Supreme Court seems poised to reject Trump's birthright citizenship limits as he attends arguments

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court seemed poised Wednesday to reject President Donald Trump’s restrictions on birthright citizenship in a consequential case that was magnified by his unparalleled presence in the courtroom.

Conservative and liberal justices questioned whether Trump's order declaring that children born to parents who are in the United States illegally or temporarily are not American citizens comports with either the Constitution or federal law.

Arguments lasted more than two hours in a crowded courtroom that included not only Trump, the first sitting president to attend arguments at the nation’s highest court, but also Attorney General Pam Bondi and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, and in seats reserved for the justices' guests, actor Robert De Niro.

Trump spent just over an hour inside the courtroom for arguments made by the Republican administration's top Supreme Court lawyer, Solicitor General D. John Sauer. The president departed shortly after lawyer Cecillia Wang began her presentation in defense of broad birthright citizenship.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/supreme-court-hears-high-profile-040352303.html

If Trump was in the court room, it must have reeked especially when he wasn't getting his way.

[pfitz59]

1. I love that Robert DeNiro was there

Trump had to be choking back his bile.

[underpants]

2. Thomas of course. Alito probably too. The rest? Not so much it seems

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100221139564

GORSUCH: Do you think Native Americans are birthright citizens under your test?

SAUER: Ah, I think ... so. I have to think that through.

—
SAUER: We're in a new world where 8 billion people are one plane ride away from having a child who's a US citizen.

JOHN ROBERTS: It's a new world. It's the same Constitution.
—
Coney Barrett to Sauer: "You say the purpose of the 14th amendment was to put all newly freed slaves on equal footing and so they would be citizens. But that's not textual."

—
SCOTUS Justice Amy Coney Barrett now appears skeptical of striking down birthright citizenship for illegals

"I can imagine it being messy in some applications."

"What if you don't know who the parents are?"
—
Gorsuch: “I’m not sure how much you want to rely on Wong Kim Ark,” referring to the watershed SCOTUS precedent protecting birthright citizenship.

He cuttingly refers to the Trump admin’s reliance on “Roman law sources.”

Looking predictably bad for Trump.
—
Barrett: If you're looking at parents and if you're looking at parents domicile, then you have to adjudicate both residents and intent to stay. What if you don't know who the parents are?

Sauer: I think there are marginal cases. That one, I think has the benefit of being addressed in 1401F

Barrett: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. But what about the constitution?
—

[bluestarone]

3. So if this decision is against TSF, how long before it's made public?

Should be 15 mins, but i'm thinking a month?

[dickthegrouch]

4. Doesn't it take 2/3 in Congress and 2/3 of the States to change the constitution?

How can one person's incompetent ignorant signature overcome those requirements????