Search Posts

A screenshot of a social media post (X/Twitter) from a verified account named "Hugh Hewitt" (@hughhewitt), timestamped 8:26 AM · Aug 15, 2026, with 51K views. The post is a lengthy text commentary arguing that Chief Justice Roberts should grant Trump's request to stay a court order halting White House construction (including a ballroom and security facilities), asserting the president needs authority over the Executive Mansion and related grounds for security reasons, and criticizing "the hard left" and "TDS" (Trump Derangement Syndrome) for opposing this.

Text in image: Hugh Hewitt ✓ @hughhewitt Chief Justice Roberts has before him the request from President Trump to stay the order halting construction at the White House, including its below ground national security facilities, the ballroom above ground and whatever is intend for the roof (drone defenses perhaps?) I hope the stay of the D.C. Circuit issues today. There are some standing issues but the heart of the debate is presidential authority over the Executive Mansion and related-grounds. This is not a close case and the stay should be ordered. A terse opinion may follow on the urgent need to allow this president and all future presidents authority over their home/office/highly secure national security facilities within that area and associated areas such as Camp David. To ignore the rapidly evolving threats to any facility used frequently any president against the backdrop of repeated attempts on the lives of this and other presidents not to mention rapidly evolving surveillance technology that has to be countered would be the height of irresponsibility. Imagine the consequences of a state sponsor of successfully terror targeting the White House if necessary defenses that would have deflected the attack are not in place. TDS has spread far and wide, but while the hard left in this country and the terror-based regimes which align with the objectives of the radicals would love to see a Commander-in-Chief denied authority over his command structures, the Supreme Court should move quickly to end this circus. 8:26 AM · Aug 15, 2026 · 51K Views

Described automatically. The words above are a machine's reading of the picture, not Trump's.

So it's been one week since the Supreme Court voted to uphold birthright citizenship and Republicans are frustrated, understandably so. Justice Alito said, "This is one of the most important decisions in the history of the court, and in my judgment, the court has made a serious mistake." Justice Thomas echoed that, saying, "I'm not sure that today's opinion will stand the test of time." It didn't take long for Justice Katanji Brown Jackson to read Thomas' dissent, then accuse him of racism. Of course, the ultimate irony is that for all the talk about the detestable Dred Scott decision, the government and Thomas propose a return to its core tenant. It wasn't just Jackson, the entire Democrat-based dogpiled on Justice Thomas, calling him a DEI hire. When he was appointed to the Supreme Court, there's no way in hell he should have got that job. He's literally a DEI hire, and now a man like that who knows that, who feels, you know, who feels mediocre, who feels small, is going to exact that against everybody, and that's just kind of what's happening now. There's nothing you're going to ask him to do that would hurt black or brown people or women he wouldn't do. How do you think he looks in the mirror or sleeps at night? Probably very well, I guess, I guess. I think Clarence Thomas, if he looks in the mirror and gets up in the middle of the night and sees a black man in the mirror, he'll call him a police. Disgusting. Democrats are pressed over the Supreme Court allowing states to ban men from women's sports, and Republicans are frustrated over the court upholding birthright citizenship. Both parties lost, and both parties won last week. And now, both parties want to change in the Supreme Court. Republicans have a plan. When one justice resigns, they replace that justice with a new one. He's done a wonderful job as a senator, I highly respect it. In fact, somebody said, would you ever appoint him to the United States Supreme Court? Because he's a brilliant lawyer. No, if I was having a hard time with getting the votes, I would appoint Ted Cruz. I get 100% guarantee. Democrats, they want to pack the court. They want to trash the whole system. We talk about the idea of Supreme Court reform, which includes expanding the Supreme Court. I do believe if you combine term limits on the court and the expansion of the court, where every president gets two appointees, you would depoliticize this. The Republicans stole two Supreme Court seats in 2016 and 2020. That's what's giving them their supermajority. The only way to solve this problem in a very short period of time is expand the Supreme Court. Neither party is satisfied with last week's decisions, but it's a reminder the Supreme Court was never created to serve a political party. It's meant to uphold the Constitution, and that's exactly what it's doing.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

about birth tourism. It's booming. In 2023, over 300,000 babies were born to unauthorized or legal temporary immigrant mothers. Add that in total. It's 9% of the US births in that given year. When we look at how that shakes out over time, a clear spike in the number of births to unauthorized immigrant mothers in the United States from 2019 to 2023. That's unprecedented. It's unforeseen. It's undeniable. But Chief Justice Roberts, I'm convinced. It certainly wasn't a problem in the 19th century. No, but of course, we're in a new world now, as Justice Alita pointed out, to where 8 billion people are one plane ride away from having a child as a US citizen. Well, it's a new world. It's the same constitution.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

Let's bring in Mark Smith, a constitutional attorney and a member of the Supreme Court bar. Are you making any predictions, Mark, about how the Supreme Court will see this case and rule on it? I think there's an excellent chance this is going to be the biggest victory of Donald Trump's career as a politician, frankly, to actually fix a constitutional wrong that has been a wrong for over a hundred years, largely because no one has had standing to sue over it until Donald Trump's brilliant move to enact this executive order, which finally, finally gave rise to the opportunity to get this issue before the U.S. Supreme Court. Up until that time, people did not have standing to sue because the only people that sort of got directly impacted by this, if you're born in the America, you're automatically an American citizen, they were beneficiary. So they obviously were not going to sue over this. And now because of Donald Trump, we're in front of the Supreme Court and hopefully we're going to get a good outcome in favor of the Constitution. John Dupree was on Fox News Sunday earlier today. He had this to say about how he sees the case. Listen. The birthright citizenship, like it or not, is enshrined in the Constitution. So I do think that the administration is going to have a bit of an uphill battle. But I will say this, having read the briefs, looked at what the administration is arguing, they have presented a much stronger, more compelling argument against birthright citizenship than I had thought coming into this. I don't know that it's going to be enough to get five votes in their favor, but they've made it a close case. Wasn't birthright citizenship originally supposed to help those who were slaves or children of slaves be recognized as U.S. citizens? That's right, John. The reality is that after the Civil War, the United States adopted the 14th Amendment. In the 14th Amendment's text, literally in the text, John, there's two components that have to be satisfied for you to be a citizen. The first is, yes, you have to be born in the United States, physically born in the United States. That's step one. But that's not the only step. You also have to be what's known as subject to the jurisdiction thereof. That is the text of the 14th Amendment that the left in America likes to pretend is nothing more than an inkblot. But the reality is that subject to the jurisdiction thereof, John, is very important because what it says is if you're born, you have to be born in the United States and you have to be loyal to the United States, which means you're not loyal to a foreign power. Now, if you're the child of illegal aliens or if your parents bring you here on a holiday and you're born here while your parents intend to go back to China, let's say, you're not loyal to the United States as understood by the law. You're beholden to another foreign country. And that is going all the way back, which, by the way, is why Native Americans were not citizens under the 14th Amendment. It required a change in the statutory law in the 20th century, John, to make Native Americans lawful U.S. citizens because although they were in the United States at the time of the 1868 14th Amendment, they were not loyal to the United States because they were loyal to their respective tribes. Jonathan Turley is a Fox News contributor, also a George Washington University law professor. Here's how he sees the argument. When the 14th Amendment was drafted, some of the drafters said explicitly that it does not allow for birthright citizenship. The problem are these six words, this clause, put in the middle of an otherwise clear sentence. But the key is that those words were not in that sentence in the original draft. They were intentionally inserted. So you can't just treat them as superfluous. They were inserted for a reason. And I think that there are compelling arguments on both sides here. So he seems to say that the drafters of the 14th Amendment made it pretty clear. Well, I think it's even clearer that in favor of Donald Trump, because in 1866, John, there was something called the Civil Rights Act passed by Congress. In it, it says to be a U.S. citizen, you have to be born in the United States and you cannot be beholden to a foreign power. After that law was passed, Congress realized that another Congress could come down the pike and change the law, basically making African-American, former African-American slaves no longer citizens. So to make sure that did not happen, they decided to take that Civil Rights Act of 1866 and enshrined it in the Constitution. And that is what the 14th Amendment became, which is why the phrase subject to the jurisdiction thereof is essentially embraced or comes out of that Civil Rights Act of 1866 that literally says you cannot be subject to a foreign power. It all turns on, are you and your parents loyal to the United States? And if you're just passing through on the way to Hawaii for fun or you're broke into the country illegally, that does not make you loyal to the United States. And therefore you're not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. And thus you're not a citizen under the text of the 14th Amendment. And I think that's what the Supreme Court is going to say. And the only reason, John, that we haven't said it before is because there's never been an opportunity to get in front of the courts because no one had standing to raise these kinds of arguments until now. Jonathan Turley says that virtually no nation in Europe allows birthright citizenship. Are you aware of any country in the world that does aside from ours? No, of course not. The most valuable asset on the planet period is becoming a United States citizen. You will get to be a citizen of the greatest country that has ever existed in mankind's history. Right. That's the reality of it. So to think that you would hand these out just because you happen to be born here because your parents broke into the country is simply absurd. You know, U.S. citizenship is a lot more than just taking free candy at the doctor's office. It requires a lot more than that. Specifically, it requires loyalty to the country. This is your home. And it can't just be that your parents are passing through illegally or otherwise, and you happen to get born here. That is simply not enough to give you U.S. citizenship. And the text of the 14th Amendment sort of proves that out, as does the history. We'll see what the Supreme Court decides. It's going to be a fascinating week and a fascinating term. Mark Smith, thank you.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

-The Supreme Court will address the historic question of presidential immunity. Without presidential immunity, the president cannot function, as his political opponents will blackmail and extort him with the threat of wrongful persecution at every turn, including when he leaves office. They're gonna say, "You don't give us this, whether it's for taxes or military or anything. We're gonna go get you because we're allowed to now because you wouldn't have immunity. We're gonna get you after you leave office." It literally would be blackmail. We look forward to presenting our case in the Supreme Court. It's gonna be one of the most important cases because without presidential immunity, you have nothing. You don't have a president. You have just a ceremonial position, and we can't have that. A president has to be strong, has to be powerful, has to make good decisions. But if you don't have presidential immunity, if you don't have a strong form of immunity, you're not gonna have anything. You're not gonna have a president that can function. It's not gonna work. It would never work. Everybody assumes that a president has immunity, a president has to have immunity, or he cannot or she cannot function.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.