Das Urteil des Geburtsrechtes des Obersten Gerichtshofs ist eine 5-Alarm-Katastrophe

lmassive win for the history of america

The MAGA cult wants to decide who ‘qualifies’ as a citizen.
And it obviously doesn’t have anything to do with the constitution.

What should be next is full „“Ghandi Mode“. Passive resistance on a societal and protracted level.

Corporations & Billionaires are at the heart of this Christo-Fascist power nexus. Disrupting the US Economy is essentially a junk punch to those entities.

So being born in the US no longer qualifies you for citizenship, your parents had to be citizens. But your parents being born in the US no longer qualifies them as citizens, their parents had to be citizens. Taking it back to the extreme, unless you can prove that either you or your ancestors were naturalized, how do you qualify? Heck, if your people were here before the revolution they were never naturalized. Likewise if they were Native American. And if they were enslaved there was the 14th Amendment but now it doesn’t count, so who knows? Maybe there are no US citizens.

Welcome to Jim Crow 2.0

Is this, like, the seventh 5 alarm fire?

„Barrett, and the rest of her Republican colleagues, determined that nationwide injunctions cannot be used in 2025 to stop a president from violating the Constitution of the United States, because the High Court in England—which existed during a time of hereditary monarchy—did not use a historical equivalent of a nationwide injunction to enforce the laws against [checks notes] their King.“

They seriously want a king

Great, Dred Scott 2.0

In her dissent, Jackson ripped off the mask off conservatism and exposed it for what it is:

„Stated simply, what it means to have a system of government that is bounded by law is that everyone is constrained by the law, no exceptions. And for that to actually happen, courts must have the power to order everyone (including the Executive) to follow the law—full stop. To conclude otherwise is to endorse the creation of a zone of lawlessness within which the Executive has the prerogative to take or leave the law as it wishes, and where individuals who would otherwise be entitled to the law’s protection become subject to the Executive’s whims instead.“

This rings strangely reminiscent of Wilhoit’s Law:

Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:

There must be in-groups whom the law protectes but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.]

….

As the core proposition of conservatism is indefensible if stated baldly, it has always been surrounded by an elaborate backwash of pseudophilosophy, amounting over time to millions of pages. All such is axiomatically dishonest and undeserving of serious scrutiny. Today, the accelerating de-education of humanity has reached a point where the market for pseudophilosophy is vanishing; it is, as The Kids Say These Days, tl;dr . All that is left is the core proposition itself — backed up, no longer by misdirection and sophistry, but by violence.

***So this tells us what anti-conservatism must be: the proposition that the law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone, and cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.***

Then the appearance arises that the task is to map “liberalism”, or “progressivism”, or “socialism”, or whateverthefuckkindofstupidnoise-ism, onto the core proposition of anti-conservatism.

No, it a’n’t. The task is to throw all those things on the exact same burn pile as the collected works of all the apologists for conservatism, and start fresh. The core proposition of anti-conservatism requires no supplementation and no exegesis. It is as sufficient as it is necessary. What you see is what you get:

***The law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone; and it cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.***

Justice Jackson was absolutely right in her dissent. The court has essentially given the president a free pass the break the law as he sees fit, when you add in the immunity ruling and you have an executive that can literally just do whatever it wants until the Court actually decides to take a case about it.

So the long and the short of it is,if your parents were illegal you better find a road map of which states support birthright before you cross the country. Why do I see ICE check points being set up on borders of red states in the near future.
„Papers, show us your papers“ as the train rolls into texas

The US Constitution doesn’t exist