Today was not a good day in America. Basic civil rights were eroded and more power was put into the hands of the most unqualified man ever to hold the position of president of the United States. The reverberations are being felt everywhere and will amplify as time goes on, but let’s start with Donald and Melania’s home. And then let’s look at Donald and Ivana’s home before that. I’m sure Tiffany Trump is glad that she’s not caught up in this mess, because it is hitting the fan and splattering everywhere right now. And it’s only just beginning. I’m sure you remember this from two days ago.
@RepJasmine
When do we deport Melania? And her anchor baby Barron? pic.twitter.com/xQQBGh5rCh— Impeach Trump a 3rd Time! (@Christo12919382) June 26, 2025
All of this is getting dredged up again. Melania was not a U.S. citizen when she had Barron. He was born in March of 2006 and she became a citizen in July of that year. Ivana was also not a U.S. citizen when her three children were born. So you see the inherent hypocrisy here. And Melania’s not happy to have all this stirred up once again.
Melania did not address Jasmine Crockett’s remarks from two days ago and I think that’s wise, because Melania clearly does not qualify for an Einstein visa. She has been in this country some thirty years and she still speaks broken English. There’s no excuse for that when she’s got plenty of money to hire tutors and study the language. And the fantasy of her being fluent in six languages is going around the internet again and that’s another farce.
But the hypocrisy of how Trump lives and what he says is trivia. The major problem is that today’s Supreme Court ruling boils down to a threat to the basic civil rights of every single American, not just immigrants, legal or illegal. The immigration issue is the smokescreen for what is really going on behind the scenes and it is horrifying.
Trump said after the ruling that the court “delivered a monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law, in striking down the excessive use of nationwide injunctions to interfere with the normal functioning of the executive branch.” That’s complete bullshit. The most accurate assessment I have seen today of what the ruling really means is from Justice Sonia Sotomyer (then echoed by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson) who said in their respective dissents that no one is safe after this ruling and every single civil right we have is now potentially on the chopping block.
In dissenting opinions, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson excoriated the Supreme Court’s Friday ruling on birthright citizenship, which restricts courts’ ability to keep the Trump White House from carrying out its lawless orders.
At issue was whether lower courts can issue “nationwide injunctions” halting Trump’s anti–birthright citizenship order from being enforced against anyone, and not just those challenging the order in court or living in a jurisdiction where it’s being challenged.
While not acknowledging the constitutionality of the executive order, which denies automatic citizenship to children born on U.S. soil to undocumented immigrants and those with temporary status, the majority opinion stated that such injunctions “likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts.”
Justice Sotomayor had choice words for this ruling, which seemingly provides Trump powerful ammunition in his attacks on civil liberties. She was joined by Justices Elena Kagan as well as Jackson, who also wrote a dissenting opinion.
“No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates,” Sotomayor’s dissent read. “Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from lawabiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship.”
I bolded the text because that is how truly awful this ruling is and what the stakes are. And Trump, parroting words someone else wrote, describing concepts that he has no clue of understanding, has said just the dead opposite about this ruling, from what the ruling itself says. There is no way this is a victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers, or the rule of law. The ruling is a massive step on the way to eradicating those very things. This is not hyperbole. I wish it were.
Sotomayor used an analogy to illustrate the absurdity of granting the government’s request to strike down nationwide freezes on plainly unlawful orders: “Suppose an executive order barred women from receiving unemployment benefits or black citizens from voting. Is the Government irreparably harmed, and entitled to emergency relief, by a district court order universally enjoining such policies? The majority, apparently, would say yes.”
Sotomayor torched her conservative colleagues for caving to Trump: “With the stroke of a pen, the President has made a ‘solemn mockery’ of our Constitution,” she wrote. “Rather than stand firm, the Court gives way. Because such complicity should know no place in our system of law, I dissent.”
Jackson began her dissent by noting she agrees “with every word of Justice Sotomayor’s dissent,” and decided to file hers to emphasize that the court’s ruling poses “an existential threat to the rule of law.”
Trump’s request to do away with universal injunctions, Jackson wrote, “is, at bottom, a request for this Court’s permission to engage in unlawful behavior” and “to continue doing something that a court has determined violates the Constitution.”
In granting that wish, Jackson wrote, the majority has permitted Trump to act not unlike a monarch, giving “the Executive the go-ahead to sometimes wield the kind of unchecked, arbitrary power the Founders crafted our Constitution to eradicate.”
By placing “the onus on the victims to invoke the law’s protection,” the court has created circumstances in which “a Martian arriving here from another planet would … surely wonder: ‘what good is the Constitution, then?’”
The court’s decision marks “a sad day for America,” Jackson said, requiring judges, faced with Trump’s lawlessness, “to look the other way” and permit “unlawful conduct to continue unabated.”
“Perhaps the degradation of our rule-of-law regime would happen anyway,” she wrote. “But this Court’s complicity in the creation of a culture of disdain for lower courts, their rulings, and the law (as they interpret it) will surely hasten the downfall of our governing institutions, enabling our collective demise.”
This is a black day in America. Trump is a frontman for forces he does not understand, and an utter fool. I fear what is to come next. This is one of those times when I feel like we’re living in The Handmaid’s Tale just a few years (or days) before the Republic of Gilead, a totalian theocracy, replaces our way of life overnight. Things like Gilead don’t happen overnight. They happen like what you are seeing today at the Supreme Court. This is a black day for America.
Check out the movie 2073. It claims to be not a documentary, not dystopian sci fi, but a warning of what the future holds if things do not change.
“Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from lawabiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship.”
It doesn’t have to be a “different administration”. This administration could easily autopen an Executive Order” re the 2nd Amendment. Say, citizens in urban areas of blue states shall not have the right to have guns? MAGA racists would accept who the focus is but the NRA guys would be, well, up in arms. Not likely, but the Dems can make hay with the ruling while, as they surely must, campaign on its repeal. interssting times
“The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion.” Albert Camus
The Trump family is still selling Visas to pregnant Russian women who have enough money to lease their condos in south Florida for the express purpose of giving birth to citizens. I wonder if he’s thought of that. Four of his kids would not be citizens, either.
Susan don’t forget their get out of jail free card…hypocrisy. The rules are there to justify them breaking them without consequence. Then they can do whatever they want to the rest of us and call it ‘lawful’.