Imposter? A Justice should have no loyalty but to the law. This isn’t about her opinion. It’s about reading the 14th Amendment.
Want to change it? Go for it. You’ll need half the House, 2/3 of the Senate, and 3/4 of states to amend the Constitution.
this post was submitted on 15 May 2025
697 points (98.6% liked)
politics
23970 readers
3123 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
This is the case that seems the most clear out of any in the past few years.
The text of the amendment isn't murky at all.
"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."
There's no way to interpret that being born in the US doesn't convey citizenship.
And that's why the GOP are reframing those deemed undesirable as illegals, invaders, and terrorists. These people by some definitions do not behave as bound to the law of the country they are in.
Any reason to justify what they are doing.
The funny thing about that is if they argue that they’re not under the jurisdiction of the United States, then we couldn’t even give them a parking ticket, let alone deport them. They’d effectively have diplomatic immunity.
That's not how it would work at all. They'd be nationless. You do not want to be nationless.
load more comments
(45 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
I believe from listening to recent NPR that their lawyers aren't even arguing about that. They are arguing about whether national injunctions can really be national injunctions or not.
Yeah - they're trying REALLY hard to not argue the merits because it's extremely clear to anyone that what they're doing is illegal, so they're trying to make it a civil suit issue.
The next step after that is to claim Sovereign Immunity to keep civil suits from being heard.
And then they'll have their legal justification for disappearing US Citizens without due process.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
A Justice should have no loyalty but to the law.
First time reading about the GOP?
My point is that the 14th Amendment is very clear. There’s no room for interpretation as there is with something like a fetus compared to a baby in Roe v. Wade. What they want is to amend the Constitution. That’s a different process entirely.
Crazy thing is that 2 justices will almost always happily vote to throw the constitution in the trash if it helps with party politics.
They wouldn't stand a chance of doing this with the states, it would cause a civil war.
They couldnt even get it past a Republican controlled vote.
They have Republicans in office that were not even born in the USA. People forget asshats like Ted Cruz.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
More proof the right wing does not, nor have they ever, given one flying fuck about the Constitution that they go on so much about.
It's like they'd already been conditioned to be outraged about some other selectively-ignored sacred text…
load more comments
(1 replies)
They have only read one of the amendments all the way through and part of another one and the rest is too boring to read.
Curious which ones? I don't think they read all of the Second. The ding-a-lings certainly never read the First and actually understand it, because they keep acting like this is a "Christian" country, when the First says I don't have to give two shits about the chosen lifestyle of the xtian book club. Meaning I most definitely have freedom FROM religion.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Cult-like behavior. Literally. "You're with us all the way and must always back anything Dear Leader does or says. If you disagree with anything, you must be kicked out, expelled, recalled, fired, or voted out!" It's absolutely psychotic to view the world in such zero-sum, black/white terms.
I seem to recall the right wailing about cancel culture not too long ago...
No see - it’s all about who’s doing the thing. Words are all made up anyway, there are just good guys and bad guys.
Remember how “precedent” stopped them from allowing Obama to appoint a new Supreme Court judge as a lame duck, but the same logic didn’t apply to Trump?
This is the result of normalizing the practice of religiously indoctrinating children and leaded gasoline.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I wonder how many of these "MAGA influencers" are just plants or bot accounts.
Too many.
But not enough.
77 million people still voted this orange shit-stain into office again. They saw what he'd done before. They saw an attempted coup. They heard all the Nazi-era rhetoric. And they thought "that's the man for us".
load more comments
(2 replies)
Is it wrong that I'm thankful for Amy Coney Barrett? She might be the key to stopping this madness.
If we can't have a progressive, Coney-Barrett would be a better chief justice. She seems to at least try to follow the Constitution (most of the time). Eff her for lying about RvW in her confirmation hearing, though. Eff all those guys.
She’s certainly performed better than expected. She actually seems to give a damn about the application of law in most cases.
they fast tracked her to the highest court in the country thinking she was properly trained to be their good little soldier
I don't think fast tracked really covers it. That implies her career was slightly shorter than other justices. In fact, her career basically didn't exist until she became a justice.
Don't they KNOW the Founders EXPLICITLY Only Protected the RIGHT to SHOOT UP A SCHOOL?
load more comments
(1 replies)
So she sucks in a great many ways, but I’ve actually been surprised that Coney Barrett hasn’t been the rubber stamp i expected her to be
If it makes you feel better she basically is the rubber stamp you expected, all she did here was “show skepticism”
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
Every time I see verbs such as "rips" "slams" "melts down" I stop reading because I know it's going to be hyperbole
load more comments
(5 replies)
Somedays I really have to question whether such people really exist. I mean really? What do they think America is?
Edit: I mean, I get it from the people in power, they want to cozy up to that power and so they will parrot its rhetoric. So companies, lobbyists, etc., sure.
But like, regular people? With day jobs? Who function in regular society going to stores and cooking food and cleaning homes and all that? What is their actual vision of America here?
load more comments
(1 replies)
At first, I thought “remove this imposter” was a quote from ACB and I was like “Damn, she really woke up to this whole thing, huh?”
Does maga realize that the more they attack someone, the more they drive that person away?
Its a cult, they don't care. It just leads existing cult members to isolate harder from outsiders and stay loyal.
The more they attack someone verbally the more threats that person will receive from their cult.
It’s not about their rage changing anyone’s mind. It’s the threats of violence that follow. Those can make people fall in line or go into hiding and either of those is a win for the oppressors.
load more comments
(2 replies)
view more: next ›