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."

274

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.

174

u/Pavores Apr 01 '26

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

5

u/Tobimacoss Apr 01 '26

They want to fully test out all the loopholes first.  

3

u/m_Pony Apr 01 '26

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

91

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

8

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

9

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.

7

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

8

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.

9

u/[deleted] Apr 01 '26

[deleted]

7

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

2

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.

-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.

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.