Althouse: "LISTEN LIVE: Supreme Court hears arguments on Trump’s challenge to birthright citizenship."

May 15, 2025

"LISTEN LIVE: Supreme Court hears arguments on Trump’s challenge to birthright citizenship."

Live-blogging at SCOTUSblog, here.

38 comments:

R C Belaire said...: Place your bets. As a result, I believe birthright citizenship will be more narrowly defined resulting in a more/less win for Trump.; 5/15/25, 9:11 AM
tommyesq said...: Also note that the case may resolve the issue of district court judges issuing nation-wide injunctions.; 5/15/25, 9:23 AM
tommyesq said...: Sotomayer will simply not let Trump's attorney speak - one of the other justices has to keep asking her to let the attorney finish.; 5/15/25, 9:29 AM
BUMBLE BEE said...: Tucker interviews Ed Martin...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LotMJAdWyOs; 5/15/25, 9:31 AM
Iman said...: Preggie ChiCom agent crosses our southern border, squeezes out her baby operative for future “death to America” strike as an American citizen?

Oh Hell NO!; 5/15/25, 9:40 AM
Iman said...: We’d have to be “educationally challenged” to allow that… no?; 5/15/25, 9:41 AM
Mike (MJB Wolf) said...: But they are arguing over the "nationwide injunction" BS. I hope they get around to the merits of the actual ruling and not just the nationwide issue.; 5/15/25, 9:51 AM
Mike (MJB Wolf) said...: Man those SCOTUSblog people are as far left as you can be. One has already expressed her "love" for Jackson. The others are now arguing whether Kagan is just great, the greatest questioner now or ever. Yikes.; 5/15/25, 9:54 AM
tommyesq said...: But they are arguing over the "nationwide injunction" BS. I hope they get around to the merits of the actual ruling and not just the nationwide issue.

I am pretty sure the actual birthright citizenship is not at issue in this case. The issue is that district courts quickly issued nationwide temporary restraining orders, but those courts have not yet reached a full decision on the merits of the birthright citizenship issue, and therefore that issue is not yet ripe for appeal.; 5/15/25, 10:06 AM
gilbar said...: "courts have not yet reached a full decision on the merits of the birthright citizenship issue, and therefore that issue is not yet ripe for appeal."

isn't it INTERESTING? the way our founders EXPLICITLY STATED, that while it takes a couple of appeals court judges (or FIVE SC justices) to overturn a single district judge..
They Can't EVEN Do THAT, until the single district judge ACTUALLY makes his final ruling..
Until his Final ruling, The ENTIRE UNIVERSE is BOUND by his stay. JUST like the founders wrote it in our Constitution!

What's that?
Not Only didn't the founders mention Universal Stays..
Not Only didn't the founders mention STAYS..
Not Only didn't the founders mention district or appeals courts..
The only single person that THEY mentioned making decisions was The President

oh well! I guess it's Better Now (/sarc); 5/15/25, 10:29 AM
Jess said...: The original intent of any law is what binds it to any action. Never was allowing any fertile foreign citizen to drop babies, expect citizenship, and receive public funds, intended, nor even contemplated. Of course, there will be tooth gnashing, complaining, and pontificating in courts, but those ignoring the intent are as traitorous as those selling classified information to foreign enemies.; 5/15/25, 10:43 AM
deepelemblues said...: Today is not about the merits of the birthright citizenship EO. That is the vehicle for what is being questioned and decided here: nationwide injunctions.; 5/15/25, 10:50 AM
n.n said...: Birthright to illegal aliens and invasive people.; 5/15/25, 10:58 AM
narciso said...: its the bulwark dispatch crew, you get what you pay for,; 5/15/25, 11:16 AM
Ampersand said...: Nationwide injunctions are a far more significant issue than birthright citizenship.; 5/15/25, 11:38 AM
n.n said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 5/15/25, 11:44 AM
n.n said...: The government is arguing that lower courts have limited jurisdiction.; 5/15/25, 11:44 AM
Hassayamper said...: Nationwide injunctions are a far more significant issue than birthright citizenship.

I disagree. Birthright citizenship is a disaster. Of course we need to rein in the injunctive powers of district courts, but they do not threaten the basic character of a nation as much as birthright citizenship.; 5/15/25, 11:49 AM
narciso said...: https://x.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1923056944182440367; 5/15/25, 12:08 PM
TaeJohnDo said...: Which method is better to puzzle out how the Justices will rule: Thrown Bones or Tea Leaves?; 5/15/25, 12:29 PM
Jimmy said...: Still trying to understand why a corrupt and incompetent legal system is telling the rest of us what type of country we are allowed to have. Seems like the Constitution ceased to be meaningful a long time ago, at least for the American justice system.
Lincoln ignored the SC, as did FDR.
The courts all passed on dealing with an invasion of illegals, Bidens handlers running the country. But they are happy to f88k with Trump at every opportunity.
How fair and just are the courts? ask any J6 person, held without bail, and without charges, for years.; 5/15/25, 12:32 PM
narciso said...: swords in lakes; 5/15/25, 12:34 PM
Iman said...: Did Roberts tell Sotomayor to shut her “fat cakehole”?; 5/15/25, 1:11 PM
Joe Bar said...: narciso said...
"swords in lakes"
Is no basis for a system of government!; 5/15/25, 1:11 PM
narciso said...: margot thinks the court will try to thread the needle, not affimatively decide the question,; 5/15/25, 1:15 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: The arguments are still going? There must've been a break.; 5/15/25, 1:26 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: Universal Injunctions. Do they include stuff the James Webb is only now discovering and will discover in the future?

That's a lot of power.; 5/15/25, 1:32 PM
Bob Shepherd said...: Being born in the US is a requirement to be president, but that's no guarantee you will be sensible. Look at Obama, who was probably born in America, but spent formative years in an environment not conducive to rational thought. That's the chance we take. You can't fine-tune it too much.; 5/15/25, 1:44 PM
Gospace said...: Citizens have both rights and obligations. One of the obligations is to be a good citizen. let's take this case- taken to Mexico by his illegally in the USA parents at age 2. Returns age 16. Speaks an indigenous language. At age 16, he is not fluent in Spanish, the most widely spoken language in Mexico, where is also a citizen, not fluent in English, the most widely spoken language in the USA.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/17/us/lopez-gomez-citizen-detained-ice-florida

Do you really think the people who passed the 14th amendment intended for a person born in the US to people here unlawfully who whisked him away at age to another country where he only learned to speak Tzotzil to be a citizen?

If so- then explain why his parents shouldn't be charged with child abuse. If they step foot into the US. One parental duty is- see to it your child is educated. He obviously isn't. And not educating your child is child neglect/abuse in the USA. Don't know about Mexico- don't care- not my country. But if it's the same there- the Mexican government has a case against the parents.; 5/15/25, 1:48 PM
rehajm said...: When a proper ruling helps Trump nobody ever went broke placing a wager that SCOTUS punts…; 5/15/25, 1:59 PM
planetgeo said...: The problem with this case at this particular time is that the TDS virus seems to be raging through the Supreme Court with only 3 or maybe 4 of them still not infected or demonstrating symptoms. So the merits of the case may not be relevant. Furthermore, looks like justices at every level are forming the "musk ox defense formation", butts together and facing outward to protect against any effort to disobey any judicial ruling no matter how unconstitutional or non-jurisdictional it might be. The "herd" looks intent on protecting any rogue member no matter what.; 5/15/25, 2:01 PM
Kakistocracy said...: The best reading of the justices’ questions is that although they are concerned about giving too much power to a single district judge, they are more worried about Trump’s contempt for the rule of law.; 5/15/25, 2:52 PM
Achilles said...: TaeJohnDo said...
Which method is better to puzzle out how the Justices will rule: Thrown Bones or Tea Leaves?

We know there are 4 Liberal Justices that are a lock to oppose Trump in any way they can.

Right now the swing traitors are Kavanaugh and Coney. They will take turns making sure the Globalists get whatever they need at the expense of the United States.

The only reason Roberts would vote to end Birthright citizenship would be to write the opinion and limit the reach of the ruling as much as possible.; 5/15/25, 3:35 PM
Achilles said...: narciso said...
margot thinks the court will try to thread the needle, not affimatively decide the question,

Of course they will. At least 6 of the Justices are globalist traitors who are just trying to keep up appearances. They know the arguments and they know what the right thing to do is for the country.

But they do not see themselves as Americans. They are lords that were put in place by their masters to keep Americans in line.; 5/15/25, 3:38 PM
Hassayamper said...: although they are concerned about giving too much power to a single district judge, they are more worried about Trump’s contempt for the rule of law.

When activist district judges issue nakedly political nationwide injunctions against the exercise of the President's specifically enumerated Constitutional powers, contempt is the proper response.

Trump should go Andrew Jackson on these rats and lice, not even deigning to acknowledge their precious little injunctions, let alone obey them.

We have a Constitutional remedy for Presidents who act outside their enumerated powers, and that is impeachment. Deference to left wing activists in black robes inventing injunctive powers out of thin air to hamstring the executive branch is a fool's game.

Let's destroy nationwide injunctions, qualified immunity, and all the other judge-created fictions that are used to aggrandize government and trample the rights of citizens. In fact Marbury vs. Madison itself is anti-Constitutional and ought to be abolished. Trump is just the man to do it too. I support total war on these enemy scum.; 5/15/25, 3:43 PM
Marcus Bressler said...: While they discussed Birthright Citizenship, that is not the issue before the court.; 5/15/25, 4:54 PM
Kakistocracy said...: Was Alito the one who was slapping the bench?; 5/15/25, 7:03 PM
Iman said...: “Was Alito the one who was slapping the bench?”

No, that was kagan’s johnson…; 5/15/25, 8:35 PM