181
Supreme court justices appear skeptical of move to end birthright citizenship as Trump attends arguments
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 01 Apr 2026
181 points (98.9% liked)
News
36915 readers
2766 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Will all the people who said this court is fully corrupted and will side with Trump on being a full on fascist eat their hats when they overturn this joke of an EO?
No because they've done it plenty of times. Like the time they said Trump can't be prosecuted for his crimes. After that everything else is kind of small potatoes. That's the appropriate level of cynicism. And while I will be pleasantly surprised if they can keep from falling all over themselves to find a way to pass this for him. I certainly wouldn't expect it.
One correct ruling doesn't undo a dozen bad ones. Check their record. This SCOTUS sucks.
They just ruled 8-1 in favor of torturing children yesterday, what kind of point do you think you're making?
Or, you know, you could just explain why you think they're wrong instead of telling them "You're wrong! Do your own research!" like a MAGA
Says you're wrong about what? My whole point is that you're not even offering a rebuttal. Your argument doesn't even reach the level of "I'm rubber and you're glue," it's just "nuh uh!" while expecting Google to do the heavy lifting for you.
To set the record straight, are you yet again asking other people to do the work in making an argument for you?
For someone with such strong opinions, you sure don't have much to say.
They literally ruled that speech is more important than torturing children.
Jackson's dissent is correct:
They ruled that the lower court had to apply strict scrutiny to the case and tossed the case back down, so the case hasn't been decided yet. Still bullshit, since we're talking about medical treatments by licensed professionals and not the rights of ordinary citizens, but as far as I can tell they didn't offer an opinion as to whether Chiles' practice is lawful or unlawful.
Yes, they tossed it back down because the state wasn't focused enough on freeze peach over child torture when they regulated medical care.
I did read it. You sound like a fucking idiot.
Even if they decide not to support fascism in this one specific case, they have deliberately, intentionally and repeatedly encouraged the development of facism in multiple other cases.
They are only as complicit in a new reign of fascism as much as current house and senate Democrats are who have had multiple chances to pull it in but chose not to. Keep in mind we voted those people in.