Today's topic for sardonic debate.. birthright citizenship?

SCOTUS is hearing oral arguments today in DC. I don't think they'll get past the 14th amendment ( Trump et al vs 'Barbara') despite the executive order to end birthright citizenship. If one 'listens between the lines' of todays hearing / proceedings, the SC justices appear a bit skeptical by the tone of their responses and questions. Easing out on a limb a bit further, one could speculate that the court might suggest more succinct legislation / an amendment and just shelve the case ( no decision) ? We likely won't see a ruling on this until..June? We'll see.

It would have to be a constitutional amendment. 

Ultimately yes but Congress could theoretically pass supportive and  relative legislation ( sometime in 2042 under the current aroma up there).. 

It is completely illegitimate for SCOTUS to be considering nullifying any article or amendment of the Constitution. Full stop.

It is completely illegitimate for the President to issue an executive order that nullifies any article or amendment of the Constitution. Full stop.

The only reason this pseudo-case is being heard at all is that six of the nine "justices" are subservient Trump lackeys. A genuine SCOTUS wouldn't have even considered it. 

FWIW, Trump's executive order nullifying birthright citizenship is ipso facto invalid, and that doesn't require any court decision to establish. It's like his current executive order being drafted to punish speech against his regime with fines and imprisonment. Or the one in the works to require an oath of fealty to Trump before a voter can cast a ballot. Or the one making pedophilia legal when committed by MAGAs.

I agree that they might just do-si-do around the issue rather than defy their master, who is actually now sitting there, scowling at them, instead of back in the White House, doing his job. What if he has a diaper-fill issue while he's there??

There's just too much precedent backing the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment. Thus far it's been a brick wall to alternate interpretations / challenges as written. This amendment shot down the earlier Dred Scott decision and multiple previous arguments in relevant cases that the text wasn't applicable to current times have all been rejected.   I think Trump will lose this one much to his ire despite his SCOTUS favorability. 

SCOTUS has shown a wavering reluctance to endorse the worst of their orange master's illegal and unconstitutional shit. Of course, they also HAVE blessed quite a lot of his egregiously unlawful crap as well. 

I might be comforted by the thought that there are some things that SCOTUS won't fuck with no matter how much the Turd screams at them; you state that birthright citizenship is firmly embedded in law, precedent, and practice. But I've thought that so many times during the Turd administrations: "He can't do THAT, right??" and I've been horrified every time. We thought that his multiple felonies would somehow disqualify him. They didn't. Nor did his blatant violations of the Constitution.

So maybe his thoughts that he can defy the Constitution aren't unfounded. I don't think any aspect of our principles and tenets is safe.

Could be why the current urgency, since after this year, the House will be Democrat-controlled for a generation.

Even if such legislation was somehow passed, it would be immediately hit by a blizzard of lawsuits. And any child deprived of citizenship could ultimately sue to get it back. Like so much else, the only people this will make happy are the lawyers.