SCOTUS RULING Is THE END Of The US | Timcast IRL

The Supreme Court ruled that birthright citizenship applies to individuals unlawfully present in the U.S., even for short durations. This decision is seen as contradicting the original intent of the 14th Amendment, which was specifically for freed slaves and excluded certain foreign nationals. Justice Clarence Thomas authored a 91-page dissent, the longest of his career, vehemently opposing this interpretation. The hosts argue this creates an incongruous situation where children of illegal immigrants become citizens, but children of accredited diplomats do not.

They ruled today birthright citizenship extends to people here unlawfully for any duration. This is pretty dang wild. It's so shocking that the man of few words, Clarence Thomas, wrote, I think it's like a 41,000-word dissent saying, I I got to put it simply... The author of the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment, his name is Senator Jacob Howard. He specifically said this will not of course include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person. Clearly it says aliens. Clearly it says foreigners. If you're here illegally and you have a child, you are a foreigner. You are an alien.

A Supreme Court ruling on mail-in votes implied that ballots can be cast and counted for an indefinite period before and after an election day. This interpretation, particularly highlighted by Justice Amy Coney Barrett's argument, suggests that elections never truly end until someone decides. The hosts argue this undermines the constitutional concept of a fixed election day, creating a pathway for political manipulation and prolonged disputes, potentially leading to states withholding electoral votes indefinitely.

Barrett argues that inongruous elections were were leading us to civil war or a potential for a second civil war in 1872. So deadlines were sought, but oopsie, they didn't define what a day was, therefore there is no day. ultimately concluding that ballots can be cast an indefinite period before an election and can be counted an indefinite period after an election... Barrett literally argued there is no there's no timeline. So quite literally, you could say we are beginning the 2020 28 2020 election right now and we will count your your vote in 2032.

The Supreme Court issued seemingly contradictory rulings regarding the President's power to remove heads of independent agencies. While upholding the President's ability to fire FTC commissioners at will, they simultaneously refused to allow President Trump to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, citing the Fed's 'long-standing independence.' This inconsistency is interpreted as a deliberate move to protect powerful financial institutions from presidential control, while allowing political influence over other agencies.

Why did the Supreme Court rule simultaneously Trump can fire the heads of independent agencies, but he can't fire the head of the Fed? ...In a 5 to4 vote, the Supreme Court refuses to let President Trump remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook while litigation continues, holding the Federal Reserve's long-standing independence from president control is rooted in the nation's history and tradition. ...in a six to3 vote the Supreme Court ruled that the president may fire FTC commissioners at will overruling Humphrey's exeutor ... and holding that the FTC's for clause cause removal protections violate the constitution into power.

The hosts assert that the Supreme Court's recent decisions are not accidental but are intentionally crafted to exacerbate political divisions and push the United States towards a civil war. They point to rulings that create conflicting state laws (e.g., transgender athletes in sports) and undermine electoral processes as evidence of a deliberate strategy to foster hyper-polarization, ultimately leading to national fragmentation and conflict.

The rulings that we have seen thus far from the Supreme Court are just pushing us towards civil war. And and and and I don't mean this lightly, but their rulings are not specific on the merits or the issues. For example, they did not rule today that men cannot compete in women's sports. They ruled states have the right to decide whether they do or don't. ...The only conclusion I can make is that the liberal justices Coney Barrett and Roberts intend for there to be a civil war.