vastly prefer you die.

Posted by: ... at April 01, 2026 12:27 PM (DWX+q)

37 "Separation of powers!", what a farce. These people live for the amalgamation of all power, their power, under one whip hand. The phrase means about as much as "the Constitution!"

Posted by: Ordinary American at April 01, 2026 12:27 PM (fZiTB)

38 29 Rubio better think on his feet if SCOTUS agrees with Trump.

I predict memes with him as a worker at an airport ticket counter.

Posted by: Archimedes at April 01, 2026 12:27 PM (Riz8t)

39 I'm just going to write 'First! To avoid typos....

Posted by: Stateless - Day 13 of 14 or so - extreme dog care at April 01, 2026 12:24 PM (Sco7b)
---
Well, you misspelled fist.

Posted by: Axeman at April 01, 2026 12:27 PM (Q4cxx)

40 If you pulled together every congressman and SC justice from when the 14th was passed and asked them if it should apply to the children of invaders they would have laughed in your face.

Hell, imagine in 1942 the Japanese had brought Korean "comfort" women and had children there. Would anyone have tried to argue those kids would be Americans?

Posted by: 18-1 at April 01, 2026 12:27 PM (sKqQm)

41 Hello, Horde! 😊💕

I'm surprised no sitting president has ever attended a SCOTUS meeting before. "Separation of Powers" doesn't mean that one can't sit in and listen to arguments/decisions, nor should it. I am sure that he wants to hear the decision firsthand.

Most people who are "on trial" get to hear their verdicts live, no?

Posted by: Teresa in Fort Worth, AoSHQ's Plucky Wee One - Eat the Cheesecake, Buy the Yarn. at April 01, 2026 12:28 PM (SRRAx)

42 President Trump makes leftists lose their shit simply by existing. Gotta love it.

Posted by: steevy at April 01, 2026 12:28 PM (YwEeS)

43

Goodbye, blue sky
Goodbye, blue sky
Goodbye
Goodbye

Posted by: Bertram Cabot, Jr. at April 01, 2026 12:28 PM (Cqx++)

44 Has Professor Brian In New Orleans appeared today to lecture us yet? If he's not in here in the next 15 minutes can we go?

Posted by: ... at April 01, 2026 12:28 PM (DWX+q)

45 Anybody who thinks being a lawyer is easy should just think of being peppered by questions by the SCOTUS while the POTUS and AG watch.

They are in the show.

Posted by: PJ at April 01, 2026 12:28 PM (+jscL)

46 I said this in the last thread...

Trump making history as the first sitting president ever to attend SCOTUS hearings...I feel like dem presidents will pounce on that idea and steal it, and use it for political theater going forward.

Also, Waiting for SCOTUS is like Waiting for Godot but more painful.

(I got to see that play on Broadway with Ian McKellen and Patrick Stewart. The play was absurdist torture, but they were delightful. It's fun to see two friends get to play off each other onstage, it was clear they were having a blast.)

Posted by: LizLem at April 01, 2026 12:28 PM (gWBY1)

47 "I'll pray they fuck him to his face."

Wut? Is this an Engrish phrase for fellatio?

Posted by: bonhomme at April 01, 2026 12:28 PM (mkw2N)

48 >thousands of residents would lose their eligibility for federal programs that provide needed food, housing and health care, forcing the city to spend millions of dollars it cannot afford — or turn its back on children of immigrants.

--

I think they forgot the word "illegal" immigrants. Must've been an honest oversight.

Posted by: Lady in Black at April 01, 2026 12:28 PM (qBdHI)

49 I just love President Trump.
He has so many "firsts" and the left hates it that they didn't think of them when they had the White House.

Posted by: Diogenes at April 01, 2026 12:29 PM (2WIwB)

50 Is she saying that the "separation of powers" doesn't allow the President to sit in on oral arguments at the SCOTUS?

Where's the *power* there?

Posted by: Axeman at April 01, 2026 12:29 PM (Q4cxx)

51 "Separation of powers!", what a farce. These people live for the amalgamation of all power, their power, under one whip hand. The phrase means about as much as "the Constitution!"

The founders separate powers between the legislative and executive branches with only a modicum going to the judicial, but they also built a system that distributed power between the federal, state, and local governments AND religious and civic groups.

The left has burned all that and somehow makes the argument that not letting the permanent bureaucracy control the country violates the separation of power...?

Posted by: 18-1 at April 01, 2026 12:29 PM (sKqQm)

52 I noted below, Trump's EO is only as to those born after the EO.

And, you'll note, the pretend plaintiff's in this case were pregnant women.
(Which they sought out as plaintiff's in violation of ethical rules, btw.)

Anyway, everyone is trying to read this as, "but what do we do with all the children already born here?!" and that's the wrong question.

Every year, all over the nation, what was legal before, what you were allowed to do, changes with a mere signature of a governor or the President.
Or, bluntly, most states legally banned fags from pretending to be married until "sweet mysteries of the night" suddenly found that was a Constitutional right.

6 in favor of the EO as it is written.
Roberts and ACB pretend to split the baby and give a win to the left by saying it doesn't apply to children already born her.
The other four say as an aside, "duh."
Of course, the three idiots will all say that even a toe just across the border is an "olly-olly oxen free" everyone is a citizen.

Posted by: People's Hippo Voice at April 01, 2026 12:30 PM (HXT0k)

53 Why do libtards love to play bridge?

Because they can always declare NO TRUMP!

Posted by: stu-mick-o-sucks at April 01, 2026 12:30 PM (w9Wax)

54 Also, Waiting for SCOTUS is like Waiting for Godot but more painful.

Posted by: LizLem at April 01, 2026 12:28 PM (gWBY1)
---
They'll tell you in June.

Posted by: Axeman at April 01, 2026 12:30 PM (Q4cxx)

55
The Twitter thread shows those Bluesky "conversations" in full (they're cropped in that one tweet). The dude tried to explain that the SCOTUS decision only applies to purely "talk" therapy and it doesn't actually strike down the CO law on its face but merely requires strict scrutiny.

The other Blueskyers proceed to wish death on him in various ways.

Posted by: Blonde Morticia at April 01, 2026 12:30 PM (n7rxJ)

56 Didn't Washington or one of the founding Presidents go sit in on Congress for a couple of days and then said WTF? I'm out of here.

Posted by: toby928(c) at April 01, 2026 12:30 PM (4NO2D)

57 I love all these new found powers in the Constitution that didn't exist when Biden or Obama were President. It's like our founding document was written on disappearing ink.

Posted by: NR Pax at April 01, 2026 12:30 PM (jjoN6)

58 The left: Trump is senile and is controlled by THE JEWS!

Also the left: Trump coming to an SC hearing shows that he is a dictator and a tyrant who will allow no dissent!

Posted by: 18-1 at April 01, 2026 12:31 PM (sKqQm)

59 Trump sure knows how to make a headline. And he knows people can't pay attention to more than one thing at a time.

Posted by: ... at April 01, 2026 12:31 PM (DWX+q)

60 And SCOTUS is about to give it to the American people in the ass. Again.

Because we all know the 14th Amendment was adopted to allow illegal immigrants to sneak across our border, squeeze out a dependent mouth, and make them an automatic American citizen. Duh.

Oh, and that Chinese birth tourism industry the are using to undermine our country. Totally cool, says John Roberts and friends.

F the courts. They are destroying the republic.

Posted by: Vengeance at April 01, 2026 12:31 PM (Q6Bu6)

61 Anyway, everyone is trying to read this as, "but what do we do with all the children already born here?!" and that's the wrong question.

Posted by: People's Hippo Voice at April 01, 2026 12:30 PM (HXT0k)
---
Wha-at?? Democrats are dissembling about an issue??!!!

Posted by: Axeman at April 01, 2026 12:31 PM (Q4cxx)

62 "thousands of residents would lose their eligibility for federal programs that provide needed food, housing and health care, forcing the city to spend millions of dollars it cannot afford — or turn its back on children of immigrants"

I'm old enough to remember when immigrant had to show they would not become a burden to public treasury and could support themselves or had a sponsor with financial resources. I guess that is no longer in effect. Especially for the precious illegal immigrants.

Posted by: Ripley at April 01, 2026 12:31 PM (GUOwU)

63 >>> In a now deleted post, Rep. Susie Lee (D-NV) said of President Trump going to SCOTUS this morning:
"So fucking fucked up. I'll pray they fuck him to his face."

>>> @SusieLeeNV
The only thing more powerful than hate is love 💛
@MeidasTouch Bad Bunny’s closing messages during his Super Bowl performance: “The only thing more powerful than hate is love”

Only liberals get to decide who is worthy or deserving of love, hello!

Posted by: LizLem at April 01, 2026 12:31 PM (gWBY1)

64 President Donald Trump plans to sit in on Wednesday's Supreme Court hearing on birthright citizenship, making him the first sitting president to attend oral arguments at the nation's highest court.

Does he get a desk and a leather chair, too? I'll pay good money to watch "The Associate (Justices)" with his catchphrase of "You're fired!"

Posted by: t-bird at April 01, 2026 12:32 PM (iFEms)

65 Maybe trump should flash a Glock 18C with a happy stick that he has under his jacket.

Posted by: Maj. Healey at April 01, 2026 12:32 PM (abIsI)

66 The other Blueskyers proceed to wish death on him in various ways.

I see this pattern in a lot of leftwing threads.

They'll one up each other in how some minor thing will lead to "literal genocide" and then when one of them tries to pull them somewhat back to reality they all call zer a Rethuglican NAZI Russian bot and which for zer to be beaten, raped, and murdered (not necessarily in that order)

Posted by: 18-1 at April 01, 2026 12:32 PM (sKqQm)

67 56 Didn't Washington or one of the founding Presidents go sit in on Congress for a couple of days and then said WTF? I'm out of here.
Posted by: toby928(c)
======
Yep. It was on a treaty that the Senate was debating. Washington found the experience degrading to the executive branch and preemptively ended the possibility of Question Time in Congress for the US presidency. And he should have based on separation of powers.

Posted by: whig at April 01, 2026 12:32 PM (E4rtv)

68 What was the announcement on Iran?
Posted by: Tammy al-Thor at April 01, 2026 12:21 PM (Vvh2V)

Still the only hit by Flock of Seagulls

Posted by: Josephistan at April 01, 2026 12:32 PM (y9ksN)

69 >Trump Becomes First Sitting President to Attend Supreme Court Oral Arguments
----

Is he gonna give the justices the stink eye?

I expect the gynecological Justices to vote against him
Roberts too
I'm calling it 5-4 against the Preznit, maybe even 6-3

Posted by: Don Black at April 01, 2026 12:32 PM (ZxPkt)

70 16 10 What was the announcement on Iran?
Posted by: Tammy al-Thor at April 01, 2026 12:21 PM (Vvh2V)

I'm saving up so I can buy Iranian glass as souvenirs.

And rqemember 'Love Trumps Hate.'

Unless you are talking about President Trump, his family, anyone that remotely supports MAGA, conservatives, anyone who knows you can't change sexes and expresses that out loud, anyone who can't support adults pleasuring themselves in front of children, anyone who wants safe borders, anyone who realises Islam is a threat, anyone who appreciates a great pair of boobs on a hot biological female and the other 165, 666 things that set them off.

But 'Love Trumps Hate!' Racists!

Posted by: Stateless - Day 13 of 14 or so - extreme dog care at April 01, 2026 12:33 PM (Sco7b)

71 "I'll pray they fuck him to his face."

Wut? Is this an Engrish phrase for fellatio?
Posted by: bonhomme at April 01, 2026 12:28 PM (mkw2N)
====

I'm thinking it's evidence of demonic possession.

Posted by: mrp at April 01, 2026 12:33 PM (rj6Yv)

72 The left: Trump is senile and is controlled by THE JEWS!

Also the left: Trump coming to an SC hearing shows that he is a dictator and a tyrant who will allow no dissent!

Posted by: 18-1 at April 01, 2026 12:31 PM (sKqQm)
---
Orwell would take notes that the development of double-think can happen with willing participants who hold themselves to no standard.

Posted by: Axeman at April 01, 2026 12:33 PM (Q4cxx)

73 The left: Not a single dollar of welfare goes to illegals

Also the left: If you cut off illegals from welfare millions will die

Posted by: 18-1 at April 01, 2026 12:33 PM (sKqQm)

74 The 14th is a poorly worded, piece of crap.

Posted by: garrett at April 01, 2026 12:33 PM (0CqYd)

75 The irony is the court that abolished Roe v Wade may force us to engage in baby killing.

Posted by: Big Fat Meanie at April 01, 2026 12:34 PM (qwx/I)

76 It's funny how they'll take a "purist" position like, "Trump can't sit at SCOTUS during arguments" after many decades of delegating their powers and authority to gov't agencies who derive their power from POTUS.

Posted by: bonhomme at April 01, 2026 12:34 PM (mkw2N)

77 >> In a now deleted post, Rep. Susie Lee (D-NV) said of President Trump going to SCOTUS this morning:
"So fucking fucked up. I'll pray they fuck him to his face."

Did she have a Marlboro hanging from the side of her maw?

Posted by: Maj. Healey at April 01, 2026 12:34 PM (abIsI)

78 "I'll pray they fuck him to his face."

---
"Blessed Jesus, hear my prayer ...."

Posted by: Axeman at April 01, 2026 12:34 PM (Q4cxx)

79 thousands of residents would lose their eligibility for federal programs that provide needed food, housing and health care, forcing the city to spend millions of dollars it cannot afford — or turn its back on children of immigrants.

Please point to the article in the Constitution that authorizes the feral government to provide food, housing & healthcare to ANYONE.

Posted by: rickb223 at April 01, 2026 12:34 PM (sUjod)

80 >>> I noted below, Trump's EO is only as to those born after the EO.

All over America today, a bunch of Chinese birth tourists are trying to induce birth early, so they can pump out their babies before the ruling, I'm sure.

Posted by: LizLem at April 01, 2026 12:34 PM (gWBY1)

81 "I'll pray they fuck him to his face."
--------

I don't believe God does anything with those but worth a shot.

Posted by: ... at April 01, 2026 12:34 PM (DWX+q)

82 I have very little faith in a judiciary that's in full revolt against the executive. As I've been saying; Trump and his administration should have confronted the judicial coup on day one of their insurrection.

Instead we get dog and pony shows like this.

Posted by: Martini Farmer at April 01, 2026 12:35 PM (AkEZC)

83 Doesn't SCOTUS have an honorary chair for POTUS they keep empty just in case he chooses to visit?

Posted by: bonhomme at April 01, 2026 12:35 PM (mkw2N)

84 So other than opposing EVERYTHING Trump does, raising taxes, supporting illegal aliens rights to rape, rob and murder American citizens and giving comfort, support and cash to our enemies what exactly do the Democrats stand for?

Posted by: proudvastrightwingguy at April 01, 2026 12:35 PM (MNCvZ)

85 The whole point of the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" line was to make it clear that this did not apply to foreigners, who are subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign sovereign.
---
The plaintiffs are trying to say that only was meant to exclude ambassadors and diplomats.

One of the Justices asked something like, "well, if that's what it means, how come they didn't just write 'ambassadors, diplomats and Indians?"

The response was something like, to launch into a muddled discussion of "well under common law everyone knew that's all it meant."

Or, to put it another way, if the exception to birth citizenship was a narrow class, why did they not write that and instead used the more expansive "subject to the jurisdiction?"

Posted by: People's Hippo Voice at April 01, 2026 12:35 PM (HXT0k)

86 Yeah I don't think this one is going our way. The dumbest ruling ever gets to remain the dumbest.

Posted by: ... at April 01, 2026 12:35 PM (DWX+q)

87 It's funny how they'll take a "purist" position like, "Trump can't sit at SCOTUS during arguments" after many decades of delegating their powers and authority to gov't agencies who derive their power from POTUS.

Posted by: bonhomme at April 01, 2026 12:34 PM (mkw2N)
---
Also, if they meant that about separation of powers, independent agencies would be gone. As they often perform all three functions for their jurisdiction.

Posted by: Axeman at April 01, 2026 12:35 PM (Q4cxx)

88 “Clearly my language touched a nerve — my nerve was touched by the attacks on our Constitution and its separation of powers. I took an oath to protect and defend it,” Lee wrote.

I took the Oath too.
So, when was the last time you ate MREs for a couple months in a row, defending the Constitution?

And when some pink-haired freak goes out to the steps of the Supreme Court and burns a copy of the Constitution, are you going to join me when I am kicking their ass?

When was the last time YOU sat in on the Supremes? You can you know.

Posted by: Diogenes at April 01, 2026 12:36 PM (2WIwB)

89 This will come up during our seder. Now, I won't say anything about it, but if I did, when they say everyone inside the US is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," I'll ask, so that clause doesn't need to be there?

They will agree with that and then I will inform them that they broke the first rule of statutory construction - every word is there for a reason.

Posted by: CTHillary, dead but dreaming at April 01, 2026 12:36 PM (Vpqw1)

90
Still the only hit by Flock of Seagulls
Posted by: Josephistan at April 01, 2026 12:32 PM (y9ksN)

Space Age Love Song hardest hit.

Posted by: Sponge - F*ck Cancer at April 01, 2026 12:36 PM (Zz0t1)

91 I don't know if the April Fools X post that the Statue of Liberty will be replaced by a gold Trump statue was ACTUALLY posted on the White House X account...but it was funny! And I'm sure plenty of lefties think it's real and are panicking.

Posted by: LizLem at April 01, 2026 12:36 PM (gWBY1)

92 Isn't it time for Trump to put up memes of Schumer and Jeffreys with crowns instead of sombreros?

Posted by: Eeyore at April 01, 2026 12:36 PM (AlhUl)

93 84 So other than opposing EVERYTHING Trump does, raising taxes, supporting illegal aliens rights to rape, rob and murder American citizens and giving comfort, support and cash to our enemies what exactly do the Democrats stand for?

Posted by: proudvastrightwingguy at April 01, 2026 12:35 PM (MNCvZ)

Yes

Posted by: ... at April 01, 2026 12:36 PM (DWX+q)

94 Turn your backs on the children of illegals. You never should have showed them your front. You're supposed to be serving Americans.

Posted by: Yudhishthira's Dice at April 01, 2026 12:36 PM (BI5O2)

95 Trump Becomes First Sitting President to Attend Supreme Court Oral Arguments

I believe that Obama showed up for the Obamacare oral argument.

Posted by: The ARC of History! at April 01, 2026 12:37 PM (n1OCj)

96 Sara Lee >>> Susie Lee

Nobody does it like Sara Lee.™

Posted by: jim (in Kalifornia) at April 01, 2026 12:37 PM (ynpvh)

97 I'm old enough to remember when immigrant had to show they would not become a burden to public treasury and could support themselves or had a sponsor with financial resources. I guess that is no longer in effect. Especially for the precious illegal immigrants.
Posted by: Ripley at April 01, 2026 12:31 PM (GUOwU)

I thought that was actually written into the Constitution. Maybe I am wrong.

Posted by: Teresa in Fort Worth, AoSHQ's Plucky Wee One - Eat the Cheesecake, Buy the Yarn. at April 01, 2026 12:37 PM (SRRAx)

98 The left: Not a single dollar of welfare goes to illegals

Also the left: If you cut off illegals from welfare millions will die
Posted by: 18-1

If they die, they die.
Posted by: Ivan Drago

Posted by: rickb223 at April 01, 2026 12:37 PM (sUjod)

99 I’m so sick of these courts trying to parse out some ridiculous reason to arrive at their forgone conclusion which always seems to diminish the American people’s freedom. Most Americans know precisely what freedom is and what the constitution protects- and most of the time that isn’t what these pretend unelected rulers in black pajamas conclude.

We should abolish the courts.

Posted by: Vengeance at April 01, 2026 12:37 PM (Q6Bu6)

100 In all honesty, I wish Trump had not chosen this case to sit it. It’s almost like he is trying to make the court show they aren’t intimidated y him so they can’t rule in favor. This one is so important, and we see in the arguments that Roberts is a very weak man, ACB will be a wild card, KBJ is an idiot of the highest order.

This one is so important. The Chinese are going to cause havoc with this. 1 guy has over 100 surrogate babies - I mean that in and of itself is just disgusting, but I will try to stay focused on the topic.

Posted by: Piper at April 01, 2026 12:37 PM (hftzA)

101 "Please point to the article in the Constitution that authorizes the feral government to provide food, housing & healthcare to ANYONE.
Posted by: rickb223"

At least all that federal funding materializes out of thin air so nobody has to pay for it.

Posted by: Ripley at April 01, 2026 12:37 PM (GUOwU)

102 95 Trump Becomes First Sitting President to Attend Supreme Court Oral Arguments

I believe that Obama showed up for the Obamacare oral argument.

Posted by: The ARC of History! at April 01, 2026 12:37 PM (n1OCj)

No, he was more like backdoor waiting for anal arguments...

Posted by: jim (in Kalifornia) at April 01, 2026 12:37 PM (ynpvh)

103 "what exactly do the Democrats stand for?"

Gubbermint Payout Mechanisms.

Death.

Posted by: Bad Andrew at April 01, 2026 12:38 PM (DgMqy)

104 Again...
Keep women far far away from positions of power.

Posted by: melodicmetal at April 01, 2026 12:38 PM (67JAc)

105 "I'll pray they fuck him to his face."

Probably not the best week to be writing stuff like this.

Posted by: Diogenes at April 01, 2026 12:38 PM (2WIwB)

106 I believe that Obama showed up for the Obamacare oral argument.

Just to remind Rooberts that they still had the kompromat on him if he voted the wrong way.

Posted by: The ARC of History! at April 01, 2026 12:38 PM (n1OCj)

107 It still allows the children of legal visitors to get citizenship, which is stupid, but at least this would stop 90%+ of these cases.
Posted by: 18-1
=======
No. They are discussing domiciled here which if Scotus splits the baby, as I suspect it will due to the Rule of 4 needed to even grant cert. Basically that sojourners aka tourists, etc. would NOT be considered domiciled under the Congressional debate over the 14th. And that echoes from British law--travelers, foreign diplomats, etc. passing through were not considered subjects of the king or queen.

That would restrict citizenship to children of those with working visas that allowed them to be here.

These complications are probably why I think Scotus will punt the whole debate to Congress as it can decide then which of the people here on visas are 'domiciled or reside' in the US.

FWIW, 4 Justices had to consider overturning the lower courts in the first place to hear the case.

Posted by: whig at April 01, 2026 12:38 PM (E4rtv)

108 Doesn't SCOTUS have an honorary chair for POTUS they keep empty just in case he chooses to visit?
Posted by: bonhomme at April 01, 2026 12:35 PM (mkw2N)

In the theater we call them the "Mike Schmidt seats". If Mike Schmidt shows up to a sold out show, we're not going to tell him to go home. There's always a few seats available.

Posted by: Josephistan at April 01, 2026 12:38 PM (y9ksN)

109 When did that sow become Tony Montana.

"You don't has the BALLS to fuck me to my face. You jus has someone do it for you." -Susie Lee

Posted by: ... at April 01, 2026 12:38 PM (DWX+q)

110 Re : Drunken Congresswoman

It's just disturbing to watch fully grown adults act in ways that would have gotten the shit beat out of children in the 80s and early 90s.

Posted by: XTC at April 01, 2026 12:38 PM (uEmCf)

111 We should win this case on the merits, but we're fighting against more than logic here.

I've listened to today's hearing on and off, and I'm not liking what I'm hearing. They grilled Sauer pretty hard, and seem much more amenable to the ACLU position. More like they'll rule in her favor, but need to determine how narrow or wide-ranging the ruling will be. Ugh.

Posted by: Moron Analyst at April 01, 2026 12:39 PM (JCZqz)

112 My own legal opinion is that Congress can pass a law restricting birthright citizenship, but the President can't by executive order.

However, Ireland used to prohibit pregnant women from leaving out of concern they would get an abortion. We could do the reverse

I am pretty sure the President could turn away at the border any pregnant woman who was not legally allowed to be here.

Posted by: CTHillary, dead but dreaming at April 01, 2026 12:39 PM (Vpqw1)

113 103 "what exactly do the Democrats stand for?"

Gubbermint Payout Mechanisms.

Death.
Posted by: Bad Andrew at April 01, 2026 12:38 PM (DgMqy)

Power.

Posted by: Aetius451AD at April 01, 2026 12:39 PM (bss/y)

114 "I'll pray they fuck him to his face."

---
So much for "No means no."

Posted by: Axeman at April 01, 2026 12:39 PM (Q4cxx)

115 "It continues to amuse me that Blueskyers abandoned twitter to avoid the toxicity, only to discover that they *were* the toxicity."
- - - - - - - - -
If someone is complaining that there's an asshole everywhere they go, there's a high chance that person is the asshole.

Posted by: Another Anon at April 01, 2026 12:39 PM (4h45B)

116 Is this chair open to anyone who wants to watch?

Posted by: David French at April 01, 2026 12:40 PM (bss/y)

117 "I'll pray they fuck him to his face."

push his face to his crotch while they cram a cock in his ass?

Posted by: Sponge - F*ck Cancer at April 01, 2026 12:40 PM (Zz0t1)

118 >>> Yeah I don't think this one is going our way. The dumbest ruling ever gets to remain the dumbest.

You never know...there was a push on social media lately that black america wants birthright citizenship to end. It was to protect THEM and their ancestors, not asians and middle eastern and latinos. If that kind of racism is genuine and not being falsely ginned up by the algorithm for clicks, it's hilarious.

That line of argument might even sway KBJ!

Posted by: LizLem at April 01, 2026 12:40 PM (gWBY1)

119 "what exactly do the Democrats stand for?"

Gubbermint Payout Mechanisms.

Death.
Posted by: Bad Andrew at April 01, 2026 12:38 PM (DgMqy)

Power.
Posted by: Aetius451AD at April 01, 2026 12:39 PM (bss/y)
---
Just not of the useable kind.

Posted by: Axeman at April 01, 2026 12:40 PM (Q4cxx)

120 Hey Suzy,
I was at the Super Bowl. Bad Bunny was as offensive to normal Americans as anything I have seen or heard in years. Well, until I read what you wrote about the President.

Posted by: Diogenes at April 01, 2026 12:40 PM (2WIwB)

121 Rubio better think on his feet if SCOTUS agrees with Trump.

===

Rubio's parents immigrated to the US legally.

Posted by: runner at April 01, 2026 12:40 PM (GD0B3)

122 113 103 "what exactly do the Democrats stand for?"

Gubbermint Payout Mechanisms.

Death.
Posted by: Bad Andrew at April 01, 2026 12:38 PM (DgMqy)

Power.
Posted by: Aetius451AD at April 01, 2026 12:39 PM (bss/y)

"There is no G-d, because I Am G-d! I decide who lives and dies!".

That's what they stand for.

Posted by: XTC at April 01, 2026 12:40 PM (uEmCf)

123 104 Again...
Keep women far far away from positions of power.

Posted by: melodicmetal at April 01, 2026

Roberts is a woman? Who knew.

Posted by: Piper at April 01, 2026 12:40 PM (hftzA)

124 Keep women far far away from positions of power.

Posted by: melodicmetal at April 01, 2026 12:38 PM (67JAc)

Except cowgirl and reverse cowgirl. Those can stay.

Posted by: ... at April 01, 2026 12:40 PM (DWX+q)

125 112 My own legal opinion is that Congress can pass a law restricting birthright citizenship, but the President can't by executive order.

However, Ireland used to prohibit pregnant women from leaving out of concern they would get an abortion. We could do the reverse

I am pretty sure the President could turn away at the border any pregnant woman who was not legally allowed to be here.

Posted by: CTHillary, dead but dreaming at April 01, 2026 12:39 PM (Vpqw1)

The assignment of citizenship is handled by the executive. This is a question of how the executive should interpret the law.

Why would there be an automatic presumption that an interpretation contrary to the authors of the law is the correct interpretation?

Posted by: Red Turban Someguy at April 01, 2026 12:41 PM (okun6)

126 >>And when some pink-haired freak goes out to the steps of the Supreme Court and burns a copy of the Constitution, are you going to join me when I am kicking their ass?

Oh, Ed, you just sounded like Dirty Harry just then.

Posted by: Grace at April 01, 2026 12:41 PM (Y1sOo)

127 Or, to put it another way, if the exception to birth citizenship was a narrow class, why did they not write that and instead used the more expansive "subject to the jurisdiction?"
Posted by: People's Hippo Voice

Wanna find out if a wetback is "subject to jurisdiction"?

Try drafting them or executing them. Watch how fast their home country intervenes.

Posted by: rickb223 at April 01, 2026 12:41 PM (sUjod)

128 Except cowgirl and reverse cowgirl. Those can stay.
Posted by: ... at April 01, 2026 12:40 PM (DWX+q)

Except none of us are interested when those are serious in their misogyny. 😉

Posted by: Piper at April 01, 2026 12:41 PM (hftzA)

129 115 "It continues to amuse me that Blueskyers abandoned twitter to avoid the toxicity, only to discover that they *were* the toxicity."
- - - - - - - - -
If someone is complaining that there's an asshole everywhere they go, there's a high chance that person is the asshole.
Posted by: Another Anon at April 01, 2026 12:39 PM (4h45B)

And then the "Bluesky art community" threw a fit when staff said "No more rape porn."

Posted by: XTC at April 01, 2026 12:41 PM (uEmCf)

130 "I'll pray they fuck him to his face."

push his face to his crotch while they cram a cock in his ass?

Posted by: Sponge - F*ck Cancer at April 01, 2026 12:40 PM (Zz0t1)

Usually you pay double for that kind of action, Cotton.

Posted by: Pepper Brooks at April 01, 2026 12:42 PM (y9ksN)

131 I asked this on the Morning Rant, and Lord God King Boasberg said no, but I'm looking for a second opinion.

My question is about U.S. Senate parliamentary procedure. I know that there are a lot of things about it that are mere convention, not a mandatory rule, like the "blue slip" approval for Presidential nominees in a Senator's state. I think the Senate President pro tem is another one, and Majority Leader Thune apparently just let the Senate go on two-week vacation. So.

As the Constitutional President of the Senate, could Vice-President Vance force the Senate into formal recess, when they don't have a physical quorum present to prevent him? They've been doing some cutesy formal nominal sessions to prevent President Trump from being able to make recess appointments the way every other President has been able to do, and I'm wondering if it's mere courtesy that is keeping the Administration from forcing the issue, or if the President pro tem actually has that much formal power somehow.

Posted by: SciVo at April 01, 2026 12:42 PM (Sy6m/)

132 127 Or, to put it another way, if the exception to birth citizenship was a narrow class, why did they not write that and instead used the more expansive "subject to the jurisdiction?"
Posted by: People's Hippo Voice

Wanna find out if a wetback is "subject to jurisdiction"?

Try drafting them or executing them. Watch how fast their home country intervenes.

Posted by: rickb223 at April 01, 2026 12:41 PM (sUjod)

And we so happen to have a conflict going on.

Posted by: Red Turban Someguy at April 01, 2026 12:42 PM (okun6)

133 Oh, Ed, you just sounded like Dirty Harry just then.
Posted by: Grace at April 01, 2026 12:41 PM (Y1sOo)

I don't know that you were really Ed Rooney's type...

Posted by: gKWVE at April 01, 2026 12:43 PM (gKWVE)

134 I read somewhere this morning that the Supreme Court has always had a chair specially reserved for the President in case he wanted to attend a session.

For those complaining about "separation of powers" here, I need to ask if they know what branch of government the Soliciter General belongs to.

Posted by: tankdemon at April 01, 2026 12:43 PM (6XIEG)

135
Except cowgirl and reverse cowgirl. Those can stay.
Posted by: ... at April 01, 2026 12:40 PM (DWX+q)

3 dots for president.

Posted by: Sponge - F*ck Cancer at April 01, 2026 12:43 PM (Zz0t1)

136 Poly market has the odds at 95% that the SC strikes down Trumps EO.

Not looking good

It’s beyond stupid to think this amendment had anything to do with someone sneaking in and having kids. It was about slavery

Posted by: Maroon at April 01, 2026 12:43 PM (JzGvw)

137
I don't know that you were really Ed Rooney's type...
Posted by: gKWVE at April 01, 2026 12:43 PM (gKWVE)

George Pederson thinks Rooney is an asshole.

Posted by: Sponge - F*ck Cancer at April 01, 2026 12:43 PM (Zz0t1)

138 Maybe he'll be sitting with Justice Ketanji's brother who came all the way from Italy.

Posted by: CrustyB at April 01, 2026 12:44 PM (3yau/)

139 "60 And SCOTUS is about to give it to the American people in the ass. Again."

Like night following day.

And Barrett is no wild card. She votes with Roberts 90% of the time and will this time too.

Posted by: Ordinary American at April 01, 2026 12:44 PM (fZiTB)

140 It’s beyond stupid to think this amendment had anything to do with someone sneaking in and having kids. It was about slavery
Posted by: Maroon at April 01, 2026 12:43 PM (JzGvw)

Not when The Constitution is a living, breathing document, silly.

Posted by: Sponge - F*ck Cancer at April 01, 2026 12:44 PM (Zz0t1)

141 124 Keep women far far away from positions of power.

Posted by: melodicmetal at April 01, 2026 12:38 PM (67JAc)

Except cowgirl and reverse cowgirl. Those can stay.
Posted by: ... at April 01, 2026 12:40 PM

HEY!!!

Posted by: Missionary at April 01, 2026 12:44 PM (4q/mG)

142 If the SC says that borders just don't matter, it is fomenting a coup and deserves to be handled accordingly.

Posted by: gKWVE at April 01, 2026 12:44 PM (gKWVE)

143 >>> 97 I'm old enough to remember when immigrant had to show they would not become a burden to public treasury and could support themselves or had a sponsor with financial resources.

Yes, in the 50s. That was the immigration rules my grandparents came over here with. They were basically indentured servants to their employer and/or sponsor, and they didn't make waves so they wouldn't lost their employment. But it was only for a few years, and then they were free to go wherever they wanted.

Thank the Chappaquidick Kennedy for killing that.

Posted by: LizLem at April 01, 2026 12:45 PM (gWBY1)

144 3 dots for president.

Posted by: Sponge - F*ck Cancer at April 01, 2026 12:43 PM (Zz0t1)

A lid in every pot!

Posted by: ... at April 01, 2026 12:45 PM (DWX+q)

145 136 Poly market has the odds at 95% that the SC strikes down Trumps EO.

Not looking good

It’s beyond stupid to think this amendment had anything to do with someone sneaking in and having kids. It was about slavery
Posted by: Maroon at April 01, 2026 12:43 PM (JzGvw)

Polymarket does seem to tend towards wishcasting though, although they could be right here.

I am expecting a good number of defections. Roberts will argue that upholding will be too big a decision, and he does not like those when they do not favor democrats.

Posted by: Aetius451AD at April 01, 2026 12:45 PM (bss/y)

146 it's 'nobody doesn't like Sara Lee'

Posted by: Don Black at April 01, 2026 12:45 PM (ZxPkt)

147 100 In all honesty, I wish Trump had not chosen this case to sit it. It’s almost like he is trying to make the court show they aren’t intimidated y him so they can’t rule in favor. This one is so important, and we see in the arguments that Roberts is a very weak man, ACB will be a wild card, KBJ is an idiot of the highest order.

Posted by: Piper
=======
Eh, justices that don't like him may have colleagues they don't like as well. Justice Jackson seems to be even on the outs with her erstwhile leftist justices like Sotomayor and Kagan.

Basically, I think all along this was Trump's moving the Overton Window and rightfully so. The power has always been with Congress to legislate just as they did to extend voting to Indians on reservations (aka non-taxables) in the 20's.

Even Wong Ark Kim decision declined to extend citizenship beyond a son admitted from two legally admitted immigrants. That decision ignored the subject to the jurisdiction thereof which was common for the rancid Scotus courts post civil war.

Trump is forcing Scotus and Congress to address the situation and 4 justices agreed that it was time to do so.

Posted by: whig at April 01, 2026 12:45 PM (E4rtv)

148 Not when The Constitution is a living, breathing document, silly.
Posted by: Sponge - F*ck Cancer at April 01, 2026 12:44 PM (Zz0t1)

I defy anyone to go to a casino and play blackjack with a living rule book.

Posted by: Josephistan at April 01, 2026 12:46 PM (y9ksN)

149
A lid in every pot!
Posted by: ... at April 01, 2026 12:45 PM (DWX+q)

Far out, man!

Posted by: Cheech and Chong at April 01, 2026 12:46 PM (Zz0t1)

150 good, I hope he is

Posted by: Mark Andrew Edwards, buy ammo at April 01, 2026 12:46 PM (xcxpd)

151 Susie Lee
@SusieLeeNV
Clearly my language touched a nerve — my nerve was touched by the attacks on our Constitution and its separation of powers. I took an oath to protect and defend it.

Posted by: Rev Dr E Buzz PhD Esq at April 01, 2026 12:26 PM (et1vG)

Methinks her nerve was "touched" by a little nip of gin...

Posted by: Teresa in Fort Worth, AoSHQ's Plucky Wee One - Eat the Cheesecake, Buy the Yarn. at April 01, 2026 12:46 PM (SRRAx)

152 Keeping it light (from Critical Drinker):

Will Supergirl Be A Superflop?

https://youtu.be/3UX5k-RThpc

Posted by: Archimedes at April 01, 2026 12:46 PM (Riz8t)

153 I'm old enough to remember when immigrant had to show they would not become a burden to public treasury and could support themselves or had a sponsor with financial resources.

Yes, in the 50s. That was the immigration rules my grandparents came over here with. They were basically indentured servants to their employer and/or sponsor, and they didn't make waves so they wouldn't lost their employment. But it was only for a few years, and then they were free to go wherever they wanted.

Thank the Chappaquidick Kennedy for killing that.
Posted by: LizLem

That was from the oughts and the tens.
The 1900's & 1910's. Longstanding.

Posted by: rickb223 at April 01, 2026 12:46 PM (sUjod)

154 Just another chance for Amy Coney Souter to prove to us what a foolish nomination she truly was.

Posted by: proudvastrightwingguy at April 01, 2026 12:47 PM (MNCvZ)

155 it's 'nobody doesn't like Sara Lee'
Posted by: Don Black at April 01, 2026 12:45 PM (ZxPkt)

There's a bathroom on the right.

Posted by: Sponge - F*ck Cancer at April 01, 2026 12:47 PM (Zz0t1)

156 Methinks her nerve was "touched" by a little nip of gin...

Methinks she spends a lot of time "touching her nerve", IYKWIMAITYD.

Posted by: Archimedes at April 01, 2026 12:47 PM (Riz8t)

157 For those complaining about "separation of powers" here, I need to ask if they know what branch of government the Soliciter General belongs to.
Posted by: tankdemon

He's probably with the Army. The MIC is the true enemy of democracy!!!!

Posted by: Retarded Leftist at April 01, 2026 12:47 PM (JCZqz)

158 145 136 Poly market has the odds at 95% that the SC strikes down Trumps EO.

Not looking good

It’s beyond stupid to think this amendment had anything to do with someone sneaking in and having kids. It was about slavery
Posted by: Maroon at April 01, 2026 12:43 PM (JzGvw)

Polymarket does seem to tend towards wishcasting though, although they could be right here.

I am expecting a good number of defections. Roberts will argue that upholding will be too big a decision, and he does not like those when they do not favor democrats.
Posted by: Aetius451AD

As I have repeatedly said, Congress due to prior precedents is given full enumerated power over immigration. The EO may be struck down but my guess is that Congress will be allowed to set what subject to the jurisdiction thereof means just like other immigration laws and creating voting and full citizenship for Native Americans on reservations in the 1920's. That was not Scotus doing it, it was Congress.

Posted by: whig at April 01, 2026 12:48 PM (E4rtv)

159 In all honesty, I wish Trump had not chosen this case to sit it. It’s almost like he is trying to make the court show they aren’t intimidated y him so they can’t rule in favor. This one is so important, and we see in the arguments that Roberts is a very weak man, ACB will be a wild card, KBJ is an idiot of the highest order.
---
These 9 love the smell of their own farts above all other fart-sniffers in the world.

Trump visiting to listen to them fart out sonnets will please their egos.

Posted by: People's Hippo Voice at April 01, 2026 12:48 PM (HXT0k)

160 SusieLeeNV
Clearly my language touched a nerve — my nerve was touched by the attacks on our Constitution and its separation of powers. I took an oath to protect and defend it.

Sugartits, you and the dems have been dancing on my last nerve for years. Does that mean I get a free pass?

Posted by: rickb223 at April 01, 2026 12:48 PM (sUjod)

161 155 it's 'nobody doesn't like Sara Lee'
Posted by: Don Black at April 01, 2026 12:45 PM (ZxPkt)

There's a bathroom on the right.
Posted by: Sponge - F*ck Cancer at April 01, 2026 12:47 PM (Zz0t1)

With a sushi glory hole?

Posted by: Mark Andrew Edwards, buy ammo at April 01, 2026 12:48 PM (xcxpd)

162 125 "Why would there be an automatic presumption that an interpretation contrary to the authors of the law is the correct interpretation?"

Section 5 of the 14th;

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Posted by: CTHillary, dead but dreaming at April 01, 2026 12:49 PM (Vpqw1)

163 please stop saying 'methinks'

pet peeve, ymmv

Posted by: Don Black at April 01, 2026 12:49 PM (ZxPkt)

164 I can see the Court agreeing that children of illegals and temporary visitors are not automatically granted citizenship, but then state that the executive order is not valid because it takes an act of Congress to address the issue.

Posted by: tankdemon at April 01, 2026 12:49 PM (6XIEG)

165 156 Methinks her nerve was "touched" by a little nip of gin...

Methinks she spends a lot of time "touching her nerve", IYKWIMAITYD.
Posted by: Archimedes

Sounds like a goooood evening. Huma! Get over here! I'm feeling frisky.

Posted by: Hillary! at April 01, 2026 12:49 PM (JCZqz)

166 I hope DJT sits there and trolls the shit out of Ketanji with funny faces and eye rolls.

Posted by: gKWVE at April 01, 2026 12:49 PM (gKWVE)

167 Did PDT shout "Pussy!" during arguments?

Posted by: 2009Refugee at April 01, 2026 12:49 PM (nEEKE)

168 Posted by: Piper

I suspect what he's doing is taking control of some narrative and putting air back in to the conversation that got him elected.

It also keeps the media from ignoring it until the day of the ruling when they can brag that Trump's EO got fucked by the SC and make it look like another loss in a string of losses. Which means "nationwide" discussion of the *issue* is forced not just the outcome. It's a strong move.

They're gonna rule the way they're gonna rule and if they're not, then we have much bigger problems than birthright citizenship.

Posted by: ... at April 01, 2026 12:49 PM (DWX+q)

169 please stop saying...

My name is Inigo Montoya

Posted by: Bad Andrew at April 01, 2026 12:50 PM (DgMqy)

170 Someone pointed out elsewhere that Susie is divorced with a couple kids. The first thing I can understand. The second... not so much.

Posted by: Ex Rex Reeder at April 01, 2026 12:50 PM (QaH55)

171 "There's a bathroom on the right.
Posted by: Sponge - F*ck Cancer at April 01, 2026 12:47 PM (Zz0t1)"

'Scuse me while I kiss this guy!

Posted by: CTHillary, dead but dreaming at April 01, 2026 12:50 PM (Vpqw1)

172 >>> That was from the oughts and the tens.
The 1900's & 1910's. Longstanding.
Posted by: rickb223 at April 01, 2026 12:46 PM (sUjod)

sorry for the confusion...my grandparents came here in the 50s after WW2, but the immigration laws they had to follow were clearly before that, the ones you described.

Posted by: LizLem at April 01, 2026 12:50 PM (gWBY1)

173 I am expecting a good number of defections. Roberts will argue that upholding will be too big a decision, and he does not like those when they do not favor democrats.
Posted by: Aetius451AD at April 01, 2026 12:45 PM (bss/y)

—-

Maybe we could start taxing anchor babies?

Roberts has pledged saying something is a tax in the ultimate blank check

Posted by: Maroon at April 01, 2026 12:50 PM (JzGvw)

174 153 I'm old enough to remember when immigrant had to show they would not become a burden to public treasury and could support themselves or had a sponsor with financial resources.

Yes, in the 50s. That was the immigration rules my grandparents came over here with. They were basically indentured servants to their employer and/or sponsor, and they didn't make waves so they wouldn't lost their employment. But it was only for a few years, and then they were free to go wherever they wanted.

Thank the Chappaquidick Kennedy for killing that.
Posted by: LizLem
======
Still the law, been unenforced but sponsors take pledges binding in court of financial liability if their immigrant ends up being a public charge to the US. The Hart-Celler Act removed the geographic quotas on immigration and created some new avenues that the older 1950's and earlier immigration acts did not have. It did not eliminate the public charge requirement.

Posted by: whig at April 01, 2026 12:50 PM (E4rtv)

175 "There's a bathroom on the right.
Posted by: Sponge - F*ck Cancer at April 01, 2026 12:47 PM (Zz0t1)"

'Scuse me while I kiss this guy!
Posted by: CTHillary, dead but dreaming at April 01, 2026 12:50 PM (Vpqw1)
---
Hold me closer, Tony Danza.

Posted by: Axeman at April 01, 2026 12:51 PM (Q4cxx)

176 Afternoon all,

Coverage for tonights manned moon launch will begin shortly.

NASA - SLS Block 1 - Artemis II
LC-39B - Kennedy Space Center - Space Affairs Livestream
Launch Date Planned: April 1, 2026
Coverage begins: 12:55 P.M. EDT

https://youtu.be/_owzmracVDo

Actual launch is tonight.

Lift-Off Time: 6:24:00 PM EDT (222400 UTC (April 2, 00:24:00 CEST)

Posted by: Joyenz at April 01, 2026 12:51 PM (2F0/Y)

177 The solicitor general, John Sauer spoke too fast and was hard to understand.
Does he have laryngitis or does he have a form of spasmodic dysphonia?

Posted by: redridinghood at April 01, 2026 12:51 PM (NpAcC)

178 So I went to see what the Senate says about the powers of the VP as President of the Senate:

The Constitution names the vice president of the United States as the president of the Senate. In addition to serving as presiding officer, the vice president has the sole power to break a tie vote in the Senate and formally presides over the receiving and counting of electoral ballots cast in presidential elections.

Today vice presidents serve as principal advisors to the president, but from 1789 until the 1950s their primary duty was to preside over the Senate. Since the 1830s, vice presidents have occupied offices near the Senate Chamber. Over the course of the nation’s history, the vice president’s influence evolved as vice presidents and senators experimented with, and at times vigorously debated, the role to be played by this constitutional officer.

I found this unhelpful. Though if he gets to interpret the rules and recognize debaters, he could be pretty powerful.

Posted by: toby928(c) at April 01, 2026 12:52 PM (4NO2D)

179 162 125 "Why would there be an automatic presumption that an interpretation contrary to the authors of the law is the correct interpretation?"

Section 5 of the 14th;

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Posted by: CTHillary, dead but dreaming at April 01, 2026 12:49 PM (Vpqw1)

The legislation directs the executive to take action.

Congress is not directly granting citizenship to people, the bureaucracy, part of the executive, handles the administration.

Conventionally, the bureaucracy has some flexibility when the law is ambiguous. Unless Congress were to clarify that they meant something else, there wouldn't seem to be an issue with an Executive Order to adhere to the original meaning of the amendment.

Posted by: Red Turban Someguy at April 01, 2026 12:52 PM (okun6)

180 How better would life had been if the Democrats never had any power?

If after Carter we never had a Democratic President and they never held a majority in either the House or Senate how would this country have faired?

Who am I kidding, the Republicans would have delegated them power.

Posted by: Scuba_Dude at April 01, 2026 12:52 PM (Oq/TM)

181 Who named this stupid issue? What about Anchor Baby Certification?

Posted by: ... at April 01, 2026 12:52 PM (DWX+q)

182 Wrapped up like a douche

Posted by: ... at April 01, 2026 12:52 PM (DWX+q)

183 sorry for the confusion...my grandparents came here in the 50s after WW2, but the immigration laws they had to follow were clearly before that, the ones you described.
Posted by: LizLem

I just remember it from the last time we, as a group, discussed this. Also, roll in sick with a communicable disease like TB and you were on the next boat out.

Posted by: rickb223 at April 01, 2026 12:53 PM (sUjod)

184 oh well

hit me with your pet shark

Posted by: Don Black at April 01, 2026 12:53 PM (ZxPkt)

185 You plebes are just too stupid to understand the law.

Didn’t you know illegal immigrants are part of the constitutional fabric?

The court system has become a fifth column.

Posted by: That Guy at April 01, 2026 12:53 PM (3g5Xe)

186 >>> It did not eliminate the public charge requirement.

If it didn't remove the public charge requirement, why are so many immigrants on the public dole?

Posted by: LizLem at April 01, 2026 12:53 PM (gWBY1)

187 The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 (43 Stat. 253, enacted June 2, 1924)

Posted by: CTHillary, dead but dreaming at April 01, 2026 12:53 PM (Vpqw1)

188 Except cowgirl and reverse cowgirl. Those can stay.
Posted by: ... at April 01, 2026 12:40 PM

HEY!!!
Posted by: Missionary

Boring!

Posted by: Kama Sutra at April 01, 2026 12:54 PM (w9Wax)

189 > "I'll pray they fuck him to his face."
----------
Imagine someone like Nancy Mace saying this about *biden. The GOP would censor her while the left demands her death.

This broad? Zilch.

Posted by: Martini Farmer at April 01, 2026 12:55 PM (AkEZC)

190 187 The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 (43 Stat. 253, enacted June 2, 1924)

Posted by: CTHillary, dead but dreaming at April 01, 2026 12:53 PM (Vpqw1)

To reiterate, Congress set forth a set of conditions for citizenship. Those conditions are arguably ambiguous.

Trump has directed the bureaucracy to interpret the law in accordance with the authors of the law.

How is this stepping on Congress's toes, absent them issuing some form of clarification?

Posted by: Red Turban Someguy at April 01, 2026 12:55 PM (okun6)

191 If it didn't remove the public charge requirement, why are so many immigrants on the public dole?
Posted by: LizLem

It's like a lot of other things. They only enforce it when they want to.

Posted by: rickb223 at April 01, 2026 12:56 PM (sUjod)

192 As the Constitutional President of the Senate, could Vice-President Vance force the Senate into formal recess, when they don't have a physical quorum present to prevent him? They've been doing some cutesy formal nominal sessions to prevent President Trump from being able to make recess appointments the way every other President has been able to do, and I'm wondering if it's mere courtesy that is keeping the Administration from forcing the issue, or if the President pro tem actually has that much formal power somehow.
Posted by: SciVo
======
Technically due to Senate GOP assholes keeping the Senate in technical session, any member COULD make a quorum call if they have the floor and if Vance is there to sustain the motion, then as a privileged motion, he can actually send the Senate's Sergeant at Arms to 'arrest' any member and return them to the Senate Chamber.

Best done by someone retiring that does not give a shit about working with his or her 'colleagues' in the future as it would kick over an anthill.

Posted by: whig at April 01, 2026 12:56 PM (E4rtv)

193 Now Miss Potty mouth is worried about separation of powers when I'm sure she's been ok with every rogue judge shutting PDT down all the time, everyday and sometimes multiple times per day. These people are certifiably insane and stupid.

Posted by: neverenoughcaffeine at April 01, 2026 12:56 PM (2NHgQ)

194 So has Jumanji Brown Jackson humiliated herself yet ?

Posted by: It's me donna at April 01, 2026 12:56 PM (eANu3)

195 If they are intimidated by his presence,

then that is good.

Posted by: San Franpsycho at April 01, 2026 12:56 PM (RIvkX)

196 47 "I'll pray they fuck him to his face."

Wut? Is this an Engrish phrase for fellatio?
Posted by: bonhomme at April 01, 2026 12:28 PM (mkw2N)

That's massage parlor slang; $20 bucks extra.

Posted by: Nelly at April 01, 2026 12:56 PM (7gpcF)

197 "Trump is going to use his demonic psychic powers to override the wills of the Supremes, so Trump should not be allowed to attend" Susie Lee (probably)

Posted by: illiniwek at April 01, 2026 12:57 PM (vbXSk)

198 Just like the one-winged dove.

Posted by: Stevee Nix at April 01, 2026 12:57 PM (KAi1n)

199 I'm old enough to remember when immigrant had to show they would not become a burden to public treasury and could support themselves or had a sponsor with financial resources. I guess that is no longer in effect. Especially for the precious illegal immigrants.
Posted by: Ripley at April 01, 2026 12:31 PM (GUOwU)

----------------

Every elderly American citizen is a burden on the treasury.

Medicare and Social Security ain't free and regardless of what those uncs have told you, they have not paid into the system enough to fund it.

Posted by: Diabeetus at April 01, 2026 12:57 PM (fq8Zx)

200 That BlewSky thing is something. Mark Joseph Stern is a lefty and his summary of the "conversion therapy" decision was "look on the bright side" of this decision. He summarized the decision fairly well, IMO.

It was a big loss for Big Gay & Tranny, but Stern is correct that it was a narrow decision in many respects.

He was clearly trying to cheer up his fellow travelers. They reacted by wishing he was raped and abused and his dick cut off. These people are deranged.

Posted by: Elric The Blade at April 01, 2026 12:58 PM (iFTx/)

201 The Twitter thread shows those Bluesky "conversations" in full (they're cropped in that one tweet). The dude tried to explain that the SCOTUS decision only applies to purely "talk" therapy and it doesn't actually strike down the CO law on its face but merely requires strict scrutiny.

The other Blueskyers proceed to wish death on him in various ways.

The best reply was the one by the tranny claiming that their parents had already killed them. Either that's profound mental illness or the best troll ever.

Posted by: Ian S. at April 01, 2026 12:58 PM (2ocoG)

202 IMO Trump should invite Thune to the WH for lunch and have a few Secret Service agents just beat the shit out of the guy til he agrees to play ball

I kid, of course

Posted by: Don Black at April 01, 2026 12:58 PM (ZxPkt)

203 194 So has Jumanji Brown Jackson humiliated herself yet ?

Just her sitting there is humiliation enough.

Posted by: Maj. Healey at April 01, 2026 12:58 PM (abIsI)

204 .
Perhaps Trump's presence will convince Amy Cunty Barrett to do the job she swore to do.

Posted by: Marooned at April 01, 2026 12:59 PM (kt8QE)

205 Greg Price
@greg_price11
ACLU Attorney Cecillia Wang argues that any newborn child, regardless of their parents' legal status and allegiance to foreign nations, even adversaries like Iran, should be granted citizenship without regard to said allegiance.

Completely damning.
12:22 PM · Apr 1, 2026

---
Contains a plus 2 minute long audio clip of Wang's arguments that has not been included in this post.

Posted by: Trying to fuhgeddaboudit at April 01, 2026 12:59 PM (NFX2v)

206 By merits, it should be definitive that the "subject to the jurisdiction" was not read to include native Americans, as demonstrated by the separate act to include them.

However, there are many different inputs into the Court decisions than simply valid argument.

The court regularly uses Misericordiam arguments, these days.

Posted by: Axeman at April 01, 2026 12:59 PM (Q4cxx)

207 114 "I'll pray they fuck him to his face."

---
So much for "No means no."

Posted by: Axeman at April 01, 2026 12:39 PM (Q4cxx)

Hey, it's just part of the job...

Posted by: Kumala at April 01, 2026 12:59 PM (ynpvh)

208 Every elderly American citizen is a burden on the treasury.

Medicare and Social Security ain't free and regardless of what those uncs have told you, they have not paid into the system enough to fund it.
Posted by: Diabeetus at April 01, 2026 12:57 PM

Congress made a law about citizens and SS. They also made a law that immigrants can't be public charges.

You are running through a field of strawmen with a torch.

Posted by: toby928(c) at April 01, 2026 12:59 PM (4NO2D)

209 191 If it didn't remove the public charge requirement, why are so many immigrants on the public dole?
Posted by: LizLem

It's like a lot of other things. They only enforce it when they want to.
Posted by: rickb223

Exactly. All those church groups that sponsor immigrants could theoretically be on the hook for any of their sponsored immigrants that goes on the dole. But enforcement has been rare.

Basically the entire premise of our ruling class since the Simpson Mazzoli amnesty bill in 1986 is open borders bullshit--good for corporations and farmers (cheap labor), good for Democrats (more social spending and political clients), and screw the American public at large.

That is why they keep bringing up amnesty but fortunately Barry and his Dem Congress like to keep that dangling rather than ram it through. They want cover from the GOP corporate class before doing it.

Posted by: whig at April 01, 2026 12:59 PM (E4rtv)

210 all seriousness aside, Trump should be calling Thune out, publicly, loudly and often

Posted by: Don Black at April 01, 2026 12:59 PM (ZxPkt)

211 Also, remember when BlueSky announced that posts on their platform should be called "skeets", and then someone directed them to Urban Dictionary? Good times.

Posted by: Ian S. at April 01, 2026 01:00 PM (2ocoG)

212 The power has always been with Congress to legislate just as they did to extend voting to Indians on reservations (aka non-taxables) in the 20's.

--

If it's deemed we have to rely on Congress to legislate birthright citizenship, when they can't even get out of their own way to pass the SAVE Act, I won't be holding my breath anytime soon.

Posted by: Lady in Black at April 01, 2026 01:00 PM (qBdHI)

213 202 IMO Trump should invite Thune to the WH for lunch and have a few Secret Service agents just beat the shit out of the guy til he agrees to play ball

I kid, of course
Posted by: Don Black at April 01, 2026 12:58 PM

One can dream. :-)

Posted by: Scuba_Dude at April 01, 2026 01:01 PM (qoLdL)

214 I guess there's two ways to read the prevailing opinion that SCOTUS will punt this to Congress:

1) they strike the EO and say Congress can fix it if they don't like it.
2) they uphold the EO and say Congress can fix it if they don't like it.

All I'm saying is, over the last 4 years or so, the Court has issued a lot of opinions that are "the law means precisely what it says, just because it was "always" interpreted the other way, just because a lot of people like it that way doesn't change that fact."

Recall, for decades, Roe v. Wade was called a "super-precedent."
Chevron was settled law.

Could they rule against Trump?* Yeah.
But if you take the strict meaning of the 14th, I don't see them reversing all the prior reasoning and saying, "but here, let's allow the broadest, most expansive meaning of the statute."

*look at the tariff opinion. The left wanted a broad rule of all tariffs and no power to declare emergency. But the opinion was, "in this narrow circumstance, under this statute only. And oh yeah, we're not going to deal with the consequences of this ruling (refunds)."

Posted by: People's Hippo Voice at April 01, 2026 01:01 PM (HXT0k)

215 Heard on radio this morning that 14th Amendment says that if you are born in the US then you are a US citizen.

I do not recall ir saying that.
It seems a little more involved, and if it was as simple as "born in the US then you are a US citizen" then that is exactly what it would say.

Posted by: Operator Error at April 01, 2026 01:01 PM (Hh5dq)

216 163 please stop saying 'methinks'

pet peeve, ymmv
Posted by: Don Black at April 01, 2026 12:49 PM (ZxPkt)

What, you have a peeve with The Bard? I'll have you know, I only quote from the best!

***adjusts sash, straightens tiara, stomps off in a huff***

Posted by: Teresa in Fort Worth, AoSHQ's Plucky Wee One - Eat the Cheesecake, Buy the Yarn. at April 01, 2026 01:01 PM (SRRAx)

217 Medicare and Social Security ain't free and regardless of what those uncs have told you, they have not paid into the system enough to fund it.
Posted by: Diabeetus
======
You want to repeal Social Security and Medicare, go ahead.

Public charge is already the law, simply not enforced.

As said above, apples and oranges.

Posted by: whig at April 01, 2026 01:01 PM (E4rtv)

218 205 Greg Price
@greg_price11
ACLU Attorney Cecillia Wang argues that any newborn child, regardless of their parents' legal status and allegiance to foreign nations, even adversaries like Iran, should be granted citizenship without regard to said allegiance.

Completely damning.
12:22 PM · Apr 1, 2026

---
Contains a plus 2 minute long audio clip of Wang's arguments that has not been included in this post.

Posted by: Trying to fuhgeddaboudit at April 01, 2026 12:59 PM (NFX2v)

And what about the parents?

Posted by: jim (in Kalifornia) at April 01, 2026 01:01 PM (ynpvh)

219 Like a virgin, touched for the 31st time.

Posted by: redridinghood at April 01, 2026 01:02 PM (NpAcC)

220 Congress made a law about citizens and SS. They also made a law that immigrants can't be public charges.

You are running through a field of strawmen with a torch.
Posted by: toby928(c) at April 01, 2026 12:59 PM (4NO2D)

----------------

The only strawman I care about is green because he's stuffed with dollars.

And you should too. Debt is 32 trillion and climbing. Neither Democrats or Republicans care.

But they should. We should.

And the only way to solve it - barring a miracle - is to shrink government spending. And that means the Big three: Medicare/Medicaid, SS, military.

Posted by: Diabeetus at April 01, 2026 01:02 PM (fq8Zx)

221 The Constitution names the vice president of the United States as the president of the Senate. In addition to serving as presiding officer, the vice president has the sole power to break a tie vote in the Senate and formally presides over the receiving and counting of electoral ballots cast in presidential elections.

Posted by: toby928(c) at April 01, 2026 12:52 PM (4NO2D)

I wonder what things would be like if somebody other than Adams had been the first VP, as he was generally well respected but not very well-liked. Maybe if the Pres/VP ran as a ticket from the start the VP would act more like a majority/minority leader.

Posted by: tankdemon at April 01, 2026 01:02 PM (6XIEG)

222 The other thing about the BlewSky thing with Stern is that it seems like everyone on the site was subject to conversion therapy and forced -- often supposedly violently -- into genders or sexual orientations they opposed.

As Ace says, "press X to doubt." These people are deranged drama-queen liars who will say anything for attention and to try to bolster their dogshit opinions.

Posted by: Elric The Blade at April 01, 2026 01:02 PM (iFTx/)

223 203 194 So has Jumanji Brown Jackson humiliated herself yet ?

Just her sitting there is humiliation enough.
Posted by: Maj. Healey

Sadly, she may be part of a majority striking down Trump, and the future of the US, in this case, so she may get the last laugh.

Posted by: Moron Analyst at April 01, 2026 01:03 PM (JCZqz)

224 I'm old enough to remember when immigrant had to show they would not become a burden to public treasury and could support themselves or had a sponsor with financial resources. I guess that is no longer in effect. Especially for the precious illegal immigrants.

Posted by: Ripley at April 01, 2026 12:31 PM (GUOwU)
---
It made Jim Crow look like Jim Rodan!

Posted by: Axeman at April 01, 2026 01:03 PM (Q4cxx)

225 Please stop saying "Please stop saying"...

Posted by: San Franpsycho at April 01, 2026 01:03 PM (RIvkX)

226 Sadly, she may be part of a majority striking down Trump, and the future of the US, in this case, so she may get the last laugh.
Posted by: Moron Analyst at April 01, 2026 01:03 PM (JCZqz)

Oh, I have no doubt she will be... But she's still a half wit

Posted by: It's me donna at April 01, 2026 01:04 PM (eANu3)

227 @greg_price11
ACLU Attorney Cecillia Wang argues that any newborn child, regardless of their parents' legal status and allegiance to foreign nations, even adversaries like Iran, should be granted citizenship without regard to said allegiance.

Completely damning.

Annoying
C*nt
Languishing
Unabashed

Posted by: Sponge - F*ck Cancer at April 01, 2026 01:04 PM (Zz0t1)

228 I'm wondering if Trump discussed birthright citizenship with Barrett in their interviews. If she votes the wrong way, he should state that she's a bold-faced liar on every news channel that will have him.

Posted by: Maj. Healey at April 01, 2026 01:04 PM (abIsI)

229 glirpgleepgloop

Posted by: Hopeful at April 01, 2026 01:04 PM (eeCgU)

230 If it's deemed we have to rely on Congress to legislate birthright citizenship, when they can't even get out of their own way to pass the SAVE Act, I won't be holding my breath anytime soon.
Posted by: Lady in Black

The old guard are dying off of McConnell types literally but Trump's EO mandating that cheat by mail have to be US citizens to use the mail to send in their ballot is going to be amusing. And the full tracking and special envelopes are going to make fraud by mail a lot tougher.

Posted by: whig at April 01, 2026 01:04 PM (E4rtv)

231 ---
It made Jim Crow look like Jim Rodan!
Posted by: Axeman at April 01, 2026 01:03 PM (Q4cxx)

Jim Eagle!!!

Posted by: Sponge - F*ck Cancer at April 01, 2026 01:04 PM (Zz0t1)

232 The other thing about the BlewSky thing with Stern is that it seems like everyone on the site was subject to conversion therapy and forced -- often supposedly violently -- into genders or sexual orientations they opposed.

That's part and parcel of the purity spiral. To get above the crowd there you have to be a forcibly converted trans half-black Palestinian woman.

Posted by: Ian S. at April 01, 2026 01:04 PM (2ocoG)

233 224 I'm old enough to remember when immigrant had to show they would not become a burden to public treasury and could support themselves or had a sponsor with financial resources. I guess that is no longer in effect. Especially for the precious illegal immigrants.

Posted by: Ripley at April 01, 2026 12:31 PM (GUOwU)
---
It made Jim Crow look like Jim Rodan!

Posted by: Axeman at April 01, 2026 01:03 PM (Q4cxx)

I saw Rodan fight Godzilla...

Posted by: jim (in Kalifornia) at April 01, 2026 01:05 PM (ynpvh)

234 Medicare and Social Security ain't free and regardless of what those uncs have told you, they have not paid into the system enough to fund it.

Posted by: Diabeetus at April 01, 2026 12:57 PM (fq8Zx)

Learn about compounding growth, and then get back to me.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at April 01, 2026 01:05 PM (n9ltV)

235 You have gotta love mobys.

Posted by: Aetius451AD at April 01, 2026 01:05 PM (bss/y)

236 Rep Lee of NV sounds incredibly level headed and mature.

Posted by: Cow Demon at April 01, 2026 01:05 PM (z/ZK2)

237 The politics that will flow from this case will be interesting. Roe v Wade set the political discourse for 50 years. Will this follow?

Posted by: SH (no more socks) at April 01, 2026 01:06 PM (sX1BW)

238 [don't cut and paste troll droppings[CBD]]

Uh, think you are in the wrong place - this isn't DU.

Posted by: CTHillary, dead but dreaming at April 01, 2026 01:06 PM (Vpqw1)

239 228 I'm wondering if Trump discussed birthright citizenship with Barrett in their interviews. If she votes the wrong way, he should state that she's a bold-faced liar on every news channel that will have him.
Posted by: Maj. Healey
========
The normal interview is NOT on specifics but rather how would they interpret the law. Trump was also constrained by Mitch the Chicom Bitch as to get someone in to replace Ginsburg in the short time left to do so, meant that Mitch could call the tune on who was picked.

Posted by: whig at April 01, 2026 01:06 PM (E4rtv)

240 Rep Lee of NV sounds incredibly level headed and mature.
Posted by: Cow Demon at April 01, 2026 01:05 PM

Very vaxed and boosted, certainly.

Posted by: RedMindBlueState at April 01, 2026 01:06 PM (bFu5X)

241 Posted by: Hopeful at April 01, 2026 01:04 PM (eeCgU)

Luckily, not everybody in Tennessee is as stupid as you.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at April 01, 2026 01:06 PM (n9ltV)

242 Luckily, not everybody in Tennessee is as stupid as you.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at April 01, 2026 01:06 PM (n9ltV)

Nope! They still have the drinker's side of every vehicle.

Posted by: Sponge - F*ck Cancer at April 01, 2026 01:07 PM (Zz0t1)

243 237 The politics that will flow from this case will be interesting. Roe v Wade set the political discourse for 50 years. Will this follow?

Posted by: SH (no more socks) at April 01, 2026 01:06 PM (sX1BW)

If this does I don't plan to be around that long to see it.

Posted by: jim (in Kalifornia) at April 01, 2026 01:07 PM (ynpvh)

244 Do we haz a troll?

Posted by: Lady in Black at April 01, 2026 01:07 PM (qBdHI)

245 >>Every elderly American citizen is a burden on the treasury.

That reminds me to call the marina and have them fuel up my boat on the 12th, the day my next SS payment arrives in my bank account.

Posted by: Grace at April 01, 2026 01:07 PM (Y1sOo)

246
Did ya'll see that CAIR demands Elissa Slotkin apologize for appearing on Maher's show?

They are here and are taking over.

Posted by: fourseasons at April 01, 2026 01:07 PM (3ek7K)

247 Listened to the Oral Argument (whole thing) though I didn't read the Briefs. I think we are correct on the Law insofar as the existing understanding of the 14th Amendment requires "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to be read as superfluous or so narrowly that the framers would have just put "diplomats" and been done with it. We should also prevail on the grounds that the extant interpretation yields an obscenely absurd result of the nation's immigration being entirely at the whims of foreigners who either break our laws regarding territorial sovereignty or commit a species of fraud with birth tourism without reasonable control. However my Spidey sense is that this is that this goes bad in a 6-3 or 7-2 against the administration. Alito/Thomas and maybe the Bethesda Strangler for the administration. I just don't think that Roberts will want the Court stripping citizenship from millions of people (who shouldn't have it) for the Court's "legitimacy" (as Article III crumbles around him by way of lunatic District Court injunctions).

Posted by: Alec Leamas at April 01, 2026 01:07 PM (ssz2a)

248 Uh, think you are in the wrong place - this isn't DU.
Posted by: CTHillary, dead but dreaming at April 01, 2026 01:06 PM

More like Stormfront, but, yeah. F*ck off, troll.

Posted by: RedMindBlueState at April 01, 2026 01:07 PM (bFu5X)

249 If we get a favorable ruling from the SC, would we be able to expel all the Jews?
====

Inshallah, amirite?

Posted by: San Franpsycho at April 01, 2026 01:07 PM (RIvkX)

250 Posted by: Hopeful at April 01, 2026 01:04 PM (eeCgU)

You DICK!!!!

Posted by: Jeff Spicoli at April 01, 2026 01:07 PM (Zz0t1)

251 Blueskyers abandoned twitter to avoid the toxicity, only to discover that they *were* the toxicity.

-
Karens gotta Karen.

Posted by: Anonosaurus Wrecks, Damn It Feels Good to Be a Trumpster! at April 01, 2026 01:08 PM (ndZc7)

252 Learn about compounding growth, and then get back to me.

Every penny anyone's paid into it has been spent at least 7 times by Congress, so there is nothing to compound. "There is no lock box" was a known fact 40 years ago.

Posted by: Ian S. at April 01, 2026 01:08 PM (2ocoG)

253 I just don't think that Roberts will want the Court stripping citizenship from millions of people (who shouldn't have it) for the Court's "legitimacy" (as Article III crumbles around him by way of lunatic District Court injunctions).

they can rule that they won't do that, that the new understanding starts after the ruling.

I think that makes the most sense. avoids craziness and yet is the correct ruling.

Posted by: BlackOrchid(j+aD2) at April 01, 2026 01:08 PM (j+aD2)

254 I saw Rodan fight Godzilla...

Posted by: jim (in Kalifornia) at April 01, 2026 01:05 PM (ynpvh)
---
off the shoulder of Orion?

Posted by: Axeman at April 01, 2026 01:08 PM (Q4cxx)

255 Dammit

Posted by: one hour sober at April 01, 2026 01:09 PM (Y1sOo)

256 Also I will never not be infuriated by the sheer gall of the people who found a right to Gay Marriage in the 14th Amendment strictly parsing the text "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" like Hasidic Rabbis.

Posted by: Alec Leamas at April 01, 2026 01:09 PM (ssz2a)

257 "But if you take the strict meaning of the 14th, I don't see them reversing all the prior reasoning and saying, "but here, let's allow the broadest, most expansive meaning of the statute."

And an outcome of anchor babies, is the Chinese tourist baby industry, which brings their new American Baby back to China to be subjects of the CCP, from which they can emerge 18 years later as voting Americans (and still probably not subject to American law). This is just surrender of our country to foreign powers.

I hear a lot of middle class Mexicans have been doing the same thing for decades ... have the baby here for the future benefits, but move back home to Mexico (under whose laws they were always subject).

Posted by: illiniwek at April 01, 2026 01:09 PM (vbXSk)

258 And the only way to solve it - barring a miracle - is to shrink government spending. And that means the Big three: Medicare/Medicaid, SS, military.
Posted by: Diabeetus at April 01, 2026 01:02 PM (fq8Zx)

What the fuck is wrong with you? The government set up SS, so those who worked for 55+ years suddenly deserve nothing? Poor American Citizens don't deserve medical care? Veterans don't deserve, what, fucking anything?

What the fuck is wrong with you?

Posted by: SSBN 656 (G) at April 01, 2026 01:09 PM (dmDsy)

259 Every elderly American citizen is a burden on the treasury.

Medicare and Social Security ain't free and regardless of what those uncs have told you, they have not paid into the system enough to fund it.
Posted by: Diabeetus at April 01, 2026 12:57 PM (fq8Zx)

***raises paw***

I would argue that if every senior had been allowed to invest their 6 1/2% contribution into the system, ALONG WITH THE 6 1/2% REQUIRED TO BE CONTRIBUTED BY THEIR EMPLOYER, rather than allowing Congress to take it from them under force of law and telling us to "trust them" to keep it safe, EVERY senior citizen would have enough saved up to cover those costs.

It chaps my hide when people act like people who have been paying into the system their entire working lives are somehow not allowed to reap the benefit of their contributions.

Posted by: Teresa in Fort Worth, AoSHQ's Plucky Wee One - Eat the Cheesecake, Buy the Yarn. at April 01, 2026 01:09 PM (SRRAx)

260 Did ya'll see that CAIR demands Elissa Slotkin apologize for appearing on Maher's show?

They are here and are taking over.

Posted by: fourseasons

TDS Elissa?!!!

Posted by: Anonosaurus Wrecks, Damn It Feels Good to Be a Trumpster! at April 01, 2026 01:09 PM (ndZc7)

261 "...the Court's legitimacy..."

====

*points and laughs*

Posted by: San Franpsycho at April 01, 2026 01:09 PM (RIvkX)

262 And the only way to solve it - barring a miracle - is to shrink government spending. And that means the Big three: Medicare/Medicaid, SS, military.
Posted by: Diabeetus at April 01, 2026 01:02 PM (fq8Zx)

It’s laughable you consider the military to be one of the “big three”. Now I agree…we should spend money there more efficiently. I cannot understand why logistical chains cannot be more unified. That would save tons of money and time. But it’s laughable to consider that one of our bigger expenses. (But it should be the biggest. Government isn’t here to give you a doctor or a pension. It exists to kill people.)

Posted by: Cow Demon at April 01, 2026 01:09 PM (z/ZK2)

263 bald-faced

Posted by: Don Black at April 01, 2026 01:10 PM (ZxPkt)

264 The best reply was the one by the tranny claiming that their parents had already killed them. Either that's profound mental illness or the best troll ever.
Posted by: Ian S.

They probably called zer by his dead name.

Posted by: rickb223 at April 01, 2026 01:10 PM (sUjod)

265 things are going to change I can feel it

within the next decade the very concept of birth tourism will be fully anathema

the fact that we are thinking about this at all is incredible progress

Posted by: BlackOrchid(j+aD2) at April 01, 2026 01:10 PM (j+aD2)

266 Also I will never not be infuriated by the sheer gall of the people who found a right to Gay Marriage in the 14th Amendment strictly parsing the text "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" like Hasidic Rabbis.

Hasidic Rabbis have *nothing* on lawyer Democrats.

Posted by: Ian S. at April 01, 2026 01:10 PM (2ocoG)

267 252 Learn about compounding growth, and then get back to me.

Every penny anyone's paid into it has been spent at least 7 times by Congress, so there is nothing to compound. "There is no lock box" was a known fact 40 years ago.

Posted by: Ian S. at April 01, 2026 01:08 PM (2ocoG)

Debt also compounds...

Posted by: jim (in Kalifornia) at April 01, 2026 01:10 PM (ynpvh)

268 Uh, think you are in the wrong place - this isn't DU.
Posted by: CTHillary, dead but dreaming at April 01, 2026 01:06 PM

More like Stormfront, but, yeah. F*ck off, troll.

There's a difference?

Posted by: Blanco Basura - Z28.310 at April 01, 2026 01:10 PM (+9wcF)

269 The concept of birthright citizenship is one of the most batshit insane bits of legal fuckery that has ever been shit out of our judicial branch in history and everyone that advocates for it is a retard.

Posted by: ballistic at April 01, 2026 01:10 PM (oqH4h)

270 Inshallah, amirite?

Posted by: San Franpsycho at April 01, 2026 01:07 PM (RIvkX)

Probably not. Posting from near Nashville, so my guess it is some retard who got beaten up by a Jewish kid in 6th grade.

But mostly...retard.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at April 01, 2026 01:11 PM (n9ltV)

271 Does anyone understand that SS is a transfer payment?

Posted by: Cow Demon at April 01, 2026 01:11 PM (z/ZK2)

272 So has Jumanji Brown Jackson humiliated herself yet ?

-
You mean today?

Posted by: Anonosaurus Wrecks, Damn It Feels Good to Be a Trumpster! at April 01, 2026 01:12 PM (ndZc7)

273
Probably not. Posting from near Nashville, so my guess it is some retard who got beaten up by a Jewish kid in 6th grade.

But mostly...retard.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at April 01, 2026 01:11 PM (n9ltV)

Remember, a bunch of hollywood agents moved to Nashville and destroyed the country music industry, so he's likely a transplant racist from California.

Posted by: Jeff Spicoli at April 01, 2026 01:12 PM (Zz0t1)

274 And the only way to solve it - barring a miracle - is to shrink government spending. And that means the Big three: Medicare/Medicaid, SS, military.

I believe Hegseth said recently that the military is something like 10 or 15% of the total budget. This ain't the 1970s anymore when the Pentagon was the biggest of businesses.

Posted by: Ian S. at April 01, 2026 01:12 PM (2ocoG)

275 Wow.....damn back pain.

Posted by: Sponge - F*ck Cancer at April 01, 2026 01:12 PM (Zz0t1)

276 265 things are going to change I can feel it

within the next decade the very concept of birth tourism will be fully anathema

the fact that we are thinking about this at all is incredible progress
Posted by: BlackOrchid(j+aD2) at April 01, 2026 01:10 PM (j+aD2)

I like it!

Posted by: Denny Crane - Come See My On The Balcony To Discuss Your Newsletter. at April 01, 2026 01:12 PM (dmDsy)

277 and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" like Hasidic Rabbis.
Posted by: Alec Leamas

Another "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"?
Try to force a wetback to sign up for selective service.

Posted by: rickb223 at April 01, 2026 01:12 PM (sUjod)

278 ]63 please stop saying 'methinks'

pet peeve, ymmv
Posted by: Don Black at April 01, 2026 12:49 PM (ZxPkt)

What, you have a peeve with The Bard? I'll have you know, I only quote from the best!

***adjusts sash, straightens tiara, stomps off in a huff***

Methinks yon Don Black, also yclept Frauncis, hath need to alighten his heart.

Posted by: Archimedes at April 01, 2026 01:13 PM (Riz8t)

279 What if Trump glares at one of the Justices? Or even, gulp, the Chief Justice?

Looks like we might be in for a constitutional crisis!!!

Posted by: No Name Today at April 01, 2026 01:13 PM (8mulE)

280 263 bald-faced
Posted by: Don Black

I'm not a smart man.

Posted by: Maj. Healey at April 01, 2026 01:13 PM (abIsI)

281 Uh, think you are in the wrong place - this isn't DU.
Posted by: CTHillary, dead but dreaming at April 01, 2026 01:06 PM

More like Stormfront, but, yeah. F*ck off, troll.

There's a difference?
Posted by: Blanco Basura - Z28.310 at April 01, 2026 01:10 PM

Umm...these days? Your point is valid.

Posted by: RedMindBlueState at April 01, 2026 01:13 PM (bFu5X)

282 256 Also I will never not be infuriated by the sheer gall of the people who found a right to Gay Marriage in the 14th Amendment strictly parsing the text "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" like Hasidic Rabbis.
Posted by: Alec Leamas at April 01, 2026 01:09 PM (ssz2a)
------
They've been doing that with "...shall not be infringed" for nearly 100 years.

Posted by: ballistic at April 01, 2026 01:13 PM (oqH4h)

283 The whole point of the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" line was to make it clear that this did not apply to foreigners, who are subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign sovereign.
---
The plaintiffs are trying to say that only was meant to exclude ambassadors and diplomats.
===

As noted above, SCROTUS will decide if the entire fricken world is subject to US jurisdiction.

If YES then start drafting the whole of central / south America and send their asses tonwar.

Posted by: Operator Error at April 01, 2026 01:13 PM (Hh5dq)

284 Every penny anyone's paid into it has been spent at least 7 times by Congress, so there is nothing to compound.

Posted by: Ian S. at April 01, 2026 01:08 PM (2ocoG)

That's not the point. The government took money that could have been invested into retirement accounts, and everyone would have been better off...by a lot.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at April 01, 2026 01:13 PM (n9ltV)

285 F*ck me to my face.

Posted by: Sponge - F*ck Cancer at April 01, 2026 01:13 PM (Zz0t1)

286
Could they rule against Trump?* Yeah.
But if you take the strict meaning of the 14th, I don't see them reversing all the prior reasoning and saying, "but here, let's allow the broadest, most expansive meaning of the statute."

*look at the tariff opinion. The left wanted a broad rule of all tariffs and no power to declare emergency. But the opinion was, "in this narrow circumstance, under this statute only. And oh yeah, we're not going to deal with the consequences of this ruling (refunds)."
Posted by: People's Hippo Voice
======
Roberts likes kicking the can down the road. And has done so repeatedly, like his Obamacare decision and the abortion decisions, it kicked the can to Congress and the states respectively to deal with.

In this case, Roberts and ACB can kick the can to Congress to let them deal with it. That removes the political 'taint' in their minds to what they are doing.

Posted by: whig at April 01, 2026 01:13 PM (E4rtv)

287 282 256 Also I will never not be infuriated by the sheer gall of the people who found a right to Gay Marriage in the 14th Amendment strictly parsing the text "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" like Hasidic Rabbis.
Posted by: Alec Leamas at April 01, 2026 01:09 PM (ssz2a)
------
They've been doing that with "...shall not be infringed" for nearly 100 years.

Posted by: ballistic at April 01, 2026 01:13 PM (oqH4h)

All rights are equal, but some are more equal than others...

Posted by: jim (in Kalifornia) at April 01, 2026 01:14 PM (ynpvh)

288 >>Try to force a wetback to sign up for selective service.

If this is the test, Women can't be citizens and should justifiably lose the right to vote.

No argument from this quarter.

Posted by: garrett at April 01, 2026 01:14 PM (0CqYd)

289 please stop saying 'methinks'
---
So what is the plural of methink?!

Posted by: Axeman at April 01, 2026 01:14 PM (Q4cxx)

290 If the Court just says birthright citizenship just means you need to be born here, then the administration would be within its right to shut down all forms of immigration and visits as being a security threat. The admin would be within its right to ultrasound all foreign visitors to see if pregnant and not allow in if they are.

Posted by: SH (no more socks) at April 01, 2026 01:14 PM (sX1BW)

291 I think that crack to the head he took shortly after being confirmed did more to Roberts than anyone realized.

Posted by: Sponge - F*ck Cancer at April 01, 2026 01:14 PM (Zz0t1)

292 284 Every penny anyone's paid into it has been spent at least 7 times by Congress, so there is nothing to compound.

Posted by: Ian S. at April 01, 2026 01:08 PM (2ocoG)

That's not the point. The government took money that could have been invested into retirement accounts, and everyone would have been better off...by a lot.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at April 01, 2026 01:13 PM (n9ltV)

It does that with other taxes too. Hardly an argument for continuing the destructive cycle.

Posted by: Red Turban Someguy at April 01, 2026 01:14 PM (okun6)

293 Every elderly American citizen is a burden on the treasury.

Medicare and Social Security ain't free and regardless of what those uncs have told you, they have not paid into the system enough to fund it.
Posted by: Diabeetus at April 01, 2026 12:57 PM (fq8Zx)

I agree with you! It’s why I said the elderly have a duty to die!

Posted by: Gov Richard Lamm at April 01, 2026 01:15 PM (z/ZK2)

294 Every penny anyone's paid into it has been spent at least 7 times by Congress, so there is nothing to compound.

Posted by: Ian S. at April 01, 2026 01:08 PM (2ocoG)

That's not the point. The government took money that could have been invested into retirement accounts, and everyone would have been better off...by a lot.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo

Took it under threat of gun and I didn't get a vote on it.

Posted by: rickb223 at April 01, 2026 01:15 PM (sUjod)

295 At some point Mrs. F. is going to ask me to slice the brisket and I will turn to her and say

Posted by: San Franpsycho at April 01, 2026 01:15 PM (RIvkX)

296 Remember the shitstorm when GWB suggested SS be privatized and people allowed to invest in their own retirement futures?

Good times......

Posted by: Sponge - F*ck Cancer at April 01, 2026 01:16 PM (Zz0t1)

297 The government took money that could have been invested into retirement accounts, and everyone would have been better off...by a lot.

There's a simple way to determine if SS is a good deal. Does the government allow you to opt out or invest your money in a personal account which your kids could inherit? No? Then it's not.

Posted by: Archimedes at April 01, 2026 01:16 PM (Riz8t)

298 please stop saying 'methinks'
---
So what is the plural of methink?!
Posted by: Axeman

Wethinks.

Posted by: rickb223 at April 01, 2026 01:16 PM (sUjod)

299 In this case, Roberts and ACB can kick the can to Congress to let them deal with it. That removes the political 'taint' in their minds to what they are doing.

---------------

They could and they may, and that may be the best we could hope for.

Posted by: SH (no more socks) at April 01, 2026 01:16 PM (sX1BW)

300 At some point Mrs. F. is going to ask me to slice the brisket and I will turn to her and say
Posted by: San Franpsycho at April 01, 2026 01:15 PM (RIvkX)

......but you will blow me first.

Posted by: Mel Gibson at April 01, 2026 01:16 PM (Zz0t1)

301 I hear a lot of middle class Mexicans have been doing the same thing for decades ... have the baby here for the future benefits, but move back home to Mexico (under whose laws they were always subject).
Posted by: illiniwek at April 01, 2026 01:09 PM (vbXSk)

While I was stationed at Ft. Bliss, TX, I remember hearing that there was an express lane at the El Paso border checkpoint for students to attend school.

Let that one sink in a moment.

Posted by: tankdemon at April 01, 2026 01:16 PM (6XIEG)

302 please stop saying 'methinks'
---
So what is the plural of methink?!
Posted by: Axeman

Wethinks.

In San Francisco, it's xethinks.

Posted by: Archimedes at April 01, 2026 01:17 PM (Riz8t)

303 wasn't Plyler about providing education benefits for itinerant farm worker's children from Mexico?

Texas didn't want to go along with Carter's demand to accommodate all children into local schools.

Next thing you know itinerant workers have citizen rights in 1986.

Posted by: DanMan at April 01, 2026 01:17 PM (8uzBS)

304 It does that with other taxes too. Hardly an argument for continuing the destructive cycle.

Posted by: Red Turban Someguy at April 01, 2026 01:14 PM (okun6)

Huh? It is an argument against SS. Where do you get that it is in support of it?

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at April 01, 2026 01:18 PM (n9ltV)

305 That's not the point. The government took money that could have been invested into retirement accounts, and everyone would have been better off...by a lot.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo
========
Sunk cost. The question is how to move forward and companies destroying pension plans means that for voters, the alternative is a rickety Social Security system or defined contribution 401k plans.

We have seen what happens in a natural experiment. How many people fully fund their 401k plans voluntarily? For most, it is always the devil of spending money today versus saving it for tomorrow. Make the future really uncertain, people will rationally spend today to avoid uncertainty.

And inevitably, those private piggybanks are just like Social Security, looked at by politicians as a way to grab it and spend it for their reelection, power, and wealth.

Posted by: whig at April 01, 2026 01:18 PM (E4rtv)

306 please stop saying 'methinks'

Please stop saying "A bite to eat." WTF does that actually mean.

Posted by: Maj. Healey at April 01, 2026 01:18 PM (abIsI)

307 >>In San Francisco, it's xethinks.

Hethinks

Shefeelz

Posted by: garrett at April 01, 2026 01:18 PM (0CqYd)

308 This ruling should help bring forward the dual citizenship question and why that is bad.

Posted by: SH (no more socks) at April 01, 2026 01:18 PM (sX1BW)

309 95 Trump Becomes First Sitting President to Attend Supreme Court Oral Arguments

I believe that Obama showed up for the Obamacare oral argument.
Posted by: The ARC of History! at April 01, 2026 12:37 PM (n1OCj)

No, he GAVE oral during the Obamacare argument, to Justice Roberts I believe. Still a first, but not the one you think.

Posted by: Nelly at April 01, 2026 01:18 PM (7gpcF)

310 ......but you will blow me first.
Posted by: Mel Gibson at April 01, 2026 01:16 PM (Zz0t1)
=====

Newsletter, please.

Posted by: San Franpsycho at April 01, 2026 01:18 PM (RIvkX)

311 Roberts likes kicking the can down the road. And has done so repeatedly, like his Obamacare decision and the abortion decisions, it kicked the can to Congress and the states respectively to deal with.

In this case, Roberts and ACB can kick the can to Congress to let them deal with it. That removes the political 'taint' in their minds to what they are doing.
Posted by: whig at April 01, 2026 01:13 PM (E4rtv)

Which is what I have thought they will do since this case started. They won't rule based on the merits; they'll rule that the President has not the authority to make this change on his own through an EO.

Posted by: Tom Servo at April 01, 2026 01:18 PM (/QdgR)

312

They didnt like that due to the rackets they created, see Minnesota and California.

That's why they were mad, trilions at stake.

It's all fucking fake.

Posted by: Rev Dr E Buzz PhD Esq at April 01, 2026 01:18 PM (et1vG)

313 251 Blueskyers abandoned twitter to avoid the toxicity, only to discover that they *were* the toxicity.
-
Karens gotta Karen.
Posted by: Anonosaurus Wrecks

You can basically see them debating in person if you YouTube the recent Canadian NDP meeting.

Posted by: Moron Analyst at April 01, 2026 01:18 PM (JCZqz)

314 The government took money that could have been invested into retirement accounts, and everyone would have been better off...by a lot.

Ok, good. I'm glad you weren't trying to make the "FDR was the Second Coming and all the money I paid in is in a lockbox waiting for me" slop that a lot of folks over 59 still believe. (Those of us merely over 29 all have private retirement accounts, I hope).

Posted by: Ian S. at April 01, 2026 01:19 PM (2ocoG)

315 At some point Mrs. F. is going to ask me to slice the brisket and I will turn to her and say
Posted by: San Franpsycho at April 01, 2026 01:15 PM

"...is that what the kids are calling it these days?"

Posted by: RedMindBlueState at April 01, 2026 01:19 PM (bFu5X)

316 There's a simple way to determine if SS is a good deal. Does the government allow you to opt out or invest your money in a personal account which your kids could inherit? No? Then it's not.
Posted by: Archimedes at April 01, 2026 01:16 PM (Riz8t)

That's a change that can, and should be made...tomorrow.

For now, we have an obligation to the generations that have been "forced" to pay into Social Security.

Posted by: Denny Crane - Hey, I Have Enough For Myself, But I'm Thinking Of My Mother! at April 01, 2026 01:19 PM (dmDsy)

317
Methinks say what you want.

We have way bigger problems in our country.

Posted by: fourseasons at April 01, 2026 01:19 PM (3ek7K)

318 >>We have seen what happens in a natural experiment. How many people fully fund their 401k plans voluntarily?

401Ks are every bit as Coercive as Taxation.

There is no reason your Investments should be slaved to the Market.

Posted by: garrett at April 01, 2026 01:19 PM (0CqYd)

319 The timing of de-throning Cesar Chavez was right on time - now, the Solicitor General can't quote what he said about illegal aliens.

Posted by: CTHillary, dead but dreaming at April 01, 2026 01:19 PM (Vpqw1)

320 Not in abstention, mind you...but under our Tax Code.

Posted by: garrett at April 01, 2026 01:20 PM (0CqYd)

321 No, he GAVE oral during the Obamacare argument, to Justice Roberts I believe. Still a first, but not the one you think.
Posted by: Nelly at April 01, 2026 01:18 PM (7gpcF)

*two thumbs up*

Posted by: Denny Crane - Hey, Have a Drink On Me! at April 01, 2026 01:21 PM (dmDsy)

322 Supreme court oral arguments against birthright citizenship were given by Solicitor General John Sauer, whose speaking voice sounds like Wally Cox.

Who thought it would be a good idea to have Wally Cox argue against birthright citizenship?

Posted by: Joemarine at April 01, 2026 01:21 PM (y171U)

323 Which is what I have thought they will do since this case started. They won't rule based on the merits; they'll rule that the President has not the authority to make this change on his own through an EO.
Posted by: Tom Servo

That might not be sufficient, and the other justices (on both sides) might push back. I think they'll have to at least give some indication of what the constitutional/14th amendment floor is: who, at a minimum, is guaranteed birthright citizenship, with congress allowed to expand.

Posted by: Moron Analyst at April 01, 2026 01:21 PM (JCZqz)

324 That's a change that can, and should be made...tomorrow.

For now, we have an obligation to the generations that have been "forced" to pay into Social Security.

No argument. Had W been able to open personal accounts when he proposed them, I'd be far, far better off today, AND I could leave that money to my grandkids.

Posted by: Archimedes at April 01, 2026 01:21 PM (Riz8t)

325 When I opted to take SS, I determined that I have to draw 22 years to break even on what I paid in. I've been drawing for 5. It might be a bit less since they keep bumping the payments but I guess that is canceled out by interest and inflation.

Posted by: toby928(c) at April 01, 2026 01:22 PM (4NO2D)

326 401Ks are every bit as Coercive as Taxation.

Posted by: garrett at April 01, 2026 01:19 PM (0CqYd)
-----
My employer won't send armed men to my house to force me to fully fund my 401(k) plan, so no, they aren't.

Posted by: ballistic at April 01, 2026 01:22 PM (oqH4h)

327 316 There's a simple way to determine if SS is a good deal. Does the government allow you to opt out or invest your money in a personal account which your kids could inherit? No? Then it's not.
Posted by: Archimedes at April 01, 2026 01:16 PM (Riz8t)

That's a change that can, and should be made...tomorrow.

For now, we have an obligation to the generations that have been "forced" to pay into Social Security.

Posted by: Denny Crane - Hey, I Have Enough For Myself, But I'm Thinking Of My Mother! at April 01, 2026 01:19 PM (dmDsy)

SS has always been a Ponzi scheme, only legal because the Gov't runs it and doesn't allow competition.

Posted by: jim (in Kalifornia) at April 01, 2026 01:22 PM (ynpvh)

328 401Ks are every bit as Coercive as Taxation.

There is no reason your Investments should be slaved to the Market.

Posted by: garrett at April 01, 2026 01:19 PM (0CqYd)

We aren't forced to contribute to 401(k) plans. We are forced to contribute to SS.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at April 01, 2026 01:22 PM (n9ltV)

329 >>My employer won't send armed men to my house to force me to fully fund my 401(k) plan, so no, they aren't.

The Feds will send Armed Men to your Employer if they fail to send in your Contribution.

Posted by: garrett at April 01, 2026 01:22 PM (0CqYd)

330 "please stop saying 'methinks'"

Methinketh is more technically precise.

Posted by: CTHillary, dead but dreaming at April 01, 2026 01:23 PM (Vpqw1)

331 326 401Ks are every bit as Coercive as Taxation.

Posted by: garrett at April 01, 2026 01:19 PM (0CqYd)
-----
My employer won't send armed men to my house to force me to fully fund my 401(k) plan, so no, they aren't.

Posted by: ballistic at April 01, 2026 01:22 PM (oqH4h)

And you don't have to contribute to them unless you want to...

Posted by: jim (in Kalifornia) at April 01, 2026 01:23 PM (ynpvh)

332 No, he GAVE oral during the Obamacare argument, to Justice Roberts I believe. Still a first, but not the one you think.

I thought the allegation from that one dude who claims to have tasted Obama's rainbow is that he really gets off on having white-haired white men blow him. And given Roberts I would completely believe *that* version of events at SCOTUS.

Posted by: Ian S. at April 01, 2026 01:23 PM (2ocoG)

333
Learn about compounding growth, and then get back to me.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at April 01, 2026 01:05 PM (n9ltV)
-------------

Only thing compounding is our debt. 32 trillion. Let me know when you can wrap your head around that figure. I cannot.

Posted by: Diabeetus at April 01, 2026 01:23 PM (fq8Zx)

334 "please stop saying 'methinks'"

Methinketh is more technically precise.
Posted by: CTHillary, dead but dreaming at April 01, 2026 01:23 PM

Verily.

Posted by: toby928(c) at April 01, 2026 01:23 PM (4NO2D)

335 Meanwhile, in El Lay . . .

New York Post
@nypost
Copper crooks gut internet, kill street lights in Van Nuys heist

-
Big Mouf Bass leaps into action!

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass believes solar-powered streetlights will make it harder for thieves to swoop in and plunge neighborhoods into the dark.

-
Yeah, let 'em steal sunshine!

Posted by: Anonosaurus Wrecks, Damn It Feels Good to Be a Trumpster! at April 01, 2026 01:23 PM (ndZc7)

336 308 This ruling should help bring forward the dual citizenship question and why that is bad.
Posted by: SH (no more socks) at April 01, 2026 01:18 PM (sX1BW)

***stares incredulously***
***laughs uproariously***
***wanders off, sadly shaking head***

Posted by: Teresa in Fort Worth, AoSHQ's Plucky Wee One - Eat the Cheesecake, Buy the Yarn. at April 01, 2026 01:23 PM (SRRAx)

337 The Feds will send Armed Men to your Employer if they fail to send in your Contribution.
Posted by: garrett at April 01, 2026 01:22 PM (0CqYd)
-----
Corporations aren't forced to offer them, either.

Posted by: ballistic at April 01, 2026 01:23 PM (oqH4h)

338 There is no reason your Investments should be slaved to the Market.
Posted by: garrett at April 01, 2026 01:19 PM (0CqYd)

Um…

Everything is.

Unless you want communism.

Posted by: Cow Demon at April 01, 2026 01:23 PM (z/ZK2)

339 >>We aren't forced to contribute to 401(k) plans. We are forced to contribute to SS.

You are forced to use a 401K rather than any other vehicle of Investment, should you choose.

It's a bullshit carveout to force participation in a specific market.

Posted by: garrett at April 01, 2026 01:23 PM (0CqYd)

340 330 "please stop saying 'methinks'"

Methinketh is more technically precise.

Posted by: CTHillary, dead but dreaming at April 01, 2026 01:23 PM (Vpqw1)

Hmm. Me Think this too much.

Posted by: So Easy a Caveman Can Do it at April 01, 2026 01:23 PM (ynpvh)

341 401Ks are every bit as Coercive as Taxation.

There is no reason your Investments should be slaved to the Market.
Posted by: garrett at April 01, 2026 01:19 PM (0CqYd)

Well..... you can pick your investment options, bonds for instance? Other security types not tied to the market? At the very least, you have some options with a 401K.

Posted by: SSBN 656 (G) at April 01, 2026 01:24 PM (dmDsy)

342 There is a better chance of Sydney Sweeny showing up nekkid at my front door than ACB or Roberts getting rid of birthright citizenship.

Posted by: Heroq at April 01, 2026 01:24 PM (IlFr/)

343 They could and they may, and that may be the best we could hope for.
Posted by: SH (no more socks)
=======
Ironically, Scotus has been pretty solid in immigration cases (obscured by lower courts Resist crap) and has continually ruled in favor of congressional laws that restrict even the court's abilities to interfere.

Immigration and naturalization is a direct enumerated power in Article I, Section 8 for Congress. "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization".

And kicking the can to Congress of the mess is appealing to Justices like ACB, Roberts, or perhaps even Kavanaugh or Gorsuch. It has A) strong legal precedents buttressing the idea that Congress make immigration law, B) historically accurate, C) politically removes Scotus from the inevitable wailing and retaliation by the left.

Posted by: whig at April 01, 2026 01:25 PM (E4rtv)

344 The Feds will send Armed Men to your Employer if they fail to send in your Contribution.
Posted by: garrett at April 01, 2026 01:22 PM (0CqYd)

To a 401(k)?

Posted by: Cow Demon at April 01, 2026 01:25 PM (z/ZK2)

345 338 There is no reason your Investments should be slaved to the Market.
Posted by: garrett at April 01, 2026 01:19 PM (0CqYd)

Um…

Everything is.

Unless you want communism.

Posted by: Cow Demon at April 01, 2026 01:23 PM (z/ZK2)

Just depends on WHICH market. Stocks? Bonds? Real Estate? Comic Books? Pokemon Cards? Tulip Bulbs?

Posted by: jim (in Kalifornia) at April 01, 2026 01:25 PM (ynpvh)

346 329 >>My employer won't send armed men to my house to force me to fully fund my 401(k) plan, so no, they aren't.

The Feds will send Armed Men to your Employer if they fail to send in your Contribution.

Posted by: garrett at April 01, 2026 01:22 PM (0CqYd)

Employers don't have to do a match. IRAs are an option if employers don't offer some sort of 401k.

Posted by: Red Turban Someguy at April 01, 2026 01:25 PM (okun6)

347 344 The Feds will send Armed Men to your Employer if they fail to send in your Contribution.
Posted by: garrett at April 01, 2026 01:22 PM (0CqYd)

To a 401(k)?

Posted by: Cow Demon at April 01, 2026 01:25 PM (z/ZK2)

If the Gov't takes them over, then yes...

Posted by: jim (in Kalifornia) at April 01, 2026 01:25 PM (ynpvh)

348 Yeah, let 'em steal sunshine!
Posted by: Anonosaurus Wrecks, Damn It Feels Good to Be a Trumpster! at April 01, 2026 01:23 PM (ndZc7)

You asked for it.

youtube.com/watch?v=E1fzJ_AYajA

Posted by: Catchy at April 01, 2026 01:25 PM (TbWk/)

349 You can basically see them debating in person if you YouTube the recent Canadian NDP meeting.
Posted by: Moron Analyst

Best SNL skit ever!

Posted by: Anonosaurus Wrecks, Damn It Feels Good to Be a Trumpster! at April 01, 2026 01:25 PM (ndZc7)

350 >>And you don't have to contribute to them unless you want to...

What does the 401k carve out do to the employment market? It certainly has a measurable outcome.

It's coercion, the whole way down. The fact that it is not direct coercion from the Gov't to the Individual does not mean it is not coercive.

Posted by: garrett at April 01, 2026 01:26 PM (0CqYd)

351 And kicking the can to Congress of the mess is appealing to Justices like ACB, Roberts, or perhaps even Kavanaugh or Gorsuch. It has A) strong legal precedents buttressing the idea that Congress make immigration law, B) historically accurate, C) politically removes Scotus from the inevitable wailing and retaliation by the left.
Posted by: whig

And then Congress simply ignores their duty.

Posted by: rickb223 at April 01, 2026 01:26 PM (sUjod)

352 You are forced to use a 401K rather than any other vehicle of Investment, should you choose.

It's a bullshit carveout to force participation in a specific market.

Posted by: garrett at April 01, 2026 01:23 PM (0CqYd)

Where does this happen?

You can refuse to participate in one and invest however you please. You can buy baseball cards instead and no one can stop you.

Posted by: Cow Demon at April 01, 2026 01:26 PM (z/ZK2)

353 I can't believe this is real:

Eric Daugherty
@EricLDaugh
·
55m
🚨 JUST IN: SCOTUS Justice Ketanji Jackson argues for illegal aliens having birthright citizenship by saying if she steals somebody's wallet in Japan, she has "allegiance" to that country

She has to freaking go. This is absurd. Actually.

"I was thinking, you know, I'm a U.S. citizen, am visiting Japan. And what it means is that, you know, if I steal someone's wallet in Japan, the Japanese authorities can arrest me and prosecute me. It's allegiance, meaning can they control you as a matter of law?"

"So there's this relationship based on—even though I'm a temporary traveler, I'm just on vacation in Japan, I'm still locally owing allegiance in that sense. Is that the right way to think about it?"

"And if so, doesn't that explain why both temporary residents and undocumented people would have that kind of, quote-unquote, allegiance, just by virtue of being in the United States?"

I guess it is April Fools 🤡🤡🤡

Posted by: beckster at April 01, 2026 01:26 PM (kX27y)

354 >>Just depends on WHICH market. Stocks? Bonds? Real Estate? Comic Books? Pokemon Cards? Tulip Bulbs?

This is my point.

You don't have the choice of investment vehicles.

Posted by: garrett at April 01, 2026 01:27 PM (0CqYd)

355 Significantly cutting benefits to current SS recipients will not happen before the Burning Time.

Posted by: toby928(c) at April 01, 2026 01:27 PM (4NO2D)

356 It's coercion, the whole way down. The fact that it is not direct coercion from the Gov't to the Individual does not mean it is not coercive.
Posted by: garrett at April 01, 2026 01:26 PM (0CqYd)

If you do not have to participate, how is it coercive?

Posted by: Cow Demon at April 01, 2026 01:27 PM (z/ZK2)

357 Not that any of this has to do with law debates, but it simply can't be the "where" of a birth and must be the "who" you were born of.

That doesn't seem to be an argument of either side that I could hear. But I don't read submissions to the court either, so maybe.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at April 01, 2026 01:27 PM (n5tGW)

358 >>You can refuse to participate in one and invest however you please. You can buy baseball cards instead and no one can stop you.

Can you get your employer to match your Baseball Card Invesment?

Posted by: garrett at April 01, 2026 01:27 PM (0CqYd)

359 339 >>We aren't forced to contribute to 401(k) plans. We are forced to contribute to SS.

You are forced to use a 401K rather than any other vehicle of Investment, should you choose.

It's a bullshit carveout to force participation in a specific market.

Posted by: garrett
========
My point is that you will still have a societal problem---most people, when given an option, choose not to invest for the future (think the average balance in 401k's is something like 50,000).

Grossly insufficient to retire or pay medical bills as the elderly. People arguing against the current compulsory Social Security and Medicare have a political problem that if the GOP does not fill the space, the Dems certainly will.

Posted by: whig at April 01, 2026 01:27 PM (E4rtv)

360 And kicking the can to Congress of the mess is appealing to Justices like ACB, Roberts, or perhaps even Kavanaugh or Gorsuch. It has A) strong legal precedents buttressing the idea that Congress make immigration law, B) historically accurate, C) politically removes Scotus from the inevitable wailing and retaliation by the left.

-----------------

The upside is in doing so, it actually strengthens what the admin can do vis a vis immigration.

The other upside is it puts a big political issue front and center on the table, one that likely favors Trump.

Posted by: SH (no more socks) at April 01, 2026 01:27 PM (sX1BW)

361 I expect the gynecological Justices to vote against him
Roberts too
I'm calling it 5-4 against the Preznit, maybe even 6-3
Posted by: Don Black
+++
I kinda think it's redundant to say Roberts too.
Pretty sure he's included in the gynecological judges.

Posted by: Florida Peasant at April 01, 2026 01:28 PM (Lo97M)

362 >>If you do not have to participate, how is it coercive?

You lose potential benefits if you do not participate.

Posted by: garrett at April 01, 2026 01:28 PM (0CqYd)

363 Technically due to Senate GOP assholes keeping the Senate in technical session, any member COULD make a quorum call if they have the floor and if Vance is there to sustain the motion, then as a privileged motion, he can actually send the Senate's Sergeant at Arms to 'arrest' any member and return them to the Senate Chamber.

Best done by someone retiring that does not give a shit about working with his or her 'colleagues' in the future as it would kick over an anthill.
Posted by: whig at April 01, 2026 12:56 PM (E4rtv)

Thanks! Not what I was hoping to hear, but it would be more than fair to ruin Thune's vacation as punishment for deceitful gaming of the system. "Should've let it go into recess, bruh."

Posted by: SciVo at April 01, 2026 01:28 PM (Sy6m/)

364
Trump walking in conjures the movie Godfather II where the guys brother is flown in from Italy and sits down in the audience, causing the witness to suddenly get amnesia.

I like Trumps style.

Posted by: Frank Barone at April 01, 2026 01:28 PM (IifOV)

365 This is my point.

You don't have the choice of investment vehicles.
Posted by: garrett at April 01, 2026 01:27 PM (0CqYd)

And it’s lame.

You can refuse to participate and invest where you damn well please. Your choice is not to invest in a 401(k) and go elsewhere. If you can’t understand that, sorry.

Posted by: Cow Demon at April 01, 2026 01:28 PM (z/ZK2)

366 You can refuse to participate in one and invest however you please. You can buy baseball cards instead and no one can stop you.

Form BCITs!

Baseball
Card
Investment
Trusts

Posted by: Nevermind, Blackrock will just buy them all at April 01, 2026 01:28 PM (TbWk/)

367 JUST IN: SCOTUS Justice Ketanji Jackson argues for illegal aliens having birthright citizenship by saying if she steals somebody's wallet in Japan, she has "allegiance" to that country

She has to freaking go. This is absurd. Actually

This broad is stupid. Actually, quantifiably, stupid.

Posted by: rickb223 at April 01, 2026 01:29 PM (sUjod)

368 In a twisted way, I got lucky on SSI benefits. When wifey died, I had two children under 18. They (really I) received her dependent benefits monthly for ten years. It was an absolute shit ton of $$$ over that time period. One more reason the fund has been bankrupt since the beginning.

Posted by: Wesley at April 01, 2026 01:29 PM (cYBz/)

369 NOODlum.

Posted by: Sponge - F*ck Cancer at April 01, 2026 01:29 PM (Zz0t1)

370 350 >>And you don't have to contribute to them unless you want to...

What does the 401k carve out do to the employment market? It certainly has a measurable outcome.

It's coercion, the whole way down. The fact that it is not direct coercion from the Gov't to the Individual does not mean it is not coercive.

Posted by: garrett at April 01, 2026 01:26 PM (0CqYd)

Our tax system is voluntary, but don't pay and the IRS will take you house, your car, and your little doggy too. This does not happen with 401Ks. You can say "NO", and they can't force you to make use of them. That said, it seems, to a great extent, foolish not to make use of a 401K with employer match...

Posted by: jim (in Kalifornia) at April 01, 2026 01:29 PM (ynpvh)

371 Off asshoe sock!!

Posted by: Tonypete at April 01, 2026 01:29 PM (cYBz/)

372 Feds will send Armed Men to your Employer if they fail to send in your Contribution.
Posted by: garrett at April 01, 2026 01:22 PM (0CqYd)

And they should. Because if you contribute to a 401k and your employer keeps the money that’s theft.

Posted by: Heroq at April 01, 2026 01:29 PM (IlFr/)

373 You lose potential benefits if you do not participate.
Posted by: garrett at April 01, 2026 01:28 PM (0CqYd)

This has never happened to me anywhere I have worked. Ever.

Posted by: Cow Demon at April 01, 2026 01:29 PM (z/ZK2)

374 SS has always been a Ponzi scheme, only legal because the Gov't runs it and doesn't allow competition.
Posted by: jim (in Kalifornia) at April 01, 2026 01:22 PM (ynpvh)

It did become one, yes, when some Administration decided to start using SS money to fund other government programs... but that fact does not allow for the government to renege on the promise they made when they took our money by force.

Posted by: SSBN 656 (G) at April 01, 2026 01:30 PM (dmDsy)

375 This is my point.

You don't have the choice of investment vehicles.
Posted by: garrett at April 01, 2026 01:27 PM (0CqYd)
------
I can decline to do anything with my 401(k) and invest all of my money in a local dildo manufacturer if I want. I don't understand the point you're trying to make here.

Posted by: ballistic at April 01, 2026 01:30 PM (oqH4h)

376 Big Mouf Bass leaps into action!

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass believes solar-powered streetlights will make it harder for thieves to swoop in and plunge neighborhoods into the dark.

"Luddites and anti-intellectuals do not master the differential equations of thermodynamics or the biochemical cures of illness. They stay in thatched huts and die young.” – Edward O. Wilson

Posted by: Teresa in Fort Worth, AoSHQ's Plucky Wee One - Eat the Cheesecake, Buy the Yarn. at April 01, 2026 01:30 PM (SRRAx)

377 Another "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"?
Try to force a wetback to sign up for selective service.
Posted by: rickb223

Instead of turning them around at the border or signing up for the draft itbis right straight into the Wetback Battalions. Every forth man gets a weapon. Charge@

Posted by: Operator Error at April 01, 2026 01:30 PM (Hh5dq)

378 367 JUST IN: SCOTUS Justice Ketanji Jackson argues for illegal aliens having birthright citizenship by saying if she steals somebody's wallet in Japan, she has "allegiance" to that country

She has to freaking go. This is absurd. Actually

This broad is stupid. Actually, quantifiably, stupid.

Posted by: rickb223 at April 01, 2026 01:29 PM (sUjod)

If Tim Walz steals tampons from a men's room, does that make him a citizen of the toilet?

Posted by: jim (in Kalifornia) at April 01, 2026 01:31 PM (ynpvh)

379 "She's got better days aside..."

Posted by: Boswell at April 01, 2026 01:31 PM (V7158)

380 My employer used to coerce me to go to his business by paying me to be there.

Posted by: toby928(c) at April 01, 2026 01:31 PM (4NO2D)

381 A 401k without an employer match is kinda dumb. You can invest the money yourself in an IRA and have a lot kore flexibility.

Also dumb is NOT using a 401k with an employer match. You’re giving up free money.

Posted by: Heroq at April 01, 2026 01:31 PM (IlFr/)

382 Ironically, Scotus has been pretty solid in immigration cases (obscured by lower courts Resist crap) and has continually ruled in favor of congressional laws that restrict even the court's abilities to interfere.

Immigration and naturalization is a direct enumerated power in Article I, Section 8 for Congress. "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization".

And kicking the can to Congress of the mess is appealing to Justices like ACB, Roberts, or perhaps even Kavanaugh or Gorsuch. It has A) strong legal precedents buttressing the idea that Congress make immigration law, B) historically accurate, C) politically removes Scotus from the inevitable wailing and retaliation by the left.
Posted by: whig at April 01, 2026 01:25 PM

But if the narrow question is what the language of the 14th amendment actually means wrt birthright citizenship, it would be difficult for the Court to say, with a straight face*, that Congress gets to decide that constitutional question and the Court doesn't. Which would they rather do...blow up birthright citizenship with a sound legal argument, or essentially overturn Marbury v. Madison?

*yeah, yeah...I know.

Posted by: RedMindBlueState at April 01, 2026 01:31 PM (bFu5X)

383 And then Congress simply ignores their duty.
Posted by: rickb223
=========
Dunno, the Overton Window is going away from Open Borders across the West. The left and their globo homo ruling class are trying to fight that but increasingly the facts on the ground are shifting the debate toward ending it.

Trump is good at making opponents pick the 20 percent option (and that would be like Action Jackson's stupid remark above) and then beating them about the head with it.

And Trump does have power of admittance and this will supercharge deportation under existing power and to deny for example, pregnant foreigners from admittance and airfare to the US.

He knows how to bring pain to his opponents and is likely to continue doing that for three years.

Posted by: whig at April 01, 2026 01:32 PM (E4rtv)

384 >>And they should. Because if you contribute to a 401k and your employer keeps the money that’s theft.

What if your employer is 100% Benevolent and invests that money itself, with the only intent is that the principle and profts are exclusively for you?

Feds are still gonna kick down their doors to get their bite.

Posted by: garrett at April 01, 2026 01:32 PM (0CqYd)

385 It did become one, yes, when some Administration decided to start using SS money to fund other government programs... but that fact does not allow for the government to renege on the promise they made when they took our money by force.

No, SS is a Ponzi scheme by its original definition. It didn't have some better intent that was overruled later. Take off the Democrat colored glasses.

Posted by: Ian S. at April 01, 2026 01:32 PM (2ocoG)

386 374 SS has always been a Ponzi scheme, only legal because the Gov't runs it and doesn't allow competition.
Posted by: jim (in Kalifornia) at April 01, 2026 01:22 PM (ynpvh)

It did become one, yes, when some Administration decided to start using SS money to fund other government programs... but that fact does not allow for the government to renege on the promise they made when they took our money by force.

Posted by: SSBN 656 (G) at April 01, 2026 01:30 PM (dmDsy)

It comes down to you and what army. Gov't can be extremely coercive, and going against it often leaves you, even if correct and righteous, in tatters.

Posted by: jim (in Kalifornia) at April 01, 2026 01:34 PM (ynpvh)

387 A: STARSHIP TROOPERs -- citizenship is not a birthright; it is a status earned

"The difference between a civilian and a citizen? A citizen accepts personal responsibility for the safety of the body politic, of which he is a member, defending it, if need be, with his life. The civilian does not."

"Every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory" -- Shameless Politico THUG, Nancy Pelosi'09 in Red China. Not just Mistaken, EVIL. PERIOD.

A World Safe for Socialism? needs de-bugging. no more Iraqnid's.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qV_IPiVDdLc

forWAR'dv!!!

Posted by: MANFRED the Heat Seeking OBOE at April 01, 2026 01:34 PM (K9ch3)

388 199. Every elderly American citizen is a burden on the treasury.

Medicare and Social Security ain't free and regardless of what those uncs have told you, they have not paid into the system enough to fund it.
Posted by: Diabeetus

Have long have you paid into the system to-date?

What is your argument for the many union pensions that are or have been underfunded and then must be bailed out on the US taxpayers' dime?

The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) itself had to be backstopped after bailing out and stabilizing
how many multi-employer union pensions?

"The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) stabilized the PBGC's multiemployer insurance program, extending its solvency from 2026 to 2055. It established the Special Financial Assistance (SFA) Program, providing $74–$91 billion to failing multiemployer pension plans, securing benefits for over 3 million workers."

Taxpayer funded, dear, for the 'working' and for the retired and their families.

By he way, NOT every retiree receives Social Security or goes onto Medicare, but do not single out those that have as worthless and a burden on the society that they've also supported.

Posted by: Trying to fuhgeddaboudit at April 01, 2026 01:34 PM (NFX2v)

389 You don't have the choice of investment vehicles.
Posted by: garrett at April 01, 2026 01:27 PM (0CqYd)

Yes you do! Dude, do you even have a 401K?

And if so, haven't you looked into the myriad of investment choices they give you???

Posted by: SSBN 656 (G) at April 01, 2026 01:34 PM (dmDsy)

390 >>I can decline to do anything with my 401(k) and invest all of my money in a local dildo manufacturer if I want. I don't understand the point you're trying to make here.

Will the Feds allow your Employer to match your dildo funding the same way that they allow you to match your 401k?

No. They do not.

Posted by: garrett at April 01, 2026 01:34 PM (0CqYd)

391 385 It did become one, yes, when some Administration decided to start using SS money to fund other government programs... but that fact does not allow for the government to renege on the promise they made when they took our money by force.

No, SS is a Ponzi scheme by its original definition. It didn't have some better intent that was overruled later. Take off the Democrat colored glasses.

Posted by: Ian S. at April 01, 2026 01:32 PM (2ocoG)

It's really simple...where did the money come from to pay the first recipients of SS? At that point, they hadn't put ANYTHING into it, yet received monies from it...

Posted by: jim (in Kalifornia) at April 01, 2026 01:35 PM (ynpvh)

392 >>And if so, haven't you looked into the myriad of investment choices they give you???

Is that Myriad without limits?

Can you Invest in Beanie Babies under your 401k?

Posted by: garrett at April 01, 2026 01:36 PM (0CqYd)

393 But if the narrow question is what the language of the 14th amendment actually means wrt birthright citizenship, it would be difficult for the Court to say, with a straight face*, that Congress gets to decide that constitutional question and the Court doesn't. Which would they rather do...blow up birthright citizenship with a sound legal argument, or essentially overturn Marbury v. Madison?

*yeah, yeah...I know.
Posted by: RedMindBlueState
=======
It is less a constitutional question about subject to the jurisdiction thereof, it is a specific fact finding pattern best suited for Congressional definition.

Too tired and too limited to fully make this judicial temperament clear but judicial restraint types that have been the traditional GOPe appointees to courts, believe and claim that courts did too much. And therefore to maintain comity in our system with other branches, it should defer to Congress as to the particulars of policy unless it clearly violates the Constitution. And to determine that, judicial restraint types look toward the original understanding of the language, the subsequent actions by the Court in the past, and only then practical analysis of the problem.

Posted by: whig at April 01, 2026 01:36 PM (E4rtv)

394 FWIW, I used 401k as a placeholder for Trad IRAs, Roths, 403b, and other deferred tax retirement plans.

Posted by: whig at April 01, 2026 01:37 PM (E4rtv)

395 I'm old enough to remember when immigrant had to show they would not become a burden to public treasury and could support themselves or had a sponsor with financial resources.

Yes, in the 50s. That was the immigration rules my grandparents came over here with. They were basically indentured servants to their employer and/or sponsor, and they didn't make waves so they wouldn't lost their employment. But it was only for a few years, and then they were free to go wherever they wanted.

Thank the Chappaquidick Kennedy for killing that.
Posted by: LizLem at April 01, 2026 12:45 PM (gWBY1)

My grandparents immigrated here in the early part of the last century, 1900 to 1907. And the rules were very strict. You had to have employment lined up and be sponsored by a relative or spouse already here. Many of the Hungarian women were employed by the many cigar factories in the Perth Amboy/New Brunswick area. My maternal grandmother was no exception. Found her name on a manifest from 1907, and again on the 1910 census, living in New Brunswick, within walking distance of a cigar factory.

Posted by: thatcrazyjerseyguy at April 01, 2026 01:38 PM (5xuJ/)

396 Posted by: SSBN 656 (G) at April 01, 2026 01:30 PM (dmDsy)

It comes down to you and what army. Gov't can be extremely coercive, and going against it often leaves you, even if correct and righteous, in tatters.
Posted by: jim (in Kalifornia) at April 01, 2026 01:34 PM (ynpvh)

OK, when you boil it down to that, yes. In the end, the very end, the government "owes" you nothing...

My problem is, I believe in America as founded, and regardless of the mistakes made by past rulers, I still do.

Posted by: SSBN 656 (G) at April 01, 2026 01:38 PM (dmDsy)

397 I am not making the argument that 401k investments are BAD for the individual. I am making the argument that 401k investments are limiting of the individual.

And that limit has a myriad of downstream effects. One of which is a diverting of liquidity into the specific Market allowed under the 401k rules.

It's forcing that participation through coercion.

Posted by: garrett at April 01, 2026 01:39 PM (0CqYd)

398 The same type of distortion occurs in Insurance markets due to employment rules. And I have the same problem with those.

Posted by: garrett at April 01, 2026 01:41 PM (0CqYd)

399 Will the Feds allow your Employer to match your dildo funding the same way that they allow you to match your 401k?

No. They do not.

Posted by: garrett at April 01, 2026 01:34 PM (0CqYd)

So no employer matching, fine. I'm still investing my money the way I see fit, and don't have to pay the SS tax...

What's wrong with that?

Honestly, man, what is the fucking point you are trying to make here?

Posted by: SSBN 656 (G) at April 01, 2026 01:42 PM (dmDsy)

400 Oh, and RMB, the last part of judicial restraint is to limit your decision to the narrowest ground possible. The specific case before them is NOT where Congress may or may not find individuals born here as subject to the jurisdiction thereof. The case before them is whether Trump can unilaterally declare a definition.

Given that Congress has already exercised that power regarding Indians, and supported by the dialogue of the 14th Amendment's ratification, and even the Wong Ark Kim decision (legal residency aka domiciled aka resides), easy enough to build a winning coalition that kicks the can to Congress rather than trying to institute a fiat court definition of natural born. For example, Congress is the one that extended that right to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (see Insular Cases), to Indians on reservations, and to the Panama Canal Zone (see the McCain case).

Want to see how the court avoids issues--look up the Guarantee Clause of a Republic. "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government". Then read Luther v. Borden. Court invents the political question doctrine here of justiciability.

Posted by: whig at April 01, 2026 01:45 PM (E4rtv)

401 Most 401k options are very high cost mutual funds,
Some of the expense rations are as high as 2%. Which is nuts.

You should only contribute if there’s a match. And only contribute up the maximum match. Contribute to IRA or SEPs and invest in cheap mutual funds.

Posted by: Heroq at April 01, 2026 01:47 PM (IlFr/)

402 It still allows the children of legal visitors to get citizenship, which is stupid, but at least this would stop 90%+ of these cases.
Posted by: 18-1 at April 01, 2026 12:23 PM (sKqQm)

Legal visitors are still citizens of another country and subject to the foreign jurisdiction. As are diplomats, etc which it is the intent of the amendment to exclude.

Posted by: Oldcat at April 01, 2026 01:51 PM (8avO+)

403 100 In all honesty, I wish Trump had not chosen this case to sit it. It’s almost like he is trying to make the court show they aren’t intimidated y him so they can’t rule in favor. This one is so important, and we see in the arguments that Roberts is a very weak man, ACB will be a wild card, KBJ is an idiot of the highest order.

Posted by: Piper

They are what they are, why they were 'hired' & that shall not be changed in its current, longtime configuration.

But if not now, when? Bless him.

NYT and others: The President of the United States is not forbidden from attending Supreme Court matters. President Donald Trump made history by becoming the first sitting president to attend oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court on April 1, 2026, to watch a case regarding his birthright citizenship executive order.
---
BTW, K. Harris' mother's parents were diplomats. Reportedly, she came to the US for education and to avoid arranged marriage.

Posted by: Trying to fuhgeddaboudit at April 01, 2026 01:54 PM (NFX2v)

404 FWIW, 4 Justices had to consider overturning the lower courts in the first place to hear the case.

Posted by: whig at April 01, 2026 12:38 PM (E4rtv)

I don't agree.

Roberts and Alito could have wanted to hear it to strike down birthright citizenship.

The women could have wanted to hear it to enshrine birthright citizenship in case law.

Posted by: Washington Nearsider: Gotterdammerung at April 01, 2026 02:03 PM (FmapG)

405 When do they rule on this? June?

Prayers for some to step up and vote for our country for a change.

The birthright industry of illegals crossing the border to hatch a baby, return to their country with the baby and dual citizenship.

Then after 17 or 18yrs of thug life returning here to join a gang. Or vote like a commie.

Posted by: ChristyBlinkyTheGreat at April 01, 2026 02:06 PM (WONhk)

406 Honestly, I'm happy about each and every person that left X.

Posted by: The Whine Guy at April 01, 2026 02:19 PM (D7v4F)

407 Honestly I think Trump is going to win this one. It is long been understood that the children of ambassadors to this country do not automatically become U.S. citizens. Because they are subject to the laws of a foreign power. Illegals are no different - the law says they are not U.S. citizens, and hence not subject to the constitution. It's why their asylum applications are adjudicated by article II courts, and not article III courts.

My thoughts - Trump wins. Then goes to congress and says, the children of illegals, when they turn 18, are given citizenship. It's a simple matter of congress passing a law. But going forward, anyone dropping a kid here - the kid goes home with you.

Posted by: The Whine Guy at April 01, 2026 02:23 PM (D7v4F)

408 I don't agree.

Roberts and Alito could have wanted to hear it to strike down birthright citizenship.

The women could have wanted to hear it to enshrine birthright citizenship in case law.
Posted by: Washington Nearsider: Gotterdammerung
=========
And the others would do something called defensive denial. Simply put, for the most part, and this has been empirically proven in old docket books, in justice's papers and interviews. It is rare for those wanting to solidify a decision to vote to grant cert. After all, they could lose and enshrine a bad precedent.

That in part, is why 2A advocates are so frustrated with the court and 2A denials of cert are fairly frequent. It is because the justices needed to overturn laws like in NJ, etc. want to make sure they have a winning coalition in the first place.

Trump had already lost at lower courts which had enshrined the globo homo view of drop a kid on US soil, they become a citizen. This is a decision that will overturn the status quo to some degree, my guess is in line with other decisions, a messy plurality will kick it to Congress as the decisionmaker, not the Prezzie.

Posted by: whig at April 01, 2026 02:26 PM (E4rtv)

409 For anyone that wants to do reading on cert grants, there are quite a few law review articles and you get some game theory from Lee Epstein (I think she is now at Northwestern Law).

I spent time dealing with old Warren court documents at Library of Congress on a research project that ended up going nowhere on agenda setting at the Supreme Court but ended up getting a paper published on it with some co authors.

The old docket books tell a story as well as internal correspondence between the justices and Library of Congress has the largest set of justices' papers. Burger's are at William and Mary but not open until 2033. I think CJ Vinson's are in Univ. of Kentucky Lexington.

Posted by: whig at April 01, 2026 02:31 PM (E4rtv)

410 My thoughts - Trump wins. Then goes to congress and says, the children of illegals, when they turn 18, are given citizenship. It's a simple matter of congress passing a law. But going forward, anyone dropping a kid here - the kid goes home with you.
Posted by: The Whine Guy at April 01, 2026 02:23 PM (D7v4F)

Why should he do any such thing as give free citizenship to children of illegals?

Posted by: Oldcat at April 01, 2026 02:37 PM (8avO+)

Processing 0.07, elapsed 0.0763 seconds.
14 queries taking 0.0179 seconds, 418 records returned.
Page size 237 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.