I'm at the Supreme Court this morning, and we're expecting President Trump to attend oral arguments over his attempts to

[demmiblue]

I'm at the Supreme Court this morning, and we're expecting President Trump to attend oral arguments over his attempts to unilaterally re-interpret the 14th Amendment.

Several nearby streets are closed. Secret Service agents & some guys in military olive drab & sidearms are roaming the hallways.

I'm at the Supreme Court this morning, and we're expecting President Trump to attend oral arguments over his attempts to unilaterally re-interpret the 14th Amendment.

Several nearby streets are closed. Secret Service agents & some guys in military olive drab & sidearms are roaming the hallways.

— Jose Pagliery (@josepagliery.bsky.social) 2026-04-01T12:08:52.729Z

[leftstreet]

1. Hope he acts up and gets thrown out

[lamp_shade]

6. That's the only reason I'll be paying attention.

https://www.scotusblog.com/

[Lovie777]

2. shithole gonna give them the evil eyes....................

[IrishAfricanAmerican]

7. That's what I expect. Just sitting there staring like some psycho 6 year old.

[a kennedy]

9. Being the gawd damn bully he is.....that is exactly what he's gonna do.

🤬 🤬 🤬 🤬 🤬

[Swede]

8. Or take a nap.

He loves his naps.

[tinrobot]

12. He can only do that if his eyes are open.

He won't last 10 minutes before dozing off.

[RedWhiteBlueIsRacist]

3. The King holds court, or the Court holds King?

[Passages]

4. His way of reminding them, especially Roberts, I am your KING.

[617Blue]

5. Stringer Bell sitting in the back of the courthouse episode 1 of The Wire.

[in2herbs]

10. Justice ACB has children adopted from foreign country(s). I read that Roberts has an adopted child. If

the court rules in F45's favor how will that affect the status of their adoptions -- finalized years ago? Will they be void, leaving the children w/o parents and w/o a country? Will they be required to re-adopt their children under international adoption standards? As their children mature what will be their reaction to their parents because of their decision to rule in favor of F45?

[lastlib]

11. Won't affect adoption of foreign-born children.....

This case is about children born in the US to parents of foreign citizenship. It's to decide the application of the Fourteenth Amendment's citizenship clause, the "all person born in the United States....are citizens of the United States..." The only wiggle-room I see for SCOTUS in this case is if they invent some weird interpretation of the "subject to the jurisdiction" phrase. It'll have to be something really convoluted, and I don't expect Roberts and Conehead Barrett to sign on to it. But I don't put it past the nazi six to do it.........

[JCMach1]

13. The court would have to go full NAZI as the 14th is

Pretty damn clear.

Why it is a canary in the coal mine case...

[LetMyPeopleVote]

14. MaddowBlog-Trump's attendance at the Supreme Court's birthright citizenship arguments won't help his case

If his radical gambit is likely to lose, why bother with an unprecedented presidential appearance at the high court? There are two prevailing explanations.

Link to tweet

https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/why-trump-attending-supreme-court-birthright-citizenship-arguments

Not surprisingly, Trump’s radical gambit has struggled in the courts, which relied on generations’ worth of legal precedent, but the Supreme Court nevertheless agreed to hear the case. Ahead of Wednesday’s oral arguments, the president decided to do something his predecessors never did. MS NOW reported:

President Donald Trump will be watching oral arguments today as the Supreme Court weighs whether the president holds the power to end birthright citizenship. […]

Trump’s presence at the court is significant. He will be the first known sitting U.S. president to attend oral arguments before the high court, according to the Supreme Court Historical Society.

By way of explanation, the president told reporters on Tuesday that he intended to sit in on oral arguments “because I have listened to this argument for so long.” (A day later, I’m not entirely sure what that was supposed to mean.)....

So why bother with an unprecedented presidential appearance at the high court? There are two prevailing explanations — though they’re not mutually exclusive, and both could be true.

The first is that this is part of a ham-fisted intimidation campaign: By literally showing up in person, it’s possible that Trump, who appointed a third of the court’s justices, thinks he can apply extra pressure to those who will decide the case’s fate.

If this is the goal, the president is likely to be disappointed. Unlike congressional Republicans, justices don’t want to be seen as obedient White House loyalists, and it’s easy to imagine Trump’s stunt backfiring.

The other theory is that Trump recognizes the fact that the Supreme Court won’t let him rewrite constitutional law through an executive order, so he went to oral arguments as a political tactic intended to deliver an anti-immigrant message — which the White House sees as more politically salient than other issues that are dominating the public conversation, such as the war with Iran and high gas prices.

“The big thing for Trump is to be seen putting up a fight,” Politico noted. “This policy — always a Hail Mary from a legal perspective — is as much about signaling to the president’s base as it is a serious attempt to change the law.”

Whatever the explanation, if the president expects his order to be upheld, he probably ought to start lowering his expectations. Watch this space.

[xmas74]

15. I do wonder if Trump confused "oral arguments"

For something sexual and jumped at the chance for free services.