As I write this, the Supreme Court is hearing a case challenging the tradition that nearly all children born in the United States, whoever their parents may be and how they came to be here, are automatically citizens.
On the first day of his second term, President Trump signed an executive order stating that babies born on U.S. soil to illegal immigrants and temporary foreign visitors were ineligible for birthright citizenship. That was an obvious shot across the bow of the U.S. Supreme Court as it challenged an interpretation of the 14th Amendment that has stood for over a century. The President knew his EO would be also challenged, and would eventually end up on the Supreme Court docket.
Because this is an important question that would, if SCOTUS agreed with the President’s interpretation of the Constitutional intent (there were no such things as “illegal immigrants” when the Constitution was written) have massive consequences in many areas, the oral argument is attracting blow-by-blow analysis. That is not my purpose here.
The issue for Ethics Alarms is President Trump’s decision to attend the oral argument. No previous President has done this, although nothing prevents the President from attending. Trump’s predecessors all avoided the option, though there have been many, many cases over the years that the President knew would have a major effect on his policies as well and the matters he had to deal with. President Pierce did not attend the Dred Scott oral arguments. To be fair, he was barely engaged at any time in his miserable four years in the White House. But FDR didn’t sit in while the Court was determining the fates of his many New Deal programs. Nixon didn’t listen to the Pentagon Papers arguments.
Ethics Alarms 
I disagree.
I think people alluding to “the appearance of impropriety” are often just saying that something hasn’t been done before, and so it shouldn’t be done going forward. Why would it be improper to witness the legal arguments before a court that might materially effect you? In any other context, we’d argue until we’re blue in the face that it’s a fundamental right in any democracy worth the name to be able to face directly, in person, the process that we are subject to.
Ditto.
The same reason a boss flirting with a subordinate is unethical. The President isn’t just any spectator. He automatically carries his power and authority with him. It is attempted intimidation and influence or looks like it is (hence the “appearance of impropriety.”). Apparently the Justices made it clear that he was not welcome, and he left.
I mean… Not only is this not a great comparison, but I think you know it. The President is a very powerful person, sure, but the judiciary is a coequal branch of government, they have a whole lot of power too, and they are not subordinate to him, and no one who matters is really confused by that. The justices certainly aren’t.
And while the president is powerful, he is also a person, and that means that the Supreme Court just asked the respondent in the case before them not to attend. I don’t think they should have asked that, I think that’s grossly inappropriate.
HT
Well said. I was trying to formulate my reason why I had no issue with his attendance. The Presidents attendance cannot influence the justices who enjoy lifetime appointments. He has no power to intimidate any justice or judge yet they can negate or impose limits on his decisions .
As for why it had not been done before is speculative at best.
Trump screws up so many things that could have been handled better, and to better advantage. So this is likely just one more the same: an impropriety that will be focused on by the opposition and if this war in service to Israel does not resolve well, he will cause the loss of the mid-terms, become neutered, get impeached, then likely go to jail. (If the war is won, the Straight opened, and catastrophe averted, things will look quite different). (The world enemies of Trump (and US power) must see to it that this war is extended.)
Bad decision on his part, strategically.
It will be interesting to hear what President Trump has to say tonight during his address to the nation. Alas, I’ll have to read about it tomorrow as I don’t even stay up until 9PM on New Year’s Eve! You know, “Early to bed and early to rise, makes a man healthy, wealthy, and wise”; at least I’m healthy.
The numbskulls on X who don’t grasp the difference between illegal immigrants and immigrants are gleefully arguing that, without birthright citizenship, none of the President’s children are citizens because their mothers were immigrants.
Legal immigrants. Who weren’t pregnant when they arrived here. Who gave birth to their children after being legally married to Trump, a man who was born a U.S. citizen.
This is how addled the Left has made people: they don’t understand birthright citizenship, anchor babies, legal immigration versus illegal immigration and what makes the Trump children American citizens.
All system check, T-10:00 and holding. Godspeed Artemis II!!
jvb