I've never seen a lawyer in any court, let alone the Supreme Court. Basically say, yeah, my case sucks. I'm like, he literally said his case is questionable. The fact that the conservative justices are even entertaining, this is basically like the alito's and the Clarence Thomas's going, Donald Trump, you can come up [00:00:20] with the dumbest thing in the world. And we'll go, maybe, maybe, maybe we'll create utter mayhem and no one will know who's an American citizen anymore because they're all born here. President Trump's battle to end birthright citizenship taking center stage at the Supreme Court today. [00:00:35] You claim that there is absolutely no constitutional way to stop. Put this aside to stop a president from an unconstitutional act. A clearly, indisputably unconstitutional act. [00:00:51] I disagree with that. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments today in a case about the enforcement of President Trump's order to ban birthright citizenship. The main question is not birthright citizenship itself, but rather whether lower courts overstepped their authority by blocking [00:01:11] that order on a nationwide basis. Before we get to the oral arguments, we're going to hear from Donald Trump, who went on one of his classic truth social rants earlier this morning. But first, Jake, I know you have a lot of thoughts on birthright citizenship. It was in part one of the reasons you, you know, [00:01:28] it helped inspire your your candidacy. What do you make of this case? And how do you think the Supreme Court will rule? Yeah. So there's three different issues here. So number one is birthright citizenship, which should be inarguable, by the way, a little topsy turvy there, Jordan. [00:01:43] So I'm a naturalized citizen. So I believe that all birthright citizenship should be taken away. So I'm one of the few citizens left. No, seriously. But I do have nephews who have birthright citizenship, etc., because that's how we get citizenship. [00:01:59] If you're born here, that's usually the number one way anyways. But there's also the issue of these injunctions from the lower courts. That sounds wonky, but it's really important. Which gets to the third and maybe most important issue, which was Amy Coney Barrett, a grilling the Trump administration on whether they're going [00:02:19] to listen to court orders at all. And then there was one very clear answer to that. And then one disastrous answer to that. So there's a lot to get to here and sort out. So Jordan take it away and then we'll analyze. Let's get to that rant from Donald Trump. He posted this on Truth Social. [00:02:37] Birthright citizenship was not meant for people taking vacations to become permanent citizens of the United States of America and bringing their families with them all the time, laughing at the quote, suckers that we are. The United States of America is the only country in the world that does this. [00:02:55] For what reason? Nobody knows. But the drug cartels love it. We are, for the sake of being politically correct. Correct? A stupid country, but in actuality, this is the exact opposite of being politically correct. [00:03:11] And it is yet another point that leads to the dysfunction of America. Birthright citizenship is about the babies of slaves. It had nothing to do with illegal immigration for people wanting to scam our country from all parts of the world, which they have done for many years. [00:03:29] Thank you for your attention to this matter. Now, first of all, his repeated claim that the US is the only country with birthright citizenship is flat out incorrect, as you can see in this map. There are about 30 other countries that do the same thing, [00:03:45] including both of our neighbors. You can see the full list over on the right. Secondly, the 14th amendment literally could not be any clearer. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, [00:04:00] and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. So we've established that Trump is flat out wrong. But now let's go back to the Supreme Court case, because that's not nearly as clear as Trump's BS arguments against the merits of birthright citizenship. [00:04:19] Before we hear from the justices, here's CBS's legal expert explaining what this case stemming from Trump's executive order is really about. Take a look. Many people sued. Federal judges issued these things called nationwide injunctions, [00:04:35] meaning that the executive order can't go into effect not just with respect to the parties who sued, but with respect to everybody nationwide. And so the question that the court is struggling with is, do federal judges have the power to do that? Do they have the power to say this? Executive order. [00:04:52] Stop it. Halt it! Not just for the people who walked into my courtroom and asked me, but with respect to everybody. It cannot be implemented anywhere. So as we wait for the court's decision, we can only make inferences [00:05:10] based on some of the lines of questioning from the justices. And so far, from what we can tell, some of the conservative justices seem open to siding with the Trump administration. According to CNN, several conservative justices signaled deep reservations [00:05:25] with the ability of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions, but at the same time seem to be searching for other ways people could, in the short term, stop a policy that would upend more than a century of Upstand understanding about American citizenship. [00:05:42] The liberals, however, pressed Solicitor General John Sauer on what's taking away on what. Taking away power from lower courts would mean. Justice Sotomayor gave Sauer a hypothetical about what could happen with a different president in charge. [00:05:58] Take a look. You claim that there is absolutely no constitutional way to stop. Put this aside to stop a president from an unconstitutional act. A clearly, indisputably unconstitutional act. [00:06:16] So when a new president orders that because there's so much gun violence going on in the country, and he comes in and he says, I have the right to take away the guns from everyone, then people, and he sends [00:06:33] out the military to seize everyone's guns. We and the courts have to sit back and wait until every name plaintiff gets, or every plaintiff who's gun is taken comes into court, [00:06:50] taking every gun from every citizen. - We couldn't stop that. - I disagree with that. Now, Ketanji Brown Jackson summarized the Trump team's argument as catch me if you can. [00:07:06] Take a look. The real concern, I think, is that your argument seems to turn our justice system, in my view, at least into a catch me if you can kind of regime regime from the standpoint of the executive, where everybody has to have a lawyer and file a lawsuit in order for the government [00:07:25] to stop violating people's rights. Justice Kagan says, let's assume for the purpose of this that you're wrong about the merits, that the government is not allowed to do this under the Constitution. And yet, it seems to me that your argument says we get to keep on doing it [00:07:41] until everyone who is potentially harmed by it figures out how to file a lawsuit. Hire a lawyer. ET cetera. And I don't understand how that is remotely consistent with the rule of law. [00:07:58] And finally, all of the merits of the birthright citizenship case are not technically in question here. Justice Amy Coney Barrett repeatedly pressed Sauer about why the government is avoiding the merits, and he made a damning admission. Take a look. This is also a follow up to some of the questions that others have [00:08:16] asked you about the merits of the order not being before us. Did I understand your answer to be because you think percolation is really important for this one? Yes. But also more fundamentally, it illustrates that the very problem with these nationwide injunctions is they, they, they, they force [00:08:32] this rushed, you know, fast and furious decisions on the merits. So I think it would be very inappropriate in this case to come to a stay application saying, please give us a rushed, you know, decision on the merits of something. That's what the government's done, that in other cases to. Write those cases would be different. [00:08:49] In this case, the example I gave earlier, we think it's very clear cut on the merits. This one is we we concede a novel. And so this one isn't clear cut on the merits. This one in this case we want the court to address the remedial issue. One could say in other words, they can't defend it because they know [00:09:07] it's so blatantly unconstitutional. But, Jake, what do you think the court will decide here? Do you think we should read into Justice Coney Barrett's line of questioning? Okay, so I have so many things to say about all the different justices in their line of questioning, because Amy Coney Barrett [00:09:24] had the best questions, to be honest. That was one of them. And then I'm going to get back to a second one that was even more critical in a in a minute. But so in that question right there, she's, getting at, okay, the birthright citizenship issue. [00:09:39] Once we get past these issues of, hey, can courts do lower courts do nationwide injunctions should they do class action lawsuits? You know the process issues, right? What do you think about the merits of birthright citizenship? And he just flat out admits, yeah, that was tough on the merits. [00:09:57] But that's actually what you guys are going for. All the process stuff is to get to the conclusion where you want to take away people's citizenship. And when she asked him about that, he's like, yeah, I've never seen a lawyer in any court, let alone the Supreme Court. Basically say, yeah, my case sucks. [00:10:13] Like he literally said, his case is questionable. Okay. Not literally in that he didn't use that word. But you heard him right there in that he was saying, yeah, on the merits. It's it's dicey. So what are we doing here? What are we doing here? And actually, one of our members is a good theory on what we're doing here. [00:10:30] I'll get to that in a second. Sotomayor had that question. That we played for you is also excellent. Except I want to tell her sh y. Okay, I'm largely kidding. You have to set the right legal precedent, no matter who's in charge. But, man, Republicans, right wing, etc. [00:10:46] You better be careful with this precedent, because now back to the process issue of can the lower courts say, hey, listen, you're going to create mayhem here. If you start taking away citizenship before the Supreme Court, it goes up to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court decides definitively. [00:11:03] Right. So hold on. That's the injunction. Hold on and let the Supreme Court decide this. And if they say yes, then you could take away citizenship, right? So Trump doesn't want that. He's like, no, I just want to start taking it away right now. Kavanaugh had some good questions about that. [00:11:18] But what Sotomayor was saying is, if that's true, if a Democratic president comes in and he goes, oh, oh, okay, so we can do anything we want, and the lower courts can't stop us. They have to wait all the way until it goes up to the Supreme Court [00:11:33] and the Supreme Court remands, and then goes back down to the lower courts and all the way back up to the Supreme Court. That could take a long, long time. So her example I can give a thousand examples, but her example was all right. Democrat comes in and goes, all right, I'm seizing all your guns. Good luck. [00:11:48] You'll get to the Supreme Court in a year or so, I suppose, but by that time I'll have all your guns, and then you'll have to try to get him back, and then you'll have to go to the courts and the Supreme Court and back and forth. Back and forth. No no no no no no. What if they start doing massively, although this is massively [00:12:04] unconstitutional and super clear. But what if the court said, okay, the president said Democrat or Republican? All right. I'm taking away freedom of the press. All the press is shut down immediately, okay. No one is allowed to broadcast. And so certainly no one is allowed to criticize the president. [00:12:20] Okay. Well, now lower courts can't do anything. So they're going to shut down every single media organization and then try to restart them a year later when the Supreme Court gets to it. Now that's mental. It's totally mental. The reason why I say is because, man, if I had an ally who was president [00:12:36] and that rule was in place, I wouldn't know any of the bad things, but I would counsel for us to take significant and massive action and let them sort it out later. It can't stand. That's nuts. So Ketanji Brown Jackson leads to one of our members, right. [00:12:53] So why are they even doing this? What's the point of this? Luby wrote in On Titcomb, ending birthright citizenship is not only an attack on nonwhite citizens, it also provides a clear path allowing Trump, etc. To deport anyone who disagrees with them. See, that's the thing. [00:13:12] If you. And that's partly what Ketanji Brown Jackson was getting at. If you have this rule in place, how are they going to enforce it? And Kavanaugh got to that. I'll get to him in a second. And basically it would be the president, the executive branch going, [00:13:28] let's investigate that guy. Okay. I don't like that guy. He's been criticizing me. Oh. That's it. He was born here, but his parents once went on a vacation. And does that really count? I don't know if one of his parents is American, but the other one's Canadian. Doesn't count. Doesn't count. [00:13:44] Now I'm targeting you. I'm removing you. You. You and you who all criticized me on this total BS. You're not a citizen anymore, even if you're born in America. So that's part of the point here. A total political attack and attack on our Constitution. [00:14:01] So now we get to Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh is an interesting cat. So he's the one that has this alternative about how people can bring up class action lawsuits instead of getting an injunction from the lower courts. Honestly, it makes no sense to me. [00:14:16] And Kagan was like, okay, what if they say, all right, we lost that class action lawsuit? Yeah. Those people, we can't take away their birthright citizenship, but everyone else, we can. There's no answer to that, right? So it just doesn't make any sense. [00:14:31] I don't even it can't it doesn't even begin to make any sense as an alternative. On the other hand, Kavanaugh then was like, wait, how are you going to apply this? So, you know, baby gets born in a hospital, gets a birth certificate, you're born in America. So you say US citizen. They write that in. [00:14:48] Are you guys going to go hospital to hospital? Well, yeah, he was born here, but his parent, one of his parents, was originally from Cambodia 17 years ago. So that one doesn't count. Switch it to Cambodia. And by the way, if the lower courts can't do the injunction, they would get [00:15:06] to do that for a bunch of people. And then if the Supreme Court rules against them, they'd have to go back and go, okay, sorry, the birth certificate, not Cambodian. Back to America. It would be an unbelievable mess, a ridiculous mess. [00:15:22] So the fact that the conservative justices are even entertaining, this is basically like the alito's and the Clarence Thomas's going, Donald Trump, you can come up with the dumbest thing in the world. And we'll go, maybe, maybe, maybe we'll create utter mayhem and no one will [00:15:39] know who's an American citizen anymore. Because they're all born here. When someone's when a baby is born, is the hospital asking, hey, where are the parents from? When did they get here? Are they going to be the Gestapo that then polices this? Right? Or do they just assume the kids born here? He's an American citizen. [00:15:55] If you make the hospitals try to determine where the parents are from, etc., it's going to be the biggest mess you've ever seen. And everybody's going to be going to court nonstop. I'm a citizen. No you're not, yes I am. ET cetera. This is just so monumentally stupid. I think Amy Coney Barrett's going to vote against them on birthright citizenship. [00:16:14] I'm curious to see if any of the justices on the merits of the case on birthright citizenship votes with Trump. It might be unanimous. Nine. Nothing. But if Alito and Thomas Stewart and others, they're just it's deeply shameful. So on the process issue, they love to appease Trump that way. [00:16:31] Oh, yes, Donald Trump, you are making such a good point about the lower courts will create mayhem by saying the lower courts can't stop you. But but when it comes back to the Supreme Court on the merits, I'd be shocked if they took away. How would they even take away birthright citizenship? [00:16:48] It's right in there in the 14th amendment. It's the clearest thing in the world. And by the way, if you can do that, then you can take away the Second Amendment, which is way less clear because it says it's contingent on a militia. If we're having a conversation about a crystal clear amendment, [00:17:03] we'll definitely go back and have a conversation about the Second Amendment. And so last thing for now, on Amy Coney Barrett, what I promised you, Jordan. So she asks, okay, wait, are you guys even gonna follow court orders? [00:17:18] Because we're going through this whole rigmarole here, but you keep saying in public that you might not. So she said, if the Second Circuit issues a ruling, will the Trump administration follow it? And Sauer says general practice is to respect those precedents, [00:17:34] but there are circumstances when it is not a categorical practice, and that is not just a new policy, she said. Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa, wait wait wait a minute. She said, what do you mean? It's not general practice to follow what the district courts are saying. He's like, well, it's general practice, but we don't have to do it. [00:17:52] She's like, no, you kind of do have to do it. And then she, you know, he keeps saying, not necessarily. And she's and she's like, wait, you say that there's been long standing exceptions to following the courts. Can you name any other than the Trump administration? [00:18:08] He said, well, it's long standing. No. In other words, no, he can't because it's not a thing. They're just making it up that you don't have to listen to the courts. And then finally she presses him all the way on the distinction between the Supreme Court and the lower courts. And he goes, no, no, no, we're clear. We will follow the Supreme Court rulings. Well, he's on the record. [00:18:26] I don't know if it's worth anything that he's on the record, but at least that's good news, right? But on the lower courts, He's super clear. No. If it's not the Supreme Court, we can choose to ignore it. And that's a disaster. And again, if Republicans can do it, so can Democrats. [00:18:42] We're going to have mayhem and chaos if they win. - Yeah. - Yeah. That just completely undermines and jeopardizes our entire democracy. I that is a very serious next step if they are willing to take it that far. [00:18:59] But I wouldn't put it past them. On who would side on which side of the case? I think we've seen data over the past couple of years that Amy Coney Barrett has surprisingly sided with liberals the most, which is interesting when you think about the context surrounding her nomination. To begin with, people thought she was going to be this extreme, [00:19:16] far right, draconian justice steeped in a real patriarchal understanding and religious overtones of of the country. And she's surprisingly been way more moderate than people expected Did Kavanaugh, too. I think Kavanaugh of the conservatives. [00:19:32] Kavanaugh has sided with the liberals second most. So I'm with you. If it's 7 to 2 and it's Thomas and Alito would not be a surprising outcome. But it is hard to look at what the government is arguing here, what the solicitor general is arguing here, and think that any of them could think, [00:19:47] yeah, that's a sound argument. But if there were any two on the court, it's Thomas and Alito who would find a way to justify it. On the issue itself, though, I think, like we laid out, it is perfectly clear in the 14th amendment. And I also I'm disheartened by this effort [00:20:04] to begin with because it to me, it runs contrary to what this country should be. We you know, many of us grew up to see this country as the shining beacon on a hill, a place of opportunity for anyone who around the world who wants to come here, [00:20:20] make something of themselves, contribute to this project, contribute to the country, and we are just rolling back the clock and rewriting it into rewriting this country into something that is isolated, [00:20:35] hateful, bigoted, lonely, disconnected from the rest of the world. And that's a sad place to be. I, I really fear for our country and the direction we are heading. If policies like this are successfully enacted, the long term effects [00:20:52] would be devastating. And it's just a really it's rooted in an inhumane view of others, people who are not born here or people who are immigrants, or to them, people who are not white. But it is really it is a disgusting state of affairs that we are in right now. [00:21:10] Yep. Yeah. Last thing on this. Why? Why go in this direction? Who asked for this? Did the people who voted for Biden but then switched their votes and voted for Trump? That made the difference between 2020 and 2024. Did they think you know what? [00:21:26] If only we could end birthright citizenship. No. They were worried about inflation. They were worried about the border. They weren't worried about doing wildly, ridiculously, stupidly unconstitutional things. I don't know why he bothers getting himself in trouble like this. [00:21:42] All it does is make him more unpopular. And I guess the answer is he's playing to the most radical authoritarian part of his base, and that they get super excited at the idea of ignoring the Constitution. But I don't know how large that segment is. [00:21:59] I know how large the segment is that hates immigrants. That's pretty sizable, right? But to the point where you would actually light the Constitution on fire, I don't think that that's anywhere near as popular as he thinks it is, even among his own voters, let alone the rest of the country, which hates it. [00:22:17] Leave the Constitution alone. Every time you ring the bell below, an angel gets its wings. Totally not true, but it does keep you updated on our live shows.