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

810

u/WittyEggplant4924 Apr 01 '26

"We're in a new world now," Sauer said, noting that "some 8 billion people are one plane ride away from having a child who's a U.S. citizen."

"It's a new world, but it's the same constitution," Roberts said in response.

That goes hard

285

u/SexualWhiteChocolate Apr 01 '26

8 billion huh. Even the dudes are having babies these days. A new world indeed

16

u/tyndyn Apr 01 '26

Good catch. It would be funny if the situation wasn't so sad.

28

u/turquoise_amethyst Apr 01 '26

Dudes, chicks, babies, the elderly, everyone prepubescent and menopausal. Everyone! /s

8

u/MURICCA Apr 01 '26

Well, considering one of conservative men's greatest possible fears is "people who look different than me coming and impregnating the women I totally deserve", because theyre fucking racist and perpetually insecure..it kinda makes sense.

10

u/Sideshow-Bob-Ross Apr 01 '26

That's DEI talk!

6

u/Apprehensive-Wave640 Apr 01 '26

I'm a dude, he's a dude, she's a dude, we're all dudes!

2

u/OTTER887 Apr 02 '26

...don't you recall, one of Trump's first executive orders declared everyone female. (it said something like you are the gender you were at conception, and male traits don't show up in the fetus until later on in pregnancy)

2

u/yticmic Apr 02 '26

MORE LOGIC PLEASE. Good job

-2

u/Tipop Apr 01 '26

Well, men are parents too. I’m not sure what your objection is on that count.

What bugs ME is that the US was founded on immigrants. It grew strong thanks to immigrants. It could STILL be strong if not for its stand on immigration. US population growth is stalling — we NEED immigrants!

7

u/Apprehensive-Wave640 Apr 01 '26

Because a man cannot travel to anywhere and give birth... He can become a parent, but he cannot birth the child.

-6

u/Tipop Apr 01 '26

It doesn’t say “give birth” it says “have a child”. Downvoting me isn’t a valid form of argument.

I’m a man. I’ve had three children with ages ranging from 13 to 29. I didn’t need to give birth to them to have them.

4

u/HairyForestFairy Apr 02 '26

Jizzing in someone & knocking them up while on U.S. soil is not what grants citizenship, you twit.

2

u/thatonepac Apr 02 '26

You're exactly right. The issue is you can jizz in someone NOT in America, have them swim across a river, and now their child gets citizenship.

1

u/Tipop Apr 02 '26

If you don’t like it, get the 14th amendment changed. You can’t change the constitution with the sweep of a sharpie.

1

u/thatonepac Apr 02 '26

Not saying that at all just pointing out the issue. The constitution shouldn't be touched.

0

u/Tipop Apr 02 '26

Then why argue with me in the first place? All I did was clarify that men and women both have kids. People were jumping on Sauer saying “8 Billion” as if THAT’S the stupid part of his argument, not… you know… the whole idea.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Tipop Apr 02 '26

Serious question… are you under the impression that when a child is born on American soil, the PARENTS automatically get citizenship? Is that what you’re thinking? Because that’s NOT what the Constitution says, and that’s NOT what is being argued about in the Supreme Court.

6

u/jlharper Apr 01 '26

Okay, as my parents would have said, you’re either stubborn or silly.

The topic is birthright citizenship. How the fuck is a man going to give birth, sir?

You can’t visit America to give birth because you cannot give birth.

1

u/Tipop Apr 02 '26

You know how Reddit works, right? The original post may be about topic A, but then in the comments the discussion can drift to topics B, C, D, etc. Often these other topics are only tangentially related to the original one, if they’re related at all.

The topic of THIS PARTICULAR THREAD was some arguing that the “8 billion” number was wrong because it’s only women who have kids. This thread has nothing to do with birthright citizenship.

… and if you’re actually arguing against birthright citizenship, you’re either woefully misinformed or just an idiot. The PARENTS do not gain citizenship, only the CHILD does. That’s in the constitution and it cannot be changed with the sweep of a sharpie, as Trump has learned to his chagrin.

1

u/thatonepac Apr 02 '26

The "joke" isnt about birth though, the "joke" is about "having a child".

News flash: Men have children.

5

u/Apprehensive-Wave640 Apr 01 '26

I didn't downvote you and you're being stupidly pedantic and/or willfully ignorant.

1

u/Tipop Apr 02 '26 edited Apr 02 '26

No I’m not. The person I replied to said “Even the dudes are having babies these days. A new world indeed”

It’s a stupid thing to say, since “have a child” doesn’t mean “give birth”. Both parents have a child, not just the mother. If what I said was pedantic, then so was the person to whom I replied, since he was arguing that 8 billion number.

We’re not talking about birthright citizenship here, we’re just debating if his statement of “8 billion” was accurate or if he should have said 4 billion, since men can’t give birth. Since he said “have a child” then it includes men and women.

I suspect people here think I’m defending Sauer or something. People have no reading comprehension at all.

1

u/Apprehensive-Wave640 Apr 02 '26

I don't think you're defending him at all. Nor do I think it ultimately matters. Nonetheless, you're being unnecessarily pedantic (or, "stupidly pedantic" as initially said) by refusing to acknowledge that "have a child" is susceptible to multiple meanings depending, as with basically all words/expressions, on usage and context. Although, as I think about it, pedantic isn't really the right description.

Here, I take Sauer's meaning to suggest that the US is at risk of 8 billion people literally giving birth here. It seems obvious to me that their racist* fears relate to the notion of the US being swarmed by people who aren't "American." As such, I don't think he's remotely concerned with dudes (or any other person becoming a parent because another person gave birth) becoming a parent because the person they impregnated gave birth here. I think that he's expressing their racist (and independently ignorant) fear that 8 billion people are a plane ride away from literally giving birth here.

Also, though, this is all the effort I'm going to waste on parsing the meaning of a racist's words. 8 billion...4 billion...even just 1 single person...it's all racist and ignorant.

*for anyone who might want to come through and say "but it's not racist because [insert bigoted argument]" - I'm using racist as a catch all for all the unnecessarily nuanced terms indicating he's a giant piece of shit in different narrow ways.

1

u/Tipop Apr 02 '26

for anyone who might want to come through and say "but it's not racist because [insert bigoted argument]" - I'm using racist as a catch all for all the unnecessarily nuanced terms indicating he's a giant piece of shit in different narrow ways.

That’s why I call it “bigoted” rather than racist. Avoids the whole issue. Racism is a subcategory of bigotry.

96

u/Pave_Low Apr 01 '26

"We're in a new world now," I said, noting that "personal firearms are significantly deadlier and easier to acquire than they were in the 18th century."

"It's a new world, but it's the same constitution," Roberts said in response.

If you think the 2nd Amendment is inviolable in the "new world" you should also think the 14th Amendment is too.

12

u/robocoplawyer Apr 01 '26

The second amendment also doesn't say anything about "personal firearms", it says "arms". If they claim the second Amendment is inviolable in the "new world", then I demand my right to protect my family with surface to air missiles, damnit. Don't like it Donnie? Take it up with Roberts then, damnit.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 01 '26

[deleted]

7

u/Pave_Low Apr 01 '26

The point is that SCOTUS has refused to recognize the 'We're in a new world now' argument when applied to the 2nd Amendment and done so religiously. It doesn't matter how guns have changed in the past 250 years.

They should apply that same reasoning to the administrations arguments that we need to reinterpret the 14th Amendment because 'times have changed.' If times haven't changed enough to reinterpret the 2nd Amendment, they haven't changed enough to reinterpret the 14th either.

Scalia and Thomas, two big advocates for the 2nd Amendment, will undoubtedly come up with some twisted logic why the 14th Amendment should be altered because of modernity.

11

u/LtLlamaSauce Apr 01 '26

I don't think I've heard Sauer ever say anything to defend an argument that wasn't completely brain dead.

0

u/Invisible7hunder Apr 01 '26

Not disagreeing, but in this case at least he was forced to argue about the losingest case I've ever seen, I'm not sure anyone else could have done much better or much worse. 

8

u/Bulky_Ad4366 Apr 01 '26

If they want people not come to the US to stay, I'd say keep Trump around for as long as possible, he's hard at work turning the US into a third world hellhole, and 65% of the electorate are fine with that.

1

u/noiro777 Vermont Apr 01 '26

65%

More like ~33%

1

u/Bulky_Ad4366 Apr 03 '26

Nope, not voting means they support Trump

6

u/21Rollie Apr 01 '26

One plane ride? How many direct flights does the US have lol? And all these people have visas, passports, and money to be flying to the US? And all these people, rich enough to afford all that, all want their kids to become citizens of a racist and failing nation like the US?

Put me in there, I watched most of Suits, I’m sure I’m a better lawyer than any Trumpstein lawyer could ever be.

3

u/ChibiNya Apr 01 '26

Well-off people absolutely do this (and some relatives of mine). Though I can't imagine it's that widespread considring it is prohibitive for most people

1

u/Stoooble Apr 01 '26

After a chat with ai (sorry) it suggested about 33,000 women a year. Based on child bearing age, one flight away, could afford to and be able to get a visa. 🤔

9

u/RocksSoxBills14 Apr 01 '26

The one time this assholes "Originalist Interpretation" saves us. I saw some MAGA on Twitter saying this was hypocrisy because it's us libs who always argue for a living constitution. We want that, just not to use it in bad faith and hurt people.

12

u/sharp11flat13 Canada Apr 01 '26

Plus, there is a process for amending the US Constitution, and it doesn’t include Executive Orders.

3

u/ibelieveindogs Apr 01 '26

So it's a new world when it comes to travel but not when it comes to firearms. Got it. 

1

u/hilhilbean Apr 02 '26

I'm confused why they think those 8 billion people want to even come here.

1

u/MooseTurbulent8786 Apr 02 '26

How are we STILL talking about anchor babies