The Supreme Court Just Changed History FOREVER

The Supreme Court Just Changed History FOREVER

The Supreme Court just made a massive decision on birthright citizenship that will undoubtedly change the course of American history. This is by far the most consequential Supreme Court decision of both Trump terms, and Democrats are rightfully panicking. But this is only one of two massive victories the Supreme Court just handed Trump and the America First agenda. So, make sure you watch till the end because we’re going to cover all of this in today’s episode. As always, like the video and subscribe to the channel. But let’s start with the first decision that will have a direct impact on the 2026 midterms. Breaking news in our law and justice lead in a major update from the US Supreme Court on that Texas redistricting case. You’ll remember Republicans in the state in an unusual mid decade reviews, the congressional maps earlier this year. Let’s get right to CNN chief Supreme Court analyst Joe Bubic. Joan, what is the latest news from the US Supreme Court? Very big news, Jake. Both politically and legally. The Supreme Court, the conservative majority over the disscent of the three liberals has said that Texas can use the map that it drew last summer to provide potentially five new districts that would could flip Republican and enhance uh the Republican majority in the US House. And what they said is that a US special US district court panel that had invalidated this map saying it was drawn on unconstitutional racial lines that Texas had actually divided people up by race. This this district court had had said that and uh Texas had come up here and appealed it backed by the Trump administration. Today the Supreme Court majority said no that this uh that this map deserved more uh deference from the district court. The district court should have uh taken into account a presumption of legislative good faith. This decision is so big not just because of what it does in Texas but because it gives other Republican states the green light to engage in favorable redistricting backed by this Supreme Court president. But more importantly, it has a massive implication on the Voting Rights Act case that the Supreme Court is deliberating on right now that if overturned, and it’s looking like it will, will permanently end the Democrat’s artificial 30 seat House advantage due to racebased congressional maps. The entire existence of the Democrat party relies solely on racially discriminatory maps. And this next clip explains that this Supreme Court ruling in Texas means that they are well aware of the Democrats congressional map scam and why it also means they are very likely to overturn the voting rights act. The district court had found that indeed that this had been an unconstitutional racial gerrymander that it wasn’t drawn just on political lines which uh Jake is allowed under the constitution. You can draw, you can divide people up based on their politics, but you cannot divide people up based on their race. And that’s what the district court said had done there. And let me just tell you what Justice Elena Kagan said in descent about that. What basis does the majority have to thus substitute its understanding of the direct evidence for the district courts? The short answer is it has none. So this this is the end of the line for this Texas map. It can be used going forward now for the midterm elections. Jake. So, the lady just explained the Democrat scam and why it spells trouble for the Voting Rights Act. We’re going to break it all down. It is legal to gerrymander based on partisan grounds. If a red state wants to disenfranchise Democrat voters, they can. If a Democrat state wants to disenfranchise Republican voters, they can. But you are not allowed to discriminate on the grounds of race. But that ruling conveniently only benefits one party, and that’s the Democrats. Because since black people vote for Democrats at a rate of 90 to 95%, any disenfranchisement of Democrat voters, even if intentionally partisan, can be viewed and argued as discriminatory to black people. And the Voting Rights Act specifies that discrimination is in the result, not the intention. So even if you don’t intentionally mean to racially discriminate, if the result is racial discrimination, it’s illegal. That has prevented Republicans from doing the same intense partisan gerrymandering that Democrats are allowed to do to Republicans because even if it is purely for partisan advantage, if the result is seen as black people are now being disenfranchised, it’s automatically illegal. And that’s the same argument they made for why the Texas maps were illegal. But the fact that the Supreme Court permitted these new Texas maps means they’re giving more deference towards the intention rather than the result. And if that’s the case, the Voting Rights Act doesn’t even need to be repealed for the Republicans to wipe out the Democrats artificial 30 seat advantage. They can now engage in the same partisan gerrymandering that Democrats are allowed to do. And they’ll be able to use this Supreme Court ruling to justify the redrawing of their own maps based on partisan intent, not racial discrimination. This is so monumental because fingers crossed, this means the Republicans have essentially cemented their win in the 2026 midterms. But now on to the second big piece of news, the Supreme Court’s decision on birthright citizenship. Take a look. Supreme Court just this minute, Briana, announced it’s going to take up uh challenge to President Trump’s order lifting birthright citizenship. You might remember on January 20th, his first day in office, he took his Sharpie pen and he said, “This is a big one.” And what he did was he tried to eliminate the automatic birthright citizenship that all Americans have had for more than a century. And what that does, it goes to the 14th amendment of the Constitution that says all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States. That means that anyone who’s born here, Briana, automatically became becomes a US citizen. And what Donald Trump’s uh executive order tried to do was say anyone who was born of someone who was not here lawfully or who was here on some sort of temporary status uh that person’s baby would not automatically be a citizen. It’s a very um it’s probably of all the Trump actions that have been t taken to date, Briana, this one is the uh most challenging because it what it does is it flies in the face of the 14th amendment that was adopted in 1868 and it flies in the face of an 1898 Supreme Court president that said even if you were born of in that case it happened to be a Chinese national. Even if you were born of someone who was not uh here as a US citizen, you still had you still have um uh you definitely still have um citizenship here in the uh US. The fact that the Supreme Court is taking this case and not just ruling Trump’s executive order illegal based on precedent is massive. The Democrat assumption that birthright citizenship was so clear, so cut and dry that there was no way it could be interpreted any differently or possibly rolled back is the same mistake they made with Row versus Wade. And we saw how that ended up. The 14th Amendment that granted birthright citizenship was meant for slaves, but it’s been exploited by the entire world for far too long. It has been the catalyst and driving motivation of mass migration from Central and South America over the last 60 years. In the 60s, the United States population was roughly 85% white people, 10% black people, and 5% Asians, Hispanics, and others. But fast forward to today and the population is roughly 50% white people, 13% black people, 25 to 30% Hispanics, and the rest Asians, Middle Easterners, and Africans. That’s why I am so adamant about trying to free black people from the shackles of the Democrat party. They think the Democrats are fighting for their place in society, but they’re not. They’re fighting for the entire globe’s place in their society. And that’s why they rely on telling black people their victims and secondclass citizens so they’ll help give away their country their birthright to the entire globe. And before you say, “Well, Brandon, there’s no chance that they’re going to overturn birthright citizenship.” Well, here’s MSNBC even admitting Trump’s lawyers have a pretty good argument. The Supreme Court ruled on this back in in the very early 1900s, I think 1908. Um, and they found that if you were born here, despite your parents’ citizenship, you are an American citizen. So, could it be that this Supreme Court overturns that? I don’t think that it will. But let me give you the administration’s argument. The case that you’re referring to is called Wong Kim Arc. The administration’s interpretation of that case is not that it extends citizenship to all children born in the US, but rather that it extends citizenship to those who have permanent doicile, those who are the children of parents who have already established permanent residency in the US. And they say that’s clearly not the case for, you know, thousands of children who are born in the US every year. They say that decision was never meant to confer sort of universal birthright citizenship, but that the decision itself uses the word doicile more than 20 times and therefore we have all perverted the meaning of that case rather than their perverting the meaning of the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment. So that is going to be the major determining factor for how the Supreme Court ends up ruling. Does it require the parents to have some semblance of legal permanent residence? There’s already a carveout for the children of foreign diplomats because it’s understood they belong to an entirely different country. Their residence in the United States doesn’t have the foundation of permanence. So that would apply to people with temporary protective status. Keyword temporary. Their presence in the United States was never intended to be permanent. refugees, asylum seekers, tourists, and obviously the big one, illegal aliens. There is no rational argument that can be made that when the 14th Amendment passed in 1968, they meant for it to encompass the children of tens of millions of illegal aliens who broke into the country and had children here, granting their kids United States citizenship. And if we’re being honest, I think this case would have been settled if not for Joe Biden letting in 25 million illegal aliens in the span of four years, highlighting the clear exploitation of our immigration system paired with birthright citizenship. And the mainstream media is even admitting the simple fact that the Supreme Court is hearing this case is concerning for them. And do you think, Jessica, that’s why the court took it? Because as you well laid out, we have precedent and statute. It’s do you think the court wanted to make an affirmative declaration that those are the governing elements of this question or or at least four members of the court as you know and you’re a student of the court as well. All it takes in order to decide to take a case is four votes. And so I think there easily could have been four to say the president has tried to change the understanding of the constitution by executive order. We should be clear that there has been no court that has agreed that he can do that. This executive order which I believe was signed on the first day of his presidency never went into effect. But yes, to your question, I think this is one of those big constitutional questions that generally speaking the Supreme Court is the final word. Again, if this case was so cut and dry, the Supreme Court wouldn’t have even heard it. They would have just struck down the executive order as unconstitutional. They would have said, “The president is the president. It’s been this way for 150 years.” There is no point in us even wasting our time reaffirming this ruling. I personally believe I have a pretty good track record in reading the tea leaves and I think this is going to be a five4 decision that overturns birthright citizenship. I think they’ll interpret it to mean at least one parent has to be a lawful permanent resident. If the ruling goes as I predict, this will be a massive disincentive to all future illegal migration because the entire scam right now is predicated on an extremely backlogged court paired with birthright citizenship where migrants bank on having as many American citizen children as possible. So when their day in court finally arrives years down the road, if they ever even show up, the court will offer them deference because they’ll see they have three or four US-born American citizen children. It is a system that at its core encourages breaking the rules, exploitation, lying, and scamming. It dilutes the meaning of American citizenship to something anybody can obtain so long as they’re willing to get here by any means necessary and punishes the people who wait in line and follow our proper immigration process the legal way. This ruling is so consequential because it will seriously halt the third worldification of America. They’re hearing arguments in the spring. They’ll make a ruling by June and I will keep you guys updated every step of the way. But let me know what you guys think down in the comments section below. If you enjoyed the video, make sure you hit that like button. Make sure you subscribe to the channel if you have not already. Turn on those notification bells so you never miss a video. And I will see you guys in the next one.

Become A Member: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQg3kFK12laHnCfuQpBThDw/join

SOCIALS:
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/brandonlehmanclips/
X: https://twitter.com/RetiredBrandon
Tik Tok: https://www.tiktok.com/@RetiredBrandon
Clips Channel: http://www.youtube.com/@BrandonLehmanClips