Why are they even hearing this case?

[boston bean]

The bully in the audience does not deserve this much deference.

[hlthe2b]

1. At least they are giving Sauer the drumming he deserves--no matter how quickly & emphatically

he tries to counter. He was all but yelling at the SCOTUS female justices when scrambling to try to argue his points. I know he has a vocal condition, but damned. That does not cause him to run off at 5x normal speed, but I guess RWers think that makes a bad argument reasonable.

[haele]

7. Natural born Gish Galloper...

Still doesn't have anything legitimate to say.

[Boo1]

2. They are hearing it

To clearly shut it down, imo

[spanone]

3. Only sitting president to ever sit in on scotus oral arguments...

Intimidating scowl

[FarPoint]

4. You can thank the creators and backers of the Project 2025....

Heritage Foundation faux Christians....

We have been suffering for a long time from these people control/power grab.

[JustAnotherGen]

5. Agreed

I wish people had paid more attention to The Heritage Foundation than to AIPAC in the last election.

AIPAC is small potatoes.

THF? Evil entity that has played the long game for DECADES. It is fifty years old - and has been insidious and evil from day one. Know why we support Israel in the modern day? THF who are waiting for the End Times.

[LeftInTX]

13. I agree. I don't know what THF is, but this obsession with Israel is tearing up apart.

Yes, Israel is a bully, but this is happening in another part of the world and both sides need a reckoning because when is it too much?

Heritage Foundation is happening AT HOME

Either way, AIPAC ended up winning anyway because too many people were obsessed with it. Hello, they also support the GOP...duh.....???

[JustAnotherGen]

23. THF - The Heritage Foundation

[Buckeyeblue]

6. The government's argument is all about intent of the parent to stay in the US

Which is interesting considering that that language is no where in the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment is pretty explicit--maybe one of the most explicit amendments--that if you're born in the US you are a citizen.

[haele]

8. Well, there goes selling those special expensive vacation packages

For international jet- setters and their pregnant family members who want dual citizenship for the spawn to be able to live, work, or play in the US with the benefits of multiple citizenships and without having to go through a naturalization "loyalty oath" hassle.

[B.See]

17. Not to mention the pregnant wives and mistresses

of wealthy Russian oligarchs, who were put up and pampered (at a profit) in posh Trump Miami resorts, to give birth to dual citizenship babies. (Look it up.)

But not to worry. There will be some hocus pocus 'loophole'... correction... 'exceptions' for them.

Like that old commercial once said, "membership has its PRIVILEGES."

[EnergizedLib]

9. Admittedly, I never went to law school

That said, Sauer sounds like a complete imbecile who doesn’t even belong at the kiddie table.

And yet, I don’t hold my breath when it comes to this corrupt, illegitimate court.

[lastlib]

10. probably for the same reason they took up the immunity case......

That one was SUPPOSED to be a slam-dunk, 9-0 decision against The Felon, given a tightly-reasoned, well-written appellate decision against him from the DC circuit. The six Nazis took up his appeal, and handed down one of the most disastrous decisions in legal history. I'm quite suspicious of waht they will do with this one, given their recent history....

[B.See]

12. exactly.

[B.See]

11. Why are they using a Civil War era supremacist's

argument in a case challenging birthright citizenship, you ask?

Because TRUMP and his fascists want to establish the premise (under guise and pretense of it being about immigration) that only descendants of the original colonists should be considered US citizens by right of birth.

That was the original argument, was it not?

Trump says birthright citizenship was only for the 'babies of slaves.' Why a Supreme Court case testing that theory matters for Black Americans - The Grio via MSN

Legal experts note that while the Trump administration is seemingly targeting only immigrant communities with its move to end birthright citizenship, the effort is inextricably tied to the same white nationalist, anti-Black positions used in the 1860s.

[maxsolomon]

14. 14th was ratified in 1868.

3 years after the Civil War ended.

There was already massive Potato-famine Irish immigration ongoing at that time. If they wanted to exclude Immigrant's children and just make it for freed Af-Ams, they'd have done so.

The entire case is mortifying.

[H2O Man]

15. Thank you.

[B.See]

16. I know when the 14th was ratified

and also of the arguments against birthright citizenship for Black people in the 1860's.

But yes, mortifying for a variety of reasons. From the article I referenced:

“I think that what Black people need to wake up to is that all of these little attacks on DEI on birthright, what they are all meant to do is to allow government institutions to question who, other than white people, belongs in this society with full citizenship rights,” Dr. Alvin Tillery, a professor of political science at Northwestern University, told theGrio.

Tillery, who is also the director of the Center for the Study of Diversity and Democracy, warned that the “next logical extension” of Trump’s theory on birthright citizenship is that “the framers of the Constitution never really meant for Black people to be citizens.” He continued, “If we can overturn the 14th Amendment, birthright citizenship, doesn’t that also apply to the Blacks? That’s where they will be headed. And so we need to join those efforts vigorously to protect birthright citizenship as Black people.”

But then again, I've been saying (warning) for quite some time, that presumptive, arrogant, privileged racists like Trump NEVER considered Black people to be "real Americans."

Her certainly never thought Obama was. And some of us, at least, were able to read between the lines.

[maxsolomon]

18. Sorry if I offended you. I was trying to agree with you.

Alvin Tillery is slippery-sloping this. I'm just tired of slippery-sloping. They're not coming for native-born black Americans next.

[B.See]

20. Wasn't offended because

your second reply pretty much confirms my understanding of your previous one.

I merely disagree.

Their goal is to question, put into doubt, and challenge the legitimacy of every Trump/ MAGA/ GOP non voter - to disempower and disenfranchise us 'by any means necessary' - especially Black voters -

whether via attacks on citizenship, eligibility, voter registration drives, mail in voting, drop boxes, location of polling places, etc.etc.

The immigration angle is merely a smoke screen. That's the slippery slope.

Denying it or dismissing these concerns however, is your prerogative.

[maxsolomon]

21. It's a matter of how slippery slopes are.

There's definitely a slope. Trumpists do want to de-naturalize citizens if they can.

[B.See]

22. Yes. Certain citizens. Denaturalize

destabilize, disenfranchise, and disempower. Disavow and DEHUMANIZE even.

And it's fairly apparent in everything they say or do.

[struggle4progress]

19. Because various braying Nazi horses' behinds on the court think they'll seem brilliant and powerful

In reality, of course, they'll just deliver some half-witted jabberwocky in comparison to the classic decision in Wong Kim Ark and feel very proud that they're such self-impressed asswipes

[onenote]

24. Why? Because at least four members of the Court agreed that the case should be heard

And, for what its worth, no member of the court noted their dissent to the grant of certiorari.

That doesn't mean that any or all of the members of the court that voted to hear the case are certain, or even likely, to reverse the lower court decision.