this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2026
209 points (99.5% liked)

politics

30237 readers
2142 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 22 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] mkwt@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

The vote was 5-4 for the proposition that the Constitution guarantees birthright citizenship.

The vote was 6-3 that a regular federal law guarantees the same right.

Kavanaugh is the switcher. He voted against the Constitution and for the federal law. This is crazy because the relevant text in the law is a copy paste job from the Constitution. It's the same text. Kavanaugh's position is that the same words mean two different things in two different places, because the federal law was enacted at a different time than the constitutional amendment.

Meanwhile, Gorsuch voted against birthright citizenship both times, but in his opinion he's pretty clear that children born to parents who are domiciled in the US are citizens by birthright. Domicile means you are staying in the US long term and intend to remain. But you don't need legal immigration status to have domicile. So that's not really a Trump-friendly position is you dog into it.

Edit: I meant to reply to the other comment, but I messed that up.

[–] becausechemistry@piefed.social 51 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (2 children)

~~5-4~~ 6-3 for what it explicitly states in the constitution.

Impeach these motherfuckers.

[–] darkdemize@sh.itjust.works 26 points 23 hours ago (3 children)

6-3, but how anyone could dissent is troubling.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 19 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago)

I'm interested in what is actually in the dissent. But I also work for a living, and I guess the dissent is over 90 pages? Who has time for that shit?

But based on news reports, the main thrust of the dissent is that the birthright citizenship clause was "always meant" for babies born here whose parents had no prior allegiance to other countries, like the children of newly emancipated slaves. But that's bullshit, because those former slaves didn't choose to come here, so assuming they have no allegiance to any other country after coming here is kind of insulting.

Also, all those "Dreamers" who were brought here as small children certainly feel an allegiance here, this country is all they have ever known. It doesn't matter where their parents came from.

Maybe I shouldn't read the whole dissent, it would just piss me off. All these conservatives who claim to be "textualists" start making shit up the minute the plain text doesn't support their preconceived ideas.

[–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 20 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

The fun part is that you already know which 3 it was

[–] ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one 1 points 16 hours ago

Samuel Alito and Clearance Thomas.

[–] becausechemistry@piefed.social 5 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Apparently I can’t read any better than Alito can lol

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 3 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

In fairness, the AP article states 3 Judges dissented, but then included Kavanaugh in the dissenter image at the bottom of the page:

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-birthright-citizenship-trump-immigration-c73cf0c70bb550ebf0a55fafddbd935c

[–] TipRing@lemmy.world 3 points 20 hours ago

Kavenaugh ruled the order unconstitutional but with a different opinion (federal law instead of the constitution) maybe that is why they put him in a different group.

[–] NateNate60@lemmy.world 6 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Doesn't even need impeachment, three of them probably could already be thrown in prison for corruption. Sure they don't have to vacate the bench, necessarily, but I don't think prison regulations allow for them to hear arguments or make rulings.

[–] foggy@lemmy.world 6 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

It is exceedingly evident that if a fully bought supreme court justice is the greatest threat to our democracy.

We don't have a mechanism to say "wait wait hey who the fuck do you think you are?" To supreme court justices. Ostensibly, if you control them, you control the country.

[–] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 52 minutes ago

Time for a supremest court

[–] halcyoncmdr@piefed.social 5 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

We don't have a mechanism to say "wait wait hey who the fuck do you think you are?" To supreme court justices.

Congress can impeach Justices just like the President. Samuel Chase was impeached in 1804. The only SC Justice to ever be impeached.

[–] i_am_not_a_robot@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

How many congressmen need to agree to impeach a justice? Is congress less corrupt than the supreme court? Trump is more corrupt than the supreme court and they can't impeach him. Aren't the traitors who refused to do their job and let Obama appoint judges because Trump had been elected but then had no problem letting Trump appoint judges after Biden had been elected still in office? The people who said Trump had learned his lesson and didn't need to be removed from office? How many people from the current congress attend those cringe Trump grovelling sessions?

[–] halcyoncmdr@piefed.social 1 points 5 hours ago

Whether it is likely or not wasn't the discussion. I was refuting the statement "We don’t have a mechanism"... We very much do. And it has been used before, it's not just theoretical.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 15 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (1 children)

This is good, but that 3 justices ruled (voted?) for overturning is disturbing AF. The GOP will just keep appointing justices that will rule their way in the future.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, another Trump appointee, dissented.

[–] ThePowerOfGeek@lemmy.world 1 points 19 hours ago

And Kavanaugh voted against for the wrong reason (he said Trump's EO didn't violate the Constitution but did violates federal law).

[–] Cosmonauticus@lemmy.world 12 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Didn't expect that

Something, something, broken clock...

[–] spongebue@lemmy.world 14 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

There are 6 pieces of shit on SCOTUS, but some of them at least try not to be occasionally. Even the conservatives seemed incredibly skeptical during arguments. My biggest surprise is that Gorsuch joined Alito and Thomas.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 3 points 20 hours ago

Trollito is obviously such a total piece of shit and wildly radical and out of step with the American people.

I mean that little dickhead seems to be so angry about all the progress that has been made and is flying that Seven Mountain Mandate/ Appeal to Heaven flag, FFS.

No way is he even remotely unbiased. He's a white guy and so the crazy white xtian nationalist bullshit has a rather obvious appeal to him, even if it would mean the end of this country meaning anything like what it is supposed to mean.

But as to Coke can Clarence - what in the holy fuck is wrong with him? Is he really so fucking stupid as to not realize that it would mean for him, personally? If he doesn't care about him or his (interracial) marriage, what about his own son, FFS?

[–] GutterRat42@lemmy.world 10 points 23 hours ago

But he won on party spending and the independence of federal agencies. This barely feels like a morsel

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 4 points 20 hours ago

This should have been an obvious outcome, but with this court corrupted by too many conservative? You just never know. They overturned 50 years of law on abortion, why not this, too?