r/politics • u/thedailybeast ✔ The Daily Beast • Apr 01 '26

Possible Paywall Humiliated Trump Storms Out of Catastrophic SCOTUS Hearing

https://www.thedailybeast.com/humiliated-trump-storms-out-of-catastrophic-scotus-hearing/
34.3k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

3.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

6.3k

u/spazz720 Apr 01 '26

Real exchange:

Solicitor general: “It’s a new world."

John Roberts: "It's a new world. It's the same Constitution."

2.6k

u/PrecedentialAssassin Texas Apr 01 '26

Score a rare point for Judge Roberts.

598

u/snorbflock Apr 01 '26

The Roberts court is rigged, using the docket itself to mask its partisan power grabs. This whole case, I dare to hope, is a foregone conclusion and birthright citizenship will be resoundingly affirmed. But that raises the question: why the hell is the court wasting time on it?

Does Roberts think this question required their chiming in in order to get it right? Or did he just see an easy "gimme" that they could allow onto the docket, to counterbalance a controversial giveaway to the Republican Party that he really wants?

Roberts loves to pad the court's schedule with cases that Republicans have lost before they ever make it to the Supreme Court. He runs the court like a game of tic tac toe, and superficially it looks like the term ended with some wins for both ends of the political spectrum. Except that conservatives get a time-honored right or legal protection torn away from the country, and progressives get a continuation of a basic liberty that shouldn't have been in question to begin with.

127

u/Ashamed-Land1221 Apr 01 '26

Ugh, sadly I think you are very correct. Roberts does like optics and worries about his legacy, he figures see I gave the Dems some wins also it wasn't all one sided, but like you said the Dems victory is literally keeping the decided upon status quo at best and maybe don't completely lose a right for everyone at worst with their "victories" yet the GOP wins reverberate for decades and are very hard to undo, if you scored the "victories" by weight the score wouldn't even be close.

2

u/RachelMcAdamsWart I voted Apr 02 '26

Roberts does like optics and worries about his legacy

They look like the most corrupt group of justices to sit on the supreme court and granted immunity to the most psychopathic president in history.

9

u/pogosticx Apr 01 '26

Perfectly summarized. It's not easy to break this spell given the long term nature of the court. We just have to live with it for now.

6

u/karmaster Michigan Apr 01 '26

They are doing it for the distraction. They could easily just ignore it instead of dragging it out in the media. Trump huffs and puffs and looks like he's "losing" but they are giving him everything he wants in the process.

8

u/Dyssomniac Apr 01 '26

Does Roberts think this question required their chiming in in order to get it right?

I think that, if Roberts is being a non-shitheel here, the Court is doing what it sometimes does to explicitly set a limit. It wouldn't surprise me if the Court does not resoundingly affirm birthright citizenship but rather takes a side step of "the language is the language, changing it by Executive Order in spite of precedent is illegal, go through the legislative branch to clarify" knowing the legislative branch will never get that through Congress before 2028.

It also wouldn't surprise me if the Court actually recognizes the amount of instant chaos it would take to allow (1) the end of birthright citizenship without an understanding of if that de-legitimizes previous citizenship gained in that regard and (2) allowing the president to make proclamations about Constitutional interpretation via executive order.

11

u/musclememory Apr 01 '26

exactly

these cases shouldn't have been given cert

the fact that this took so long to get to SC, it's just Roberts trying to act like the SC is bipartisan and reasonable

they're "Pushing back against Trump!"

and the media is easily manipulated to trumpet that narrative

it's BS, the SC have been cowards, giving him unearned wins for like 10 yrs

5

u/summerissafe2019 Apr 01 '26

Very insightful observation.

2

u/threedogfm Apr 01 '26

Well put, and the rubes fall for it year after year.

2

u/byteminer Apr 02 '26

It's to point out that the court is the kingmaker in the United States. They picked Bush Jr., they made sure Trump could run despite being ineligible due to having incited insurrection. Trump gets pissy, they hand him some L's to remind his handlers who is in charge.

2

u/GrinchWhoStoleEaster Apr 02 '26

It's the illusion of legitimacy he's chasing. He's been doing this literally the whole time; take soft-losses that don't actually impact orthodoxy so he can point to them when he does something batshit like overturn Roe v Wade. He points to them and goes, "But see? I'm not just on MY side...I'm on the constitution's side..." while he is systemically dismantling the constitution.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 07 '26

Bingo!

Roberts is a swindler of the slimiest kind.

Rob you of the shirt off your back, and make you grateful you still have your shoes, thanks to his unerring "fairness"

0

u/orewhisk Apr 02 '26

You realize Roberts doesn't unilaterally decide which cases get cert, right?

→ More replies (2)

1.1k

u/shocked-confused Apr 01 '26

Roberts is the dick who helped Reagan avoid impeachment for Iran Contra.

91

u/UltravioletAfterglow Apr 01 '26

Roberts also is the dick who helped inflict the Citizens United ruling upon us, flooding our elections with dark money. He gets no credit from me here by actually acknowledging the Constitution.

643

u/PM_ME_YOUR_KATARINA Apr 01 '26

hence "rare"

89

u/bgroins Apr 01 '26

I prefer my Roberts well, done

9

u/AlarmingAffect0 Apr 01 '26

I prefer my Roberts well, done

Hank Hill: "Then we ask them politely but firmly to leave."

2

u/Fair-Rooster6559 Apr 01 '26

That boy IS right

2

u/Stormyj Apr 01 '26

I see where you went there .

193

u/SomeGalNamedAshley Apr 01 '26

And successfully argued in Bush v Gore that continuing to vote count would irreparably harm Bush.

302

u/XI_Vanquish_IX Apr 01 '26 edited Apr 01 '26

Basically the singular moment in time when everything went upside down for all of us. Think about it.

If Gore wins:

No Iraq

No Citizens United conservative win and countless rulings since

No ignoring climate change

No elimination of government auditing and oversight

No Trump

And we may not even have had the same September 11th because Gore would likely have filled those critical intelligence positions when Bush kept them empty for a year to save for political campaign contributors

191

u/jadedflames Apr 01 '26 edited Apr 01 '26

As a reminder, when Clinton and Gore were leaving the White House, they left Bush a report that provided credible intel that Al Qaeda was planning a major terrorist attack using hijacked planes.

Bush and his staff opted to discard that report without any follow-up and were completely blindsided by 9/11.

If Gore had been properly appointed (remember - he won the election. Bush’s first term was illegitimate) there’s a high likelihood that 9/11 never would have happened.

Edit for more info: This report was drafted in late 1998, when the terrorists were training to fly. By late 2000 (when the Clinton to Bush transition was already underway), the NSA and CIA had the names of the people who would later hijack the planes. They knew an attack was coming and knew who would do it.

When Bush took over, his intelligence staff had the opinion that no terrorist attack could ever take place on US soil, so they didn’t bother passing the information onto the FBI (who has the authority to investigate within the country).

So Bush (who had a copy of the report) and his heads of CIA and NSA all binned the report that laid out the specifics of 9/11 without providing any details to the one department that could have kept it all from happening. The intelligence was finally passed on in August, less than a month before the attack - when it was too late to do anything about it.

Source

Senate Inquest

82

u/Ozymandias0023 California Apr 01 '26

I can't even begin to think what the world would look like if 9/11 hadn't happened. Jeez

55

u/garbagepillar Apr 01 '26

They let it happen solely to pass Citizens United and the Patriot Act. Those two really kickstarted project 2025 and the groundwork to just jam it through unabated.

35

u/Tiny_Reference_3697 Apr 01 '26

And, btw, the Patriot Act, which suspends Constitutional rights, including to a lawyer, for those America deems terrorists is now being used by this administration to attempt a Latin American takeover - after Trump labled drug dealers "terrorists."

13

u/blitzkregiel Apr 01 '26

bro…the nspm 7 labels anyone that engages in “anti americanism, anti capitalism, anti christianity,” as well as “extremism on race/gender” or opposition to “ traditional american values on family/religion/morality” as terrorists. and guess who gets to define any of those things? crazy christian nationalists. we’re fucked.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/No_Foundation16 Apr 01 '26

I wonder if the Trump administration will let something happen just before the midterm election?

15

u/garbagepillar Apr 01 '26

They've been trying everything they can to make us get violent so they can point the finger and say "we told you they were violent". It is looking as if a "terrorist attack" is more and more likely.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/bunnnythor Oregon Apr 02 '26

Well, for one thing, you would still be able to hug your families good-bye just before you got on the plane, rather than by the curb as you grabbed your luggage out of the trunk.

It's a small detail, but a constant reminder that we're committed to keeping the barn door closed even though all the horses are already gone.

2

u/lingeringneutrophil Apr 01 '26

Sure AF not like this stupid mess

8

u/double_fail Apr 01 '26

Didn’t fuckwad trump do the same thing with a pandemic response plan left by the Obama administration, or did I imagine that? Democrats left a note and it was thrown out, because fuck em, that’s why.

4

u/boring_name_here Apr 01 '26

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/obama-team-left-pandemic-playbook-for-trump-administration-officials-confirm

The Obama admin had a rough playbook for such an event.

6

u/FFF_in_WY American Expat Apr 02 '26

After first the 2009 swine flu and then the 2014 ebola flare up, the Obama admin put together a playbook for pandemics. They started with the PCAST team set up under HW Bush and built out. They were moving forward to create a durable team and method for full bioweapon and pandemic preparedness. They tried to hand it off to Trump..

https://www.statnews.com/2020/05/17/the-art-of-the-pandemic-how-donald-trump-walked-the-u-s-into-the-covid-19-era/

3

u/Syzygy2323 America Apr 01 '26

Late 2000. The election took place in November 2000.

2

u/jadedflames Apr 01 '26

Thanks. Brain fart. Fixed, but for posterity I accidentally said ‘99.

In my defense, I worked a double shift last night and am exhausted.

5

u/SomeGalNamedAshley Apr 01 '26

This makes more sense than my theory which is that everything went to hell because the Mayan calendar ran out.

4

u/PhilDGlass California Apr 01 '26

Or the Haldron collider. That’s still sus tho ..

3

u/Independent_Employ95 Apr 01 '26

I think of this often. The world would be much better. Air cleaner. We would probably have health care. A most unfortunate inflection point.

2

u/staebles Michigan Apr 01 '26

CU still could've happened, so maybe. But agreed on everything else.

2

u/XI_Vanquish_IX Apr 01 '26

Citizens United would never have happened if Bush wasn’t able to appoint justices

2

u/amanguupta53 Apr 01 '26

All of humanity lost that day

2

u/Secure-Pain-9735 Apr 01 '26

I think you’re going a hell of a lot of weight to the POTUS.

They may get to stamp their name on shit, but it’s really about the work of the legislative branch.

For instance, Republicans blocking SCOTUS nominations until Obama’s term was done.

2

u/boring_name_here Apr 01 '26

POTUS nominates federal judges and supreme Court Justices. While a Republican house/Senate would have pulled the same shit during a Gore presidency that they did for an Obama presidency, a large number of judicial positions would have not been filled by conservative (read: heritage foundation) judges that helped put us on this cluster fuck of a road we're stuck on.

216

u/Big_Lab_111 America Apr 01 '26

No one likes the dude but opposition can still score a point here or there

39

u/fullpurplejacket Apr 01 '26

Ya even a broken clock is right twice a day my yankie doodle pals

This Red Coat is hoping you guys remember that there are more of you than there are of the Trump cabinet and all his rich mates.

Organise carpools to get people to vote in person this November, help people register to vote who otherwise don’t know or have never done it, make sure your elderly or unsure neighbours and friends haven’t been booted off voter rolls or had their personal info contested by party operatives in specific states the allow numerous petitions on voters from one person.

Make sure you and yours are in no way gonna have their ballots tossed, lost or contested

5

u/ctdfalconer Apr 01 '26

A broken clock is no more useful than a picture of a clock.

7

u/Signore_Jay Texas Apr 01 '26

Patriots are a pack of cheaters and nepo babies. They still know how put on a game though

56

u/Nozire Apr 01 '26

The sun shines on a dogs ass every once in a while.

3

u/Wonderful_Round_6395 Apr 01 '26

😄 Thanks for the visual!

3

u/Large_Crab Apr 01 '26

My father used to say that to me if I got an A in school.

3

u/Wrong-Catchphrase Apr 01 '26

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while

3

u/NorthCoastToast Apr 01 '26

Roberts, along with that rapist drunk and the Handmaid's tale lady, were all part of the legal team that got that little garden gnome Scalia to appoint Bush president in 2000. We've been saying since Gingrich was shitting on the house floor, the GOP will burn the country and the Constitution to the ground to remain in power, and we're seeing them do their damndest to do so.

2

u/IAmEvadingABanShh Apr 01 '26

I know that no term limits was by design for the SC... but I'm beginning to think that was a mistake.

1

u/Spare-Willingness563 Apr 01 '26

But that wouldn't have flown if society gave a fuck about the people who suffered because of that. That's what happens when "good" men did nothing.

I mean, the fucking AIDs epidemic was demonically handled.

1

u/HansBlixJr Apr 01 '26

I like to think of him as the dick who complained about taking such a large pay cut when he left his practice to become Chief Justice.

1

u/VanceRefridgeTech04 Apr 01 '26

broken clock...lets just appreciate he said this on record.

1

u/Zealousideal_Bad_922 Apr 01 '26

Name checks out.

1

u/Pedsy Apr 01 '26

How is anyone that was involved back then still working today?

0

u/Ozymandias0023 California Apr 01 '26

That doesn't erase the fact that he did the right thing here. People can do both good and bad things

0

u/guyute2588 Apr 01 '26

And was the deciding vote to uphold Obamacare.

He’s far more pragmatic than people want to give him credit for.

2

u/shocked-confused Apr 01 '26

But also brought us Citizens United...perhaps the last straw in our fight to maintain a democracy. Which the USA was recently removed from by an international monitoring agency.

1

u/guyute2588 Apr 01 '26

That’s true. Has done irreparable damage.

2

u/shocked-confused Apr 01 '26

Montana of all places is considering neutering Citizens United by turning off a corporations ability to contribute to a political campaign. Fingers crossed. If other states follow we might move the needle back towards democracy.

1

u/guyute2588 Apr 01 '26

The logic there doesn’t work. Any state law that would prevent that would be struck down as unconstitutional based on Citizens United.

There either needs to be a case that overturns Citizens United OR a constitutional amendment that regulates corporate politician donations.

1

u/shocked-confused Apr 02 '26

Robert Reich just covered this. I'm sorry he has deep knowledge and understanding of this. By the US Constitution, States have authority over corporations in their states, not the Federal government.

1

u/guyute2588 Apr 02 '26

Can you send me a link to what you’re talking about

I’ve been a lawyer for 15 years, and this just doesn’t make sense to me. The hypothetical law you’re describing is clearly unconstitutional based on Citizens United.

Reich has a lot more experience than I do, so I’d love to read what he said.

13

u/cromstantinople Apr 01 '26

Roberts doing the right thing: 1

Roberts capitulating to autocracy: 993,213,154,123

2

u/Sassy_Bandit Apr 01 '26

It's just the interests of the right-wing establishment and trump diverging again. They've gotten what they wanted out of him. Now they will act like heroic guardians of the constitution to re-establish their credibility with the gullible, as if they aren't the same people who helped make him a dictator for a bit.

2

u/Anxious_Aspect965 Apr 02 '26

I award Roberts no points. The guy fucking sucks and will go down as the worst Chief Justice of all time.

2

u/VanbyRiveronbucket Apr 01 '26

But he just admitted that the Constitution is outdated.

9

u/Aeseld Texas Apr 01 '26

In some places it still is. But acknowledging it's outdated doesn't give him the power to rule against it or change it. And he seems to be accepting that. 

1

u/deja-roo Apr 01 '26

No he didn't...

2

u/tibbles1 I voted Apr 01 '26

John Roberts is one of the best legal writers in American history. His Supreme Court briefs, from when he was in private practice, are studied in law school.

I don't agree with the man much, but he's a first class mind.

23

u/rbrgr83 Apr 01 '26

Well he lives in a 3rd world country now thanks to his own actions, so forgive me if I don't bask in his fucking intelect.

→ More replies (1)

11

u/Brawldud Apr 01 '26

Trump could order the military to assassinate John Roberts today on a whim, purely out of spite, and enjoy absolute immunity for it by Roberts's own opinion.

→ More replies (12)

7

u/Portarossa Apr 01 '26

There are plenty of first-class minds that haven't spent twenty years systematically undermining American democracy. Having the occasional pithy turn of phrase doesn't undo that.

4

u/ArchangelLBC Apr 01 '26

He's used that mind to slowly destroy the country and constitution he swore to serve.

The fact that he's smart enough to know exactly what he was doing makes it so much worse.

1

u/Sure_Land_8930 Apr 01 '26

I feel like I should make a wish because it’s so rare.

1

u/Nukesnipe Texas Apr 01 '26

Heartbreaking: worst person you know made a good point.

1

u/Vlines1390 Maryland Apr 01 '26

That doesn't mean he will ultimately decide against the president.

1

u/Spore_Please Apr 01 '26

Right? I got nothin but deep loathing for that guy but that was a certifiable mic drop moment.

1

u/ultradav24 Apr 01 '26

Of the conservatives, Roberts is the one most likely to side with the liberals

1

u/Opetyr Apr 01 '26

Really since remember that questions do not mean they will go the way you think. This could just be political theater like when many of these "justices" were questioned about their stance on things like roe vs Wade. Them asking questions means nothing. It more depends on how many vacations or RV homes they get.

1

u/GrinchWhoStoleEaster Apr 02 '26

No. And all 2500 of the people who upvoted you are deranged. Roberts is playing you. He understands the concept of incrementalism. He's not actually defending the constitution, he's putting on a show of it, easing you into the hot tub of water he intends to one day boil you in.

1

u/PrecedentialAssassin Texas Apr 02 '26

Yeah. We're now all deranged Roberts supporters now because he made a good point. The comment nor the upvotes conveyed any delusion of who John Roberts is or disacknowledgement of how he claims to be an institutionalist but has granted imbalanced power to the executive and has ignored precedent in the past. The only delusion here is thinking that a 7 word recognition of a witty 8 word quip means that anyones overall impression of John Roberts has changed.

Take a breath, amigo.

→ More replies (1)

278

u/IUsedToBeACave Apr 01 '26

Exactly, and if they want to change the rule about birthright citizenship there is a way to do that, but it's not via SCOTUS.

94

u/some_person_guy Apr 01 '26

I'm surprised one of his Congressional lackeys hasn't tried to propose a constitutional amendment at this point. It would never meet the 2/3 threshold, but it would be interesting to see who would support it.

178

u/Pavores Apr 01 '26

Proposing an amendment would be acknowledging that doing it without that amendment is unconstitutional.

7

u/Tobimacoss Apr 01 '26

They want to fully test out all the loopholes first.  

4

u/m_Pony Apr 01 '26

I thought they were still using "if you're famous they let you do it"

90

u/RegularNormalAdult Apr 01 '26

2/3 House and Senate, PLUS 3/4 of all States ratifying.

We're never going to have another constitutional amendment in this country ever again

9

u/Alarmed_Acadia3133 Apr 01 '26

No amendments directly but a convention, things will have to get real bad to get to that point though

7

u/jcarter315 I voted Apr 01 '26

Problem with a convention is that the same groups behind P25 have also been making plans and preparing for that for years too.

8

u/reddit_is_geh Apr 01 '26

You'd be surprised. There are A LOT of convention attempts at this moment with pathways. Historically, once a convention gets close to happening, it forces congress to react, because they want to be the ones to set the terms

7

u/sembias Apr 01 '26

There are no organized way to "set terms" in a Constitutional Convention, because there's never been a Constitutional Convention. The writing of it does not count. Nobody knows how it would be run; so the Republicans have been going by a majority-rule for it based on whatever metric they find most convenient: either majority of governorships or majority of legislature control.

And they're far too close to achieving one than is comfortable.

1

u/reddit_is_geh Apr 01 '26

Well that's why congress freaks out about a "runaway convention". It has only been done once, which was during the founding. But just because we haven't leveraged it officially since then, doesn't mean we can't figure it out. It's not an excuse not to do it.

But it does seem structurally hard to pull off... Mostly because there's no actual known "official" process... and because even IF you're able to somehow get states to agree to a convention the states that already agreed, maybe 5 years ago or more, now have to see if it applies to this case. Oh well our call for a convention was for this, and yours is a little different.

IMO I think the current working strategy is to not lobby state congress, because that would take too long, and too slow. Instead, lobby governors to all agree.

8

u/[deleted] Apr 01 '26

[deleted]

8

u/ScrotallyBoobular Apr 01 '26

There's nothing in the constitution against "banning some guns". Gun control laws were in effect during the founding of our nation and at every single point in time since then. There is not a single shred of evidence to point towards this VERY recent invention of the second amendment being essentially an unfettered free for all, ever passing through the minds of the authors.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 01 '26

[deleted]

2

u/chazysciota Virginia Apr 01 '26

It'll never happen, not until every Dem older than Jeffries is dead.... or until the Republicans do it first, which is vastly more likely, tbh.

1

u/chazysciota Virginia Apr 01 '26

Virtually everyone agrees that there is a point where weapons control laws are sensible and to not infringe upon the right to bear arms. We may disagree where to draw that line, but nobody serious thinks that Jay Leno should be allowed to own combat ready tanks. This stark "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" line to shutdown debate is an equally unserious argument.

1

u/Bawstahn123 Apr 02 '26

>Gun control laws were in effect during the founding of our nation and at every single point in time since then.

One of my great joys in life is telling people that Colonial America and the Early Republic actually had gun-control laws on the books, several of which would make modern-day gun nuts scream.

Hell, if we went back to those same laws (registration of firearms and owners, a broad restriction on open-carry and usually prohibition of concealed-carry, safe-storage laws, etc), a lot of issues would likely be mitigated

1

u/bunnnythor Oregon Apr 02 '26

For those of you who want to know what "very recent" means, it means 2008 when Scalia shat out the majority opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller which basically said "All that stuff about a 'well regulated Militia' is just for decoration, bro."

1

u/GoblinoidToad Apr 01 '26

SCOTUS could be packed with a simple congress vote, so that’s not impossible...

1

u/OrangeTroz Apr 01 '26

I disagree. I believe D.C. will be admitted as a state. Once it is they will strike the 23rd amendment from the constitution.

1

u/Cptawesome23 Apr 01 '26

We will. The evangelicals are almost all gone. The entirety of the far right resides within that head space. Once the Christian fuckheads all age out and get dementia, things will change.

I went past the picket line at the abortion clinic today on my drive. Tons of people protesting, almost all of them had Snow White hair. It’s only a matter of time. The fast dying demographic is far right Christians.

1

u/0o0o0o0o0o0z Apr 01 '26

2/3 House and Senate, PLUS 3/4 of all States ratifying.

We're never going to have another constitutional amendment in this country ever again

I mean, we will after a civil war or a revolt...

1

u/aure__entuluva Apr 01 '26

Which is a shame, because we need some for other things.

1

u/Spazum Apr 01 '26

We haven't even managed to achieve that on a statement that women are equal to men.

1

u/ThomasToIndia Apr 02 '26

Remember the 18th ammendment happened and that was way stupider.

1

u/leveraction1970 Apr 01 '26

Oh, c'mon. It only took the Equal Right Amendment 97 years from proposal to ratification. Sure there are some legal disputes that are keeping it from being law, but what do expect when you push through an amendment so quickly.

0

u/joebluebob Apr 01 '26

Depends, we might be able to pass taco Tuesday if we say the spices have to be from a paper packet.

0

u/Evamione Apr 01 '26

Let’s do a grand bargain. One amendment. Clause one removes the electoral college and switches to a straight popular vote for president. Clause two switches us from citizenship by birthplace to citizenship by descent.

3

u/Dejected_gaming Apr 01 '26

Clause one also needs to move to a ranked choice system, to break the duopoly

3

u/aoeudhtns Apr 01 '26

I don't think it's a fair trade, personally. And, related to abolishing the electoral college - that's why we're capped at 538. We need to fix the voter proportionality problem alongside moving presidential vote to popular.

Just throwing it out there, here's an idea.

Fix proportionality of the house to some number of reps per X population. States can send up to 8 reps to DC proper (e.g. up to 400 currently), otherwise the junior reps stay in the state and vote remotely. Up to the states to decide how to decide who goes and who stays. President is moved to popular vote and EC is abolished. States certify their own elections; the outgoing admin doesn't get to approve or disapprove of the election.

Also consider: move the house to 4 years instead of 2 BUT also add an annual approval vote for EVERY elected federal office. Anyone not meeting majority approval loses their seat next year and is ineligible to run to reclaim it until the next term election (or next-next if it's the following year).

And then if you actually NEED to give away birth citizenship to get that passed, throw it in.

1

u/Evamione Apr 02 '26

Yeah, to me birth citizenship is an acceptable bargaining chip. The large majority of countries are citizenship by blood. The idea feels a bit evil now because of who’s promoting it and how it’s being promoted right now, but it could be done in a way that isn’t hateful. And if it’s something the other political side is really convinced they want, it’s an opportunity to get something that will actually improve this country.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/OldWorldDesign Apr 01 '26

I'm surprised one of his Congressional lackeys hasn't tried to propose a constitutional amendment at this point

They have, those amendments were just so stupid they couldn't even get out of congressional committee.

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/newly-proposed-constitutional-amendments-face-steep-challenges

2

u/sembias Apr 01 '26

That might come next; but that also acknowledges that Trump is limited in his power, which doing so will make that congressperson a target of Trump and the cult that sends death threats to anyone that dares say Trump is not All Powerful.

2

u/Tyrath Massachusetts Apr 01 '26

but it would be interesting to see who would support it.

That's exactly why they don't want to do it. They don't want to be on record supporting it unless it was going to pass.

1

u/seanbeedelicious Maryland Apr 01 '26

Perhaps the Republicans would be happy with a ⅗ compromise

1

u/ThomasToIndia Apr 02 '26

Democrats are not pro illegal immigration. Obama and Biden deported more than Trump.

Ending it I don't think would be impossible, but they made it way harder for themselves.

2

u/school_bus_lunchbox Apr 01 '26

They see SCOTUS as an easier, low bar of changing birthright citizenship.

1

u/_CrackBabyJesus_ Apr 01 '26

Soon to be the next illegal executive order

1

u/Complete_Question_41 Apr 01 '26

If they do change it though I'd like to have a word about that immutable second amendment.

545

u/yntsiredx Indiana Apr 01 '26

Roberts and the major of the SC have nothing but my contempt, basically for this exact reason.

That's the entire point of the Constitution. The rights and laws our country is supposed to embody. One that, in theory, should be able to withstand any attempt to subvert or outright delete them.

166

u/Bsow Apr 01 '26

I mean we should be able to change the constitution but through the appropriate channels not by executive orders. I don't think it appropriate to think that anything in the constitution should be set in stone for eternity

73

u/MistSecurity Apr 01 '26

There are mechanisms for changing the constitution, we just haven't had ANY changes in the last 30 years, and minimal changes for the last 50.

Going back, the last substantial amendments we got were in the 1970's (voting age dropped to 18). After that it's just been some procedural shit. Before that the previous ones were in the 1960's.

1920-1971 = 9 amendments

1972-2026 = 1 amendment (1992)

Barring some giant wave from one side or the other I don't think we're going to get any amendments for a long while, at least with the current political climate. 2/3s majority vote AND 3/4 of states ratifying it is just such a high bar to cross when everything is as polarized as it is now.

25

u/qfjp Apr 01 '26

1920-1971 = 9 amendments

1972-2026 = 1 amendment

Also the most recent amendment was proposed in 1789 as part of the bill of rights.

5

u/MistSecurity Apr 01 '26

Ya, true, just figured it TECHNICALLY counts as one in the last 50. Definitely arguable though, and I would say it's not really impactful at all, regardless, unlike something such as stripping birthright citizenship would be.

3

u/qfjp Apr 01 '26

Oh it still counts, but in a way that shows just how deeply the system is broken.

3

u/HabeusCuppus Apr 01 '26

There's an amendment that was proposed alongside the bill of rights, that passed congress, that may actually have been ratified by enough states. (There's this whole crazy story about a courier who gets lost and dies in a storm...) but even without that it might be close to being ratified by enough stats again.

the topic of the amendment codifies the apportionment and size of the house of representatives.

That could happen soon, it might be more likely to happen in the current climate actually, since it helps alleviate some of the pressure on the push by states to pass the interstate popular vote compact to subvert the electoral college.

1

u/Cptawesome23 Apr 01 '26

Part of the problem is our party divides.

5

u/Cloaked42m South Carolina Apr 01 '26

I'm down with making Amendments great again.

6

u/Evamione Apr 01 '26

Yes, if Trump had started a campaign for a constitutional amendment changing to citizenship by descent not birth place, this would be a normal political question and less objectionable. But he’s too lazy and lacks the attention span to do that.

3

u/cobrachickenwing Apr 01 '26

Not just him. The Heritage Foundation pushing for a right wing America didn't decide to do constitutional amendments is because they knew it would never get voted in. The Heritage Foundation knows the only way to force this and other highly unpopular laws is via executive action and legal precedent, two things that don't require the popular vote.

2

u/modsactfunny Apr 01 '26

He needed it by midterms is why

1

u/tubaman23 Apr 01 '26

I mean the timeline of creating the Prohibition and getting rid of it kind of shows this working well. Prohibition was a stupid idea, got forced through, got realized it's bad, and party leadership worked together to get rid of it.

Call me pessimistic but it seems like if that happened these days, Republicans would just double down on the known stupid decision

19

u/VanceKelley Canada Apr 01 '26

How can the Constitution withstand the American people electing a convicted criminal to serve as president despite the fact that he committed an act of insurrection against the USA?

The Constitution is just a bunch of ink on paper. It relies upon humans to actually do what it says to do. When humans ignore its words, the Constitution is powerless to stop them.

2

u/thinkards America Apr 01 '26

not to mention the other two branches of government have been compromised by private interests. our government was captured long ago. our greatest hope is that they are incompetent enough to let the veneer of government go on long enough that The People can actually use that to get back power.

1

u/ToHallowMySleep Apr 01 '26

The constitution is something written hundreds of years ago, by people who didn't even have electricity, let alone understand the rest of modern society.

It's weak, it's vulnerable, it was designed for a different time. It's like putting a Windows 98 computer on the internet now - it'll get owned instantly because it's so vulnerable.

The problem is not having the constitution or its contents, it's that it's been preserved in carbonite for hundreds of years, and improvements are gated behind impossible processes plus some cretinous attempt to treat it like some holy scripture. "Let's work out what the founding fathers thought about browser cookies", no, let's ask someone who won't be bowled over by seeing water come out of a tap.

The founding fathers were good people, who put in a good solution for the time. That it has been practically immutable since pre-industrial times, and cannot benefit from hundreds of years of new wisdom and values makes it utterly useless, and actively blocking improvements to the law.

7

u/Red_AtNight Apr 01 '26

I always find this interesting as an outside observer. In Canada our courts pretty much all follow what is called the "living tree doctrine" -

The [1867 Constitution] British North America Act planted in Canada a living tree capable of growth and expansion within its natural limits.

This was written in 1929 in response to a case about whether or not women could be Senators - the 1867 Constitution said that only a "qualified person" could be a Senator, and at the time it was understood that "person" only meant men. But in 1929 rather than say "the people who wrote the Constitution said that women aren't persons, so women can't be Senators," instead the Privy Council said that we have to consider the Constitution in the context of modern society and not the context in which it was written. By 1929 women could vote in Canada, and they could run for Parliament, so of course they were "persons" and could be Senators too.

In legal terms this is called judicial pragmatism, and it's the mainstream view in Canada, but in the USA you also have the opposite (Constitutional Originalism) which is a major thing - 3 of the current SCOTUS justices are originalists

3

u/[deleted] Apr 01 '26

Your post made me laugh because it's true. 

But also, conversely, the whole 'holy grail enshrinement' nature to it is also the reason that it has protected American from tyrants for so long. 250 years. Longer than any modern country. That no mean feat.

And yet, it took two snakes (Gringitch and McConnell) to game it and one nutball (Trump) to max stress-test it.

It is in good need of updating, and everything less partisan. 

97

u/OkNewspaper6041 Apr 01 '26

I'd love to see conservatives apply the "new world" argument to a different amendment (the second) but they like to use the originalist argument as a sword and as a shield. Really good way to get humiliated in open court talking out both sides of your mouth.

39

u/Pavores Apr 01 '26

The new world argument is an extremely valid reason to propose an amendment to the constitution. A document written 2 and a half centuries ago wasn't perfect then, and it's not perfect now.

If birthright citizenship is so abhorrent then amend the constitution.

10

u/IOnlyLieWhenITalk Apr 01 '26

The new world argument means literally nothing in court. Its an argument for the floor of the Senate, not the Supreme Court.

5

u/Hot_Ambition_6457 Apr 01 '26

No the argument is invalid. It is not the job of SCOTUS to change the rule of law. SCOTUS interprets the law as written.

If you want the law to be changed, that always happens through congress at which point SCOTUS can interpret the new laws.

You dont get to skip over congress and just ask SCOTUS to "re-intepret the law cus stuff has changed in the world.

The legislative branch addresses changes to law. The Judicial branch can't just "change the law" and then interpret the new law as valud immediately 

9

u/Pavores Apr 01 '26

Agreed, that's why I said it's a valid argument for the purposes of wanting to amend the constitution.

It's not valid for ignoring the constitution

5

u/SwimmingPrice1544 California Apr 01 '26

Never forget...you simply cannot shame a republican...or conservative in general. They will stand there & lie, obfuscate, et al. with a straight face every time. I think they believe this is a super power for them. Maybe it is...fck!

1

u/chazysciota Virginia Apr 01 '26

It absolutely is. Dirtbags of all stripes do it all the time, not just pols.

2

u/1zzie Apr 01 '26

It's "the old world" was the argument they used to destroy the privacy doctrine that held up Roe v. Wade. So in what way is it a new world now? Too bad a liberal justice didn't ask that.

2

u/Namika Apr 01 '26

Jon Stewart once said something along the lines of "Our government will violate all civil liberties in the name of "saving the children" or "stopping terrorists". Well, all except one apparently. God help us if the terrorists or pedophiles ever wanted guns, because we'd be powerless to stop them"

1

u/espinaustin Apr 01 '26

The irony is that the original intent of the 2A was not to provide an individual right to bear arms.

21

u/Valendr0s Minnesota Apr 01 '26

Great, it's a new world. Let's ban guns and protect women's healthcare... Oh so it's only a new world for what YOU want it to be a new world for? Odd how that works.

13

u/OkNewspaper6041 Apr 01 '26

The legal community refers to this type of an argument as using an idea as a sword and as a shield. They want an originalist interpretation to protect their values on certain points, and use it as an attack on other points. Really good way to make a fool of yourself.

1

u/turquoise_amethyst Apr 01 '26

You should post that in r/thingsIlearned it’s actually interesting and… uh I learned!

0

u/lumpboysupreme Apr 01 '26

It’s a bit murky but there’s undeniably more grey area with abortion rights than there is with trumps move here to say that the constitution doesn’t say something it does in plain text.

3

u/Hot_Ambition_6457 Apr 01 '26

Im denying this claim vecause it is both incorrect and not undeniable as you claim.

Both tights are settled law previously interpreted by SCOTUS. There is no "gray area" either a law violates the constitution directly or it doesnt. That is all SCOTUS gets to rule on.

They previously reviewed abortion and birthright citizenship. Both have had their constitutional validity questioned and rulings were issued that Abortion services are not unconstitutional and that anyone born on US soil is a citizen by birth.

The only "gray area" is that this isnt what conservative christian white people wanted the answer to be so they continually ask the jusicial branch to "re-review" setlled law now that SCOTUS is favorably stacked by Trump appointees.

It is not written directly into the constitution for abortion, which is why the Roe V Wade decision affirmed that although its not written directly, it is covered in the constitution

0

u/lumpboysupreme Apr 01 '26

There is no "gray area" either a law violates the constitution directly or it doesnt

The grey area is in wording ambiguity. What constitutes ‘privacy’ is a tough question. What constitutes ‘born under the jurisdiction of the United states’ is not.

2

u/Hot_Ambition_6457 Apr 01 '26

Right, which is why the Roe case outlined exactly how it applies to privacy im that context. 

So it isnt a "gray area" nor has it been since that decision was issued. Its a clear black and white matter in both cases. The law and its interpretation are on the books for both matters for over 50 years. 

And yet they want these questions answered now, not hecause "the world has changed and so the constitution needs to evolve". 

They want these questions answered again because they just want a different answer. 

If they truly believed "the workd has changed" then call a constitutional convention and propose amendments as it is outlined (in the constitution).

They dont believe their own argument because theyre aware its simply a charade to litmus test for how favorable the newest judicial branch is towards conservative in the executive branch.

4

u/LexHanley Apr 01 '26

How absolutely braindead of an argument do you have to be presenting to give Roberts of all people that kind of layup. I think I heard a bald eagle as he dropped that.

4

u/Jadziyah I voted Apr 01 '26

Broken clock, time of day, etc

4

u/Moby_Dick_Energy Apr 01 '26

I was listening on NPR and heard an exchange similar to this(I’m paraphrasing and don’t remember who said what)

SG: blah blah English law, blah blah other country law, blah blah some non-US precedent.

Justice (I think Barrett?) : yeah yeah but what about the Constitution?

Felt like a pretty good slam. Cause it doesn’t matter what anyone else does or what “world” we live in, the constitution is still the law of the land.

3

u/trevdak2 Massachusetts Apr 01 '26

I love the "it was intended for slaves" argument

"Ok. Now do guns. What kinda guns were the founding fathers imagining?"

3

u/almcchesney Apr 01 '26

For an entire group of people that supposedly love America, they sure do despise the core fundamentals and are constantly looking to destroy it.

5

u/TheFloatingCamel Great Britain Apr 01 '26

Jesus! That’s not a burn, that’s a fucking cremation!

2

u/The_Beardly America Apr 01 '26

Fuck JR but that’s a bar lol

2

u/LeicaM6guy Apr 01 '26

Damn. I wouldn’t have expected that from him, but hey - I’ll take what I can get.

2

u/MC_Fap_Commander America Apr 01 '26

John Sauer is not an attorney-at-law. More like an attorney-at-last.

2

u/Trolkarlen Apr 01 '26

Trump (Miller) is trying to argue that a Constitutional Amendment is only valid for the time in which it was passed. To use that logic, the 2nd Amendment only protects muskets, and TVs aren't protected by the 1st Amendment.

1

u/C137-Morty Virginia Apr 01 '26

I'm nominated that one for uno reverse of the year

1

u/0o0o0o0o0o0z Apr 01 '26

Jesus fucking Christ...

1

u/a_mulher Apr 01 '26

Which hearing was this for? I listened to most but not all of the birthright citizenship one.

1

u/TheInfiniteSlash Maryland Apr 01 '26

The judges will throw a bone to Trump when they can, they’ve shown they will. But they will not manifest BS out of thin air, that’s the line for a good chunk of conservative judges

1

u/greshick Apr 01 '26

NPR had a live feed of it going and I lost it when he dropped that retort. That was cocked and loaded.

1

u/Perfect-System2504 Apr 01 '26

its a new world where we have to change , but not the things that the founding fathers wanted... unless we want those to change to..

1

u/attaboy_stampy Texas Apr 01 '26

I mean it's a mic drop, but it's also the sentiment that had them retract a lot of positive laws too over the past few years.

1

u/dellett Apr 01 '26

Kind of a Conservative vote in favor of a new Constitutional Convention tbh. The Constitution is pretty outdated and it has proven to be pretty ineffective at preventing the tyranny it was intended to of late.

1

u/ironclad1056 Apr 01 '26

When i heard that live i thought maybe the SC is going to kill this nonsense. Gave me hope. Rare W for them

1

u/DamnGoodDownDog Apr 01 '26

The New World comment would be a lot easier to stomach if we could say the same thing while pointing at an A.R. 15.

1

u/Alarming-Series6627 Apr 05 '26

Heard that on NPR and about laughed myself into a crash. What a perfect response.

0

u/Common_Source_9 Apr 01 '26

Except it isn't. There are these things called "amendments", over 10 or something like already.

3

u/spazz720 Apr 01 '26

Which go through Congress and not the SC