Brunocelli

@data_republican what's the point of playing "what does Biden think"

Biden was not all there mentally especially towards the end of his term. We all saw it. I wonder if he has the slightest idea of how much damage he did to this country? Or does he know and feels proud of himself?

@BrandonStraka non citizens should not be having babies here

Fox News: “Under President Trump’s policy roughly 255K born on U.S. soil each year would start life without U.S. citizenship.”

Look at me, it’s election time. I’m going to pretend that I actually care about my own district and the people who live there, although almost all my donations don’t come from there. I base my voting on getting Trump, my narcissism, and my runaway ego. Look at me - I really suddenly care. 😂 Biggest fraud in Congress.

@AdamKinzinger i believe they said they were examining the relationship, which sounds like a normal, prudent thing to do

huh. Good point Marco OH WAIT THIS IS OLD MARCO WHO HAD A SPINE

@connorobrienNH why not have discussion and debate with the SOS before making such a proclamation. The Senate is a joke

Mitch McConnell and Chris Coons, top R and D on Senate Defense Approps, out with a bipartisan defense of NATO, saying the US “will remain” in the alliance. “The Senate will continue to support the alliance for the peace and protection it provides America, Europe, and the world.”

@DemocracyDocket this is really low IQ stuff. The EO only has to do with the USPS and their ability to regulate the mails. Thats it!

NEW: The DOJ sued Idaho after it refused to hand over an unredacted copy of the state's voter registration database. Even deep Republican-led states are now pushing back — underscoring growing bipartisan resistance to the DOJ’s voter data grab. democracydocket.com/news-alerts/tr…

@DemocracyDocket @DemocracyDocket if we can take down a terrorist regime, with nukes, in a couple weeks, we can do the USPS EO

NEW: Trump’s new sweeping executive order targeting mail-in voting would tie up millions of everyday Americans in tangles of red tape. The directive would be nearly impossible to implement, experts said, and would effectively create a national citizenship list rife with errors. democracydocket.com/news-alerts/tr…

@DemocracyDocket is that your stupid argument? wonderful

@data_republican @NewswirePatriot True

@NewswirePatriot No but it's changed my support for Tucker and Candace.

Media pundits claim that Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens have fractured support for President Trump beyond repair. Have their opinions changed your support for our President? 🇺🇲

@NewswirePatriot not at all. Not anyone i know either..and i asked around at my neighborhood easter party last Saturday and everyone loves Trump and supports Iran war and hopes it ends soon.

@LangmanVince why is he bashing the president lately?

Are you still a fan of Alex Jones?

@Thomas_A_Berry or the outcome could define "Domicile" to mean in the country legally and the Administration could win! The issue turns on "Domicile"

I just got out of oral arguments in the Supreme Court's birthright citizenship case. Chief Justice Roberts had the line of the morning when he said "It's a new world, but it's the same Constitution." That really does sum up why the government's policy-based arguments had no bearing on the constitutional question. Today's oral argument focused on the original public meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment's text, which is the correct approach. And a clear majority of the Justices were unconvinced by the government's argument that this meaning has been misunderstood for over 150 years. As multiple Justices noted, the government's argument is very difficult to square with the reasoning of the Supreme Court's Wong Kim Ark decision from more than a century ago. Yet the government did not even ask the Court to overrule that decision if the Court interpreted it to protect traditional birthright citizenship. Based on today's argument, it seems that the most likely outcome is a simple opinion reaffirming that the Court meant what it said in Wong Kim Ark: those born on U.S. soil are U.S. citizens, with very rare exceptions for those who are to some extent exempt from following U.S. law. I expect the challengers to the President's order will receive somewhere between 6 and 8 votes in their favor.

@realBrandonGill it's a new world, so let's get rid of this ridiculous court which always seems to be helping Dems destroy our country

“The Constitution mandates any 9 month pregnant foreigner can fly to America and have a baby, who magically becomes a US citizen with full rights and privileges, the same as you or me.”

@washingtonpost actually they would be citizens of the state where the parents are domiciled

The Trump administration argues the 14th Amendment does not apply to people in the country illegally or on temporary visas. If the Supreme Court agrees, it could render hundreds of thousands of children born to immigrant parents stateless. wapo.st/4bU0d1Q

@MikeNellis it's not clear what the outcome is at all. The judges were skeptical of both sides

So many of these audio clips from the Supreme Court hearing on birthright citizenship are ridiculous. Trump’s team makes some dumbass, lazy argument, and one of the justices just goes… okay, but what about the Constitution? And then they just move on. Pretty clear what the outcome is going to be.

@marklevinshow She was an annoying nerd

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP AND THE SUPREME COURT Was anyone persuaded by the ACLU attorney?  It sounded to me like a lot of distracting arguments and references.  The language of the 14th amendment, particularly underscored by the debates and events surrounding it and its very purpose, makes absolutely clear that the 14th amendment had everything to do with freed slaves and their children and nothing to do with immigrants, legal or illegal.  The issue of citizenship and immigrants never entered the discussion at the time and probably never even occurred to either Congress or the ratifying states.  To be very focused, there is nothing that supports the view that the children of illegal aliens -- illegal by the very fact they are in our country illegally -- are automatic citizens by the fact of their presence in the country.  Domicile and allegiance were, in fact, as the Solicitor General argued, the only relevant applications of the word "jurisdiction."  I am releasing a video podcast clip on this at about 3 PM eastern time.

@ClayTravis How do you know? Is it because you perceive the oral argument difficult on Sauer? My feeling it's going to be 5-4 in favor of the Admin argument. Why? Because SCOTUS judges can see what's happening with illegals and they have children and grandy

Thoughts on the birthright citizenship case. 1. The court is going to reject the president’s executive authority here & say his interpretation of the 14th amendment is incorrect. 2. In so doing they are going to cite the historical record & say birthright citizenship is the law.

Dear Supreme Court Justices: Your job is to follow the law. Even when it’s politically difficult. The law is clear: We The People, as the sovereign citizens, never gave birthright citizenship to illegals. Not in the 14th amendment. Not any statute after. If we change our minds, we will have our elected representatives in Congress change the law for us. Like we did for American Indians. You wear robes, not capes.

@RaheemKassam he's immune...the case is political theater!

🔴 Foreign-Born Obama Judge Rules Trump Can Face Civil Claims Over Alleged Incitement on January 6. 📰 A federal judge ruled late Tuesday that President Donald J. Trump is not immune from civil claims alleging that he incited the U.S. Capitol riots on January 6, 2021. U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta—born in Patan, India, and appointed by former President Barack Obama—ruled that that President Trump's remarks during the "Stop the Steal" rally on January 6 were not covered by First Amendment protections and were tantamount to incitement. ⬇️ A link to the full story is in the thread below

@mrddmia @Article3Project Fake Fox polls

If there’s strong political support for birthright citizenship for illegals, the proponents can make their case to Congress. Just like Congress granted birthright citizenship to American Indians. After the Supreme Court held there’s no 14th Amendment birthright citizenship.