Public sentiment is largely negative and reflects deep-seated frustrations regarding the Supreme Court's ruling on District Judge eligibility, with widespread concerns about corruption, bias, and favoritism within the judicial system. Many individuals advocate for reform, calling for the abolition of the collegium system and a more merit-based selection process to restore trust and integrity in judicial appointments.

Supreme Court

Practicing Advocates

Judicial Appointments Committee

All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. **FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL.**

*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/law) if you have any questions or concerns.*

AutoModerator

You don’t need a law degree to be a U.S. Supreme Court justice.

scooterbike1968

They could be but it wouldn't effect their position or authority as a Supreme Court justice.

attorneyatslaw

Seeing as how no one has answered the question in the OP so far....

There is only one mechanism for removing a justice who is making "clearly unethical and illegal verdicts inconsistent with US law" and that is impeachment.

nugatory308

Impeachment is the remedy- they don’t even need a law degree to be on the SC.

gilroydave

things you don't need to be to take the oath of office as an article III judge:

* a barred attorney
* a legal expert
* an american
* an adult

the only bar in any procedural sense would be an inability to take the oath of office, which would preclude infants and the comatose. it's a remarkably low bar that can result in ridiculously bad outcomes (*e.g.*, political lackies) but also potentially interesting ones (*e.g.*, appointing a judge from a different common law jurisdiction)

tofleet

Impeachment is the only option. As others said you don’t need to be a lawyer, or have a law degree, or even have attempted to go to law school.

00000000000


**As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_the_rules_of_.2Fr.2Fpolitics.3A).**

In general, please be courteous to others. Argue the merits of ideas, don't attack other posters or commenters. Hate speech, any suggestion or support of physical harm, or other rule violations can result in a temporary or a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.

**Sub-thread Information**

If the post flair on this post indicates the wrong paywall status, please report this Automoderator comment with a custom report of “incorrect flair”. 

**Announcement**

r/Politics is actively looking for new moderators. If you have an interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://sh.reddit.com/r/politics/application).
 

***


*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Next it will be if counting ANY ballots after Election Day should be allowed.  Not able to get them done that night?  Too bad... just leave off those votes from high population Democrat areas.

Brokkyn2024

"Supreme Court grapples with how they can spin it so republican votes after mail-in deadline count while democrat votes don't"

More realistic headline

Klutzy-Delivery-5792

They’re not grappling with shit they’re going to stamp everything he does. This institution has no credibility.

notinterested10002

dustinpdx

Odedoralive

The Supreme Court on Wednesday grappled with whether to allow an Illinois congressman and others to go forward with a lawsuit challenging the state’s policy of counting mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day.

The case has potential implications for similar legal efforts by allies of President Donald Trump to stop the practice in a handful of states led by Democrats.

Most justices appeared skeptical during arguments about Republican Michael Bost’s contention that he had standing to sue, or had suffered sufficient harm necessary to bring legal action, simply because he was a candidate on the Illinois ballot. They seemed less unified over how much and what type of harm he or another candidate would need to show to go forward with a case.

Read more here: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/10/08/supreme-court-illinois-elections-federal/?utm\_campaign=wp\_main&amp;utm\_medium=social&amp;utm\_source=reddit.com](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/10/08/supreme-court-illinois-elections-federal/?utm_campaign=wp_main&amp;utm_medium=social&amp;utm_source=reddit.com)

washingtonpost

The Supreme Court of 1857 ruled that enslaved or formerly enslaved people were not citizens, could not sue in federal courts, and that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional, further inflaming tensions over slavery and contributing to the start of the Civil War.

chirothesious

# Fourteenth Amendment - Section 1

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Juhkwan97

If SCOTUS takes this case up, they will be interpreting the meaning of the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment, full stop. They will not be limited to picking between the current (obviously correct) interpretation and Trump’s EO.

(Since I saw the deleted comment but couldn’t respond directly, I will add that I’m NOT making a prediction about what the Court will do in this case. What I think they SHOULD HAVE done is take up the merits of this case as quickly as possible and shut this nonsense down. They have opted not to do that.)

harlemjd

No more anchor babies. People will be pissed.

fuckjunta

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

Theodoric58

[deleted]

Elections have consequences.

Many Americans believe that only children of Americans and green card holders should be U.S. citizens if born in the U.S.

Many-Fudge2302

You need to interpret the Constitution.  If a non-US pregnant woman enters US illegally, and gives birth in US... are you saying that the child becomes a US citizen?  Which means child's parents and 10 brothers and 10 sisters become US citizens too??   Use your brain!!

In law, IF the direct beneficiary of a will murders the maker of the will, that direct beneficiary AND his children will be barred in law from taking the benefit (whatever the will provides).  Why?  A criminal cannot profit from his crime!!!

brownorange88

Sometimes laws will change for the better of society. Colombia changed from Birthright to by blood. Laws are meant to evolve to reflect the needs of society.

conocophillips424

People who abused this constitutional right are to blame, that is why we can't have good things.

Shocky2025

Send away your hungry your tired your poor. Pull the ladder up.

Weekly-Sun7992

If a foreign army occupied a section of the USA would their children born on American soil be US citizens? Should they be?

-Rupert-

USA the country where everyone feel entitled to every and anything, citizen or not. 😂😂

Smart-Mango8

Time will tell hopefully SCOTUS has common sense reasonable interpretation that will end birth right citizenship.

Odd_Addendum8160

_Figuring_it_out

Birthright citizenship was never meant for Mexicans to jump the border and give birth and instantly get all the rights. It was meant for black slaves children to have a citizenship and not be left stateless. Mexicans have a citizenship and NOBODY who wrote that clause would ever want it to be misused by illegals to get free healthcare and education. Supremes will finally toss it just like they did the abortion madness.

Accomplished_Cry4224

In fairness to the US it is one of a minority of countries with birthright citizenship..

2L84T

Green card holders and visa holders, while permanently able to work and live in the U.S, are not U.S citizens. The idea is that those born from such parents in the U.S are not technically American. 

Dear-Recover-2718

If SCOTUS takes up this case it will be monumental. SCOTUS will look at the original intent of the amendment. I’m not going to spoil it but it’s not going to go well for the left.

rwilley71

I mean Jure sanguinis is what most of the world follows, so…

ConsiderationSad6271

I care about the constitution.  If you're going to change it, do it the right way and amend the constitution, not by EO.

Many countries don't have birthright citizenship and they do fine.  Former slaves don't need it anymore.  So I don't care if we keep it.

IseeAlgorithms

It's a tricky topic. I like to talk to young people looking to get into tech and I have met SO MANY who are American citizens but never lived here until high school. And I used to be confused by this. How did they get citizenship? But I would subsequently learn their mother had them here while "on vacation". I've met students like this going all the way back to the 90s. Now again, as with the H1B, this is simply an abuse of the system. Someone who has never lived here. Doesn't have any family here. Steps off a plane and gets all the rights and privileges of an American citizen whose family has invested time, energy, money in this country, should not be getting all those rights and privileges. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Globalization has provided so many avenues of abuse.

DetectiveBlackCat

I'll never understand how there was no outcry when Obama Deported over 3.3 million people including 77% who were Deported without due process.  The Obama administration had the hispanic community in Chicago terrified. You can go on Google and look up Obamas massive Deportations without due process.  Obama was being investigated by the ACLU for kids in cages and Deporting kids to countries that were 1000s of miles where they were originally from. I had friends and family who were arrested,  non criminals and were in detention camps before being Deported without due process.  There's a good PEW research group article on Google. Just type in Obama Deportations without due Process PEW research group.

RicanAzul1980

Children of legal visa holders who are on path of getting green card should be exempted from this.

CskianSilvers

I read somewhere that originally one parent had to be a citizen, but then a administrative person decided not because of the man hours it took to check.  I think that it is proper to have the supreme court rule on this because it was always going to end up there anyway.

Frequent-Life-4056

BNTMS233

This needs to be revisited regardless. Something written prior to air travel could not comprehend what would happen years later.

Independent_Tie_4941

Quite simple - you need to be born from a us citizen. 

Yes - it will be grandfathered for those prior.

We are only idiots in the world that allows birth right citizenship by just being born here rather than having a us parent.

GeorgeWashingfun

Good.  The 14th amendment was written for freed slaves and their children, not anchor babies.

WeUsedToBeFriends602

Basically the ideas is anyone here illegally or on a visa and have a child born in the US would not get US citizenship.  There is an interpretation of a specific word in the Constitution Amendment that makes the difference.  

Essentially right now it only impacts diplomats.  It makes sense to not have a diplomats (essentially anyone foreign working at an embassy or other official foreign government office) have their kids born overseas getting citizenship for that country, and instead for their home country.  Currently this is the only case of exclusion.

Basically they want to exclude illegal immigrants from establishing citizenship this way for their children (enter illegally and then have a child born establishing American Citizenship).  In the old days it was challenged to exclude the Chinese immigrant workers.  The idea was to say they are still under the rule of their home country, thereby essentially the same as being a diplomat.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_States\_v.\_Wong\_Kim\_Ark](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark)

&gt;United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), is a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court which held that "a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China", **automatically became a U.S. citizen at birth.**

Just_Another_Day_926

graceFut22

There is legislative body who makes rules and does amendment. If the statute has expired, that also need to be decided by legislative body. This is plain and simple executive overreach and judiciary is just bending the knee.

New-Perspective5820

Lzydogrnch

If they ban birthright citizenship, then all Americans lose citizenship except Native Americans.

titoxyco666

Does anyone wonder what this means for anyone born abroad to American parents? (Consular Report of Birth Abroad) [Obtaining U.S. Citizenship for a Child Born Abroad

](https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/travel-legal-considerations/us-citizenship/Acquisition-US-Citizenship-Child-Born-Abroad.html)

Do they face deportation as well?

Laszlo4711

So every child that is born now, the State has to check the Legal status of the parents. So what all considered as legal status of a Citizen? A Mother refuses to give her legal status. What will be the Status of the Child Born ??

Dr_cool_Sugar_Daddy

“Wrestle with”… meaning it will be 6-3 no doubt!

jeffplaysmoog

They want to make mail in voting illegal. In the 2024 election, nearly 30% of voters mailed in their ballot.

nowhereman136

Trump has voted by mail himself. Why take advantage of a process you feel is corrupt if you’re acting in good faith?

thecrunchypepperoni

randomnighmare

Roberts even looks like Roger B Taney in that thumbnail

loud-oranges

Bold to assume the SC will rule based on the constitution.

jpk195

TSHRED56

So legal experts are estimating a 20% chance of corruption

Old_Needleworker_865

And you trust John Roberts who helped to architect the take over of our government, a man who has taken a crap on our constitution?   That would be both foolish and in the long term deadly.

bakeacake45

In all honesty that many courts all ruling in unison. The SCOTUS shouldn't even hear the case. They should have decline to hear the case and thus let the lower court rulings stand.

Slade_Riprock

As per the original article:

The Supreme Court will likely agree with lower courts that ruled President Donald Trump can’t use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose broad tariffs, according experts surveyed by JPMorgan.

The bank hosted a conference in London last month, and in a note on Monday it summarized highlights from a session on Trump’s trade policies.

Trade and legal experts said the odds that the high court will rule against the Trump administration are 70%-80% and expect a decision by the end of the year, according to the note, which added that the justices may not follow traditional ideological divides.

“While the sitting three liberal justices are expected to oppose IEEPA tariffs, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett—both with pro-business leanings—may also side against. Kavanaugh is considered the swing vote and has voted with the majority 90% of the time,” it said. “Legal experts point out that none of Trump’s three appointed justices is distinctively ‘Trumpy,’ and they have been less predictable than Republicans had hoped.”

Trump cited IEEPA when he imposed tariffs related to the fentanyl trade as well as his so-called reciprocal tariffs on U.S. trade partners around the world. But since then, a federal district court, the Court of International Trade, and a federal appeals court have said the tariffs are unconstitutional.

In the latest decision in August, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said its ruling won’t take effect until Oct. 14 to give the Trump administration time to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The court rulings represented severe blows to Trump’s trade policy as more than 80% of the tariffs he has announced so far in his second term were based on IEEPA.

The reciprocal tariffs also helped leverage a series of trade deals. That includes an agreement with the European Union, which pledged to invest $600 billion in the U.S. and buy $750 billion worth of U.S. energy products, with “vast amounts” of American weapons in the mix. Similarly, the U.S.-Japan trade deal entails $550 billion in investments from Tokyo.

While Trump’s other tariffs on various sectors like steel, aluminum and autos rely on a separate law and aren’t affected by the court rulings, a final defeat at the Supreme Court would mean the administration would have to pay back a big chunk of the $165 billion in tariff revenue it collected in the fiscal year through August. Trump’s overall tariff regime was expected to generate $300 billion-$400 billion on an annual basis, helping ease the bond market’s concerns about the U.S. budget deficit.

But even if the high court goes against Trump’s tariffs, that won’t put an end to his trade war as numerous other legal avenues are available to levy duties.

In fact, the administration has been rolling out other so-called sectoral tariffs in recent weeks, including on lumber and furniture.

But the alternate tariff routes don’t provide the same speed, scale or flexibility of IEEPA and would not fully recover the revenue lost, JPMorgan added.

“The potential loss of IEEPA tariffs does not end the tariff story, but fragments it,” the note said. “With more than 80% of announced tariffs relying on IEEPA, the administration would be forced to turn to narrower, more contested measures.”

But in a note last month, Capital Alpha’s James Lucier said there’s a “silver lining” in the federal appeals court’s 7-4 decision that struck down the IEEPA tariffs, pointing to a powerful argument from one of the dissenting judges.

Federal Circuit Judge Richard Taranto​made found that there are no limits the president’s ability to invoke tariffs by declaring an emergency under IEEPA.

“The dissenting opinion has opened a pathway by which informed legal commentators have assessed that the president now has a plausible pathway to a victory at the Supreme Court, despite his previous losses,” Lucier observed.

T_Shurt

Never, EVER expect them to go against King Donald the Incontinent. It's a certain path to disappointment.

audiomagnate

Sounds like they aren’t familiar with the current Supreme Court.

DonnyMox

Why do people still think there is a line the SCOTUS won't cross?

Serious Question: What about any of their recent rulings would encourage this level of optimism? If they were going to rule against Trump then why not just refuse to take the case and let the lower court ruling stand?

southflhitnrun

20% of the time, they rule for POTUS every time.

-Morning_Coffee-

So they’re definitely gonna give it to him then

Ok-Elk-1615

I love how they mention the trade deals in this article while neglecting that NONE of the "pledges" to invest in the US are part of any official treaties or contracts and are 100% unenforceable by the countries that made them.  Can't let journalism get in the way of a good story these days.

Roadside_Prophet

I can go both ways on this. Trump needs an out. If SCOTUS rules this unconstitutional, it is a big win win. Trump gets bailed out of a terrible policy while simultaneously attacking "liberal" judges. He then gets to use taxpayer money to "refund" rich people. When the economy continues to go to shit, courts will take the blame.

Meanwhile, for his part, Roberts can pretend he is standing up to Trump.

Flokitoo

Regardless of whether SCOTUS brings it down, it wil lresult in the largest transfer of wealth from the bottom to the top. 


We the People aren't getting tarriff refunds. The CORPORATIONS are. Its why treasury secs sons have been buying up the rights to tariff refunds, i.e. buying SCOTUS corpo refunds.


So, WE pay, they get the money. Or, we pay and thr gov gets the money. And vy Gov, i mean trump is pocketing it. 

ZoomZoom_Driver

And what will happen if there are tariff rebates is that the company in Kansas that owns my local grocer in Illinois will get them and my local community won't see a dime. The same with Target, Amazon, and Walmart, your local store isn't going see any rebate, and prices will remain the same. The extra profit will not go to increased wages and benefits, but to stockholders.

The game is rigged. Corporations still win

chubby_pink_donut

SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled in Trump’s favor despite precedent, logic, and the Constitution. They will do so again here.

hamsterfolly

This Supreme Court will find everything Trump does legal, because he does it. Congress could change hands, Trump could be impeached, and this court would find impeachment is unconstitutional.

Depressed-Industry

Good thing they’ve waited until a lot of damage has been done.

Utterlybored

I doubt it on the basis that if ruled illegal. Trump will have to refund ALL the illegal tariff money......That you damn well he already spent.

Urabraska-

How could they make an estimate so high when supreme court justices are legally allowed to accept bribes?

4peaks2spheres

I give that 80% chance a one in ten chance of being correct. Margin of error of 50%.

Possible-Nectarine80

The “might” rule against him but it wouldn’t be for any legal or logical reason.

Dsstar666

THey might rule them illegal but they wont do it to deify him they would do it to save his own ass from his insane economy plan

Lunchb0xx87

I got $100 that says when the economy crashes next year Trump is going to trow his hands up and blame the tariffs being struck down as the cause.

kingtacticool

They'll rule against it and bail out trump and his awful economy. If we're lucky it won't be too late.

Time-Ad-3625

Nah, they'll decide the emergency declaration is valid. Congress has delegated the tariff power to the president. If they didn't want him to act like this, they would've impeached. Also it's impossible to reverse all the tariffs they already collected, so let's just keep that in our pocket. Easy peasy.

projexion_reflexion

burnmenowz

Are the legal experts statisticians, or is this just a ballpark figure?

JC_Everyman

That it’s only 80% just tells you how far down the calvinball path SCOTUS has gone. 

Murgos-

What will Trump use to bailout farmers with then?

westtownie

kezow

yeah, but has trump bought Clarence Thomas a new Winnebago? that's how you really know what way the vote will go

unknownpoltroon

Whatever the outcome, the tariff case will fundamentally alter the coming decades. If, as I suspect, Trump wins based on the "foreign relations exception to the major questions doctrine", we will formally enter the era of the Imperial Presidency. The powers of Congress will continue to atrophy and it will become a non-functioning symbol of the old US. Then, the only remaining question will be whether SCOTUS forces POTUS to permit something resembling free and fair elections. 

I think that these experts predicting an 80% chance of Trump losing are smoking some really good shit! If anything, I think that Trump has more like an 80% chance of a win. SCOTUS has abandoned any pretense of ruling based on the Constitution and is now basing their rulings on how they would structure a new country if they had the chance. Unfortunately for us, they do have that chance.

jpmeyer12751

If logic and history say it would be overturned, I'm this climate, the court will probably be holding a big banner promoting Tariffs and 6 of them will be highly invested in the markets

jankyt

The Supreme Court ruled that judicial officers with combined experience in advocacy and judiciary of seven years are eligible for direct appointment as District Judges.

Supreme Court Ruling on District Judge Eligibility

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want