Supreme Court argument on birthright citizenship shouldn't be happening
Thursday’s oral argument at the Supreme Court over President Donald Trump’s blatantly unconstitutional executive order ending birthright citizenship should never have happened.
There’s no credible debate over birthright citizenship, despite right-wing attorneys and law professors desperately trying to gin up support. Before Trump, the only people talking about ending birthright citizenship included the likes of John Eastman, who is currently facing disbarment for his role in trying to overturn the 2020 election.
If you tuned in on Thursday, you might have wondered why they weren’t discussing the constitutionality of birthright citizenship. Instead, much of the argument was about the nationwide injunctions that lower courts have issued blocking Trump’s executive order.
Republicans used to love broad injunctions. They had no problem with Judge Reed O’Connor’s nationwide rulings blocking Obama-era rules about letting students use bathrooms that conform to their gender identity, nor were they sad when he invalidated a Biden-era gun regulation nationwide, nor did they express consternation when O’Connor struck down preventive care requirements under the Affordable Care Act and, you guessed it, applied that nationwide. They also had no problem with Trump appointee Matthew Kacsmaryk deciding to block the sale of mifepristone—a completely legal drug used in medication abortions—nationwide.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2025/5/15/2322578/-Supreme-Court-argument-on-birthright-citizenship-shouldn-t-be-happening
= new reply since forum marked as read
