House Speaker Mike Johnson reacted with visible frustration to a birthright citizenship ruling, saying he still needs to read the opinion and arguing the policy has been “grossly abused.” He called amending the Constitution the “logical response,” while acknow
The reaction was immediate, and it didn’t try to hide itself.
Before getting into any details. House Speaker Mike Johnson asked. “Oh dear. what’d they rule?” He then rolled his eyes. let out a groan that seemed to come from deep down. and moved quickly toward what he could salvage as a sound bite. Even as he tried to frame his response for viewers, the frustration was the first thing anyone could see.
Johnson said he needed to read the opinion before fully weighing the court’s reasoning. telling the audience. “Well. uh. I need to read the opinion. OK?” He followed that by characterizing the decision as aligned with a “textualist and originalist view”—a judicial philosophy he described as interpreting the Constitution based on what the original framers supposedly intended.
From there, Johnson made his case without wavering. He insisted that birthright citizenship has been “grossly abused in recent years,” and called it “a serious problem.” In his telling, the court’s ruling doesn’t settle the issue—it sharpens the need for a political response.
Asked what that response should be, Johnson said “the logical response” is to amend the Constitution to prohibit birthright citizenship. He didn’t pretend that would be easy. He said an amendment would require a two-thirds majority in both the House and the Senate. and would also need ratification by 75% of the states.
Johnson’s disappointment came through at the end of his remarks. “I will say, I’m very disappointed in that outcome,” he added—an admission that, for him, the path forward is both clear in principle and nearly blocked in practice.
Mike Johnson birthright citizenship ruling originalism textualism constitutional amendment House speaker Congress immigration policy
So he’s mad… but like did he even read it? Sounds like more grandstanding.
Wait, I thought birthright citizenship was already a thing because the Constitution literally says it? Idk why they’re acting surprised. Also “amend the Constitution” sounds like they just want to delay forever.
“Textualist and originalist” always cracks me up, like they’re time traveling to argue with dead people. If they need 75% of states then good luck, that’s not “action” that’s wishing. Maybe he should focus on fixing whatever problem he’s claiming instead of yelling about it.
This is why I can’t stand politics. Court rules one way and he’s like “oh dear” and then immediately talks about changing the Constitution like that’s normal. Birthright was always abused? okay, but by who? feels like they just found a new word salad excuse for immigration stuff. And rolling his eyes on camera isn’t helping anybody.