Aww...poor Donny. Never learned much American history I guess.
"In a big loss for President Donald Trump, the Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship, striking down his executive order. Chief Justice John Roberts, calling citizenship “the right to have rights,” wrote for the court that “the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land.’ We keep that promise today.”-------
https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/30/politics/...cases-news
Bad ruling. Had nothing to do with the 14th Amendment. "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" never meant simply within the borders, no matter how temporarily. The Alito and Thomas dissents are legally sound and historically accurate. Pansies on the court are more interested in appearing non-partisan (as if that will keep the left from packing the court or claiming it illegitimate or politicized) or too chicken to touch immigration at all.
Now it's up to Congress. Either get the Democrats to make the filibuster law, so they can't nuke it, or preemptively nuke it to accomplish much needed legislation.
Quote:Bad ruling. Had nothing to do with the 14th Amendment
Liar. It has everything to do with it:
"The 14th Amendment is a foundational part of the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1868 during the Reconstruction era. It primarily established birthright citizenship, guaranteed equal protection under the law, and applied the protections of the Bill of Rights to all state governments."
"Chief Justice John Roberts, calling citizenship “the right to have rights,” wrote for the court that “the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land.’ We keep that promise today.”
No lie, just proper legal analysis. Roberts is well-known to favor upholding the appearance of non-partisanship over strict jurisprudence.
You're either lying or just stupid. Either way you are wrong. This decision was precisely about protecting the 14th Amendment's guarantee of birthright citizenship to those born on US soil.
No, you're just ignorant of SCOTUS history, strict jurisprudence, and legal history and precedent.
Then you ARE just being stupid. Don't waste my time shorty..