The Courts & Hypocrisy

This Supreme Court case should be a no brainer! Today we learn if English is a second language for the Supreme Court. 

It cannot be any plainer, the Fourteenth Amendment...

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It cannot be any more black and white as that. there are no qualifiers like must be here legally. Or just be a child of a citizen, Nope.... "All person born... in the United States."

Birthright citizenship dispute at the Supreme Court has broad implications for Trump's agenda

A long-simmering issue — individual federal judges blocking policies nationwide — is taking center stage Thursday in oral arguments.

NBC News

By Lawrence Hurley

May 14, 2025

The Supreme Court could give a major boost to the Trump administration's muscular use of executive power when it hears arguments Thursday over his plan to end birthright citizenship.

The court is not actually using a trio of cases before it to give the final word on whether Trump can radically reinterpret the long-understood meaning of the Constitution's 14th Amendment. Instead, it will focus on the power of judges to block presidential policies across the country.

I cannot see any weasel room, it says it pretty straight forward... "All persons born."

Trump's plan to limit birthright citizenship to people born to at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or permanent legal resident is likely to ultimately be struck down, most legal experts say. The 14th Amendment states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

But there are other issues also being heard today... they are,

But for now, the Supreme Court — which has a 6-3 conservative majority, including three Trump appointees — is focusing only on the question of whether lower-court judges had the authority to block the policy nationwide, as three did in different cases.

The administration and its allies have for months raged at judges for issuing "universal injunctions" that have stymied Trump's aggressive use of executive power. Republicans in Congress quickly introduced legislation on the issue, which was approved by the House of Representatives last month. It has not come up for a vote in the Senate.

Trump has claimed that we are the only nation with Birthright citizenship... which is just another lie out of Trump's mouth.

Trump wants to end birthright citizenship. Where do other countries stand?

By Luis Barrucho

BBC World Service

President Donald Trump's executive order to end birthright citizenship in the US has sparked a Supreme Court legal challenge along with anxiety among immigrant families.

[...]

Birthright citizenship worldwide

Birthright citizenship, or jus soli (right of the soil), is not the norm globally.

The US is one of about 30 countries - mostly in the Americas - that grant automatic citizenship to anyone born within their borders.

In contrast, many countries in Asia, Europe, and parts of Africa adhere to the jus sanguinis (right of blood) principle, where children inherit their nationality from their parents, regardless of their birthplace.

Other countries have a combination of both principles, also granting citizenship to children of permanent residents.

Just more lies from the Republicans, the party of chronic liars.

*****

And no for the hypocrisy...

Okay, Peabody is setting the Wayback machine to January 26, 2021... "Judge temporarily blocks Biden’s plan to halt deportations" and everyone was giving each other "Hi-Fives,"...

Trump and allies celebrated court orders against Biden they now claim are ‘tyrannical’

By John Fritze, CNN

March 19, 2025

President Donald Trump and top allies who have questioned the constitutionality of recent court orders blocking the administration’s agenda touted similar rulings by federal courts as “great news” and “brilliant” when they paused President Joe Biden’s policies.

When a federal judge in Texas halted a Biden administration pause on deportations six days after Trump was inaugurated, presidential aide Stephen Miller took to social media to describe the temporary restraining order as “great news.” When a judge in Louisiana blocked Biden aides from asking social media platforms to remove content, Trump called the decision “amazing.”

“Just last week, in a historic ruling, a brilliant federal judge ordered the Biden administration to cease and desist from their illegal and unconstitutional censorship in collusion with social media,” Trump told an audience in Florida in 2023. (The Supreme Court months later would decide in Biden’s favor.)

But now!

Republicans have increasingly complained about outside groups choosing courts they believe will rule in their favor – a practice known as judge shopping. Democrats loudly protested that same practice during the Biden and Obama administrations, when Republican-aligned groups frequently sued in Texas or Louisiana where they could bring appeals to the especially conservative 5th Circuit.

[...]

Still, they can have enormous on-the-ground impacts, and they have allowed Trump’s allies to pour fuel on the notion that his critics are seeking out friendly judges to stall his agenda – just as conservatives often did during Biden’s administration. On Tuesday, Trump called for impeaching a judge in Washington, DC, who preliminarily blocked him from deporting Venezuelan nationals under a wartime law from the 18th Century.

Now the shoes on the other foot!