Transcription
You're watching the legal breakdown. Glenn, a chilling update from the US Supreme Court. Can you explain what just happened?
Yeah, Brian, I have to admit I have a bad feeling about this one because, you know, the Supreme Court has something of a track record, at least the six right-wing justices who seem forever willing to expand presidential power for Donald Trump, or to contradict the express language, the text of the Constitution, or sometimes to ignore it entirely, like the Constitution's prohibition against an insurrectionist continuing to serve in office.
Now, what we know, Brian, is the Supreme Court has just granted review of whether they're going to let Donald Trump sort of take a Sharpie and cross out of the United States Constitution the guarantee of birthright citizenship. Now, our viewers should know that the Supreme Court has consistently held since 1886 that if you're born here, you're a citizen here. Let me read the extremely short text of the constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship because there's no mistaking or confusing what the Constitution says. 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. If you're born here, you're a citizen here. And no prior Supreme Court could confuse or misunderstand that straightforward language until the Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaaugh, Coney Barrett court. I have a bad feeling about this because, you know, it does seem like that six six justice right-wing majority seems hellbent on kind of moving us in the direction of a white Christian nationalist country.
Glenn, I I'm going to ask a question that's going to that's going to seem really naive, but I think it's it kind of um hopefully channels the sentiment that I think a lot of people have when they watch this. How can it be that if you have something prescribed in the plain text of the Constitution that there is even a question that the Supreme Court wouldn't rule this way? I mean, how can the Supreme Court cast a ruling if they do decide to do this that would be in direct violation of the plain text, black and white, of what's written right there in the Constitution? And I and I understand that your answer might just be because they can. And it's as simple as that. And in fact, we've seen that process play out where the Supreme Court has just decided by fiat appropo of nothing that, you know, Donald Trump has uh has blanket immunity from criminal prosecution. That's not in the Constitution. We've also seen how the Supreme Court has ruled that section 3 of the 14th amendment somehow doesn't apply even though to Donald Trump even though he did incite an insurrection and yet he was allowed to run for federal office again. And so I I get how it could happen, but I'm still having trouble wrapping my head around how you can have a branch of government again if they decide to do this that could put forward a ruling that is in such blatant contrast to what the Constitution actually says.
Brian, I think it's a fair question and I think it's an important question because you know when the Constitution says what it says, how is it that a Supreme Court justice can enter a decision that is squarely contrary to the express text of the Constitution? And I fear that the answer is it's good to be the king or it's good to be sort of king like in the powers you get that are completely unchecked and that is where today's Supreme Court is. They are in the land of unchecked government officials. They have no mandatory code of ethics. There is no enforcement mechanism. if they, you know, stray from the ethical constraints that all judges, indeed all lawyers are bound by. We have a Congress that has neutered itself. They refuse to even look into the misconduct of, for example, the Clarence Thomas' and the Samuel Alitos of this sad chapter, this dark chapter in our nation's history.
So, as you accurately point out, when you look at the Constitution and specifically the 14th Amendment, section three says if you take an oath of loyalty to support and defend the Constitution, an oath to the United States as a president does, as all elected officials do, and thereafter you engage in insurrection. And Donald Trump did, don't take my word for it, a judge, trial court judge ruled that he engaged in insurrection. A state supreme court affirmed that finding and ruling that Donald Trump engaged in insurrection. And when the case went up to the United States Supreme Court, they didn't even quibble with or disavow or disagree with the bedrock finding ruling that Donald Trump engaged in insurrection. The Constitution says if you do that, you are disqualified from holding office, including the office of the presidency. The Supreme Court just shrugged its shoulders at the express text of the Constitution, and they let Donald Trump retake office.
Anyway, the Constitution, as another example, Brian, says that the president must must take care that the laws of the nation be faithfully executed. And the Supreme Court shrugged at the express language of the Constitution and said, "No, we're going to decide in, you know, what is diametrically opposed to that bedrock obligation of a president that he can commit all of the crimes he wants, violating the laws of our nation, victimizing the American people, and he can do it with complete immunity from prosecution." That is what led one of our nation's preeminent constitutional scholars Yale law professor Akquil Reed Amomar to write quote the Supreme Court in that opinion ruled that the constitution is unconstitutional and the thing is you you know you could hear the frustration in professor um Akquil Reed Amomar because they're not allowed to do that. They can't do that and yet they've done it. So that's why I started our conversation today with I have a bad feeling because the Constitution is clear. It has meant what it said since 1886 and every day since. And yet, I would not at all be surprised if that radical right-wing majority that seems hellbent on deciding issues based on their own personal ideology rather than loyalty to the text or the spirit of the Constitution, just lets Donald Trump cross out of the Constitution the guarantee of birthright citizenship.
>> Yeah. One of two things could happen here. Either the Supreme Court could opt to continue abiding by the plain text of the Constitution and affirm that birthright citizenship is constitutional, in which case this won't be an issue. But humor me in this thought experiment where the Supreme Court rules that birthright citizenship is not constitutional. What happens to the people who are currently in the United States who are here by virtue of birthright citizenship?
Well, I I I hesitate to call this good news, but if there's anything that should give us a little bit of comfort and consolation, it is that the executive order that Donald Trump signed, and Brian, he signed it on the first day of his second term, January 20th, 3 days later, a Ronald Reagan appointed federal court judge concluded it is quote blatantly unconstitutional. what Donald Trump did. However, the executive order that he signed, which I haven't read in a while, I believe only has prospective effect. So, it doesn't go back and invalidate and make people who were citizens previously no longer citizens. I think it is only forwardlooking. So, you know, if the Supreme Court allows him to do it, I guess when you're president, they let you do it. um it will only impact people moving forward. But even that is horrific because it will still be absolutely contrary to the express language of the constitution.
I mean, aren't we a little naive to think that if they score that win where they can say prospectively there's no birthright citizenship that the natural next step for the Steven Millers of the world won't just be okay by using that same logic uh you know retrospectively it's also unconstitutional for anybody who enjoys birthright citizenship to be here.
Brian, it's a great point because we have heard the Steven Millers of the world suggest that they can dnaturalize naturalized US citizens. So, of course, there will be next steps designed to, you know, purge folks who have been citizens perhaps for years or decades. just purge those folks from the United States by using that decision, this decision, if it comes to pass, as a springboard to try to deprive people of other rights that hereto for they have enjoyed.
Well, you know, the the irony of that is that we've seen this process play itself out where the Republicans say, for example, that they just want the issue of abortion to be kicked back to the states and then when the Supreme Court uh overturned Row, the first thing that happened was that, you know, in the House and the Senate to to impose uh uh you know, an abortion ban at at a certain amount of weeks nationwide. So, it's always that they say whatever they need to say that sounds most convenient up to that point to get what they want. And the second they get it, the pulp the the goalpost shift and they immediately start, you know, uh, chipping away at further rights now that they've already gotten what they wanted.
Give the Trump administration an inch and it will take a corrupt mile or 3,000 miles marching all the way across our country to deprive people of their rights. You're right. That is their MMO. That will forever be their MMO until they are dethroned, courtesy of the political process. And I believe given how Donald Trump seems to be failing for the most part in the courts, in the court of public opinion and in his own party, um I do believe he will be politically dethroned. And then we're going to have to, you know, take on the very difficult um mission of reforming and rebuilding, including addressing what is a currently illegitimate Supreme Court majority. We have to take that task on, win, lose, or draw. Because now we see what happens when you lay back and you let the Republicans, you know, win these dirty victories over and over and over again. Mitch McConnell, the chief offender among them in blocking Supreme Court nominees. You can't lay back. You have to go on offense. And that is going to be, you know, our task for the future.
>> Yeah, I think that was perfectly put. Uh, obviously a lot left to happen on this case in particular. So, if you want to follow along to see what happens with birthright citizenship at the US Supreme Court, as well as all other legal news, please make sure to subscribe to both of our channels. I'm going to put those links right here on the screen. If you haven't yet subscribed, it's the best way to support our work and it is and always will be 100% free. So again, those links are right here on the screen. I'm Brian Teller Cohen and I'm Glenn Kersner.
>> You're watching the legal breakdown.