The Harry Sisson Show - Trump RAGES After MAGA Justice HUMILIATES HIM

Episode Date: April 1, 2026

Harry Sisson breaks down Donald Trump's disastrous day as members of the Supreme Court who he appointed humiliated him to his face.

Well, folks, Donald Trump did not have a good day today, not even a little bit. He wanted to put on this spectacle by going to the Supreme Court to listen in person to the argument surrounding his birthright citizenship executive order, to overturn something that's written in the Constitution, and it didn't go to plan for Donald Trump. Matter of fact, he was insulted to his face by justices that he appointed to the court. And of course, as you can imagine, he wasn't happy about that. He took to social media to rant about it. We're going to talk about all of this and more.

Before I do that, please make sure to subscribe down below, drop a like on the video, comment. Let me know what you think about this story. And without further ado, let's get into it. So, first of all, these arguments just broadly did not go well for Donald Trump. The Supreme Court seems poised to overturn his executive order, deem it unconstitutional, say, hey, the president can't just overturn something from the Constitution. It might be a 9-0 decision, the shortest opinion they've ever written in their history. We shall see.

But all of them appeared skeptical. Now, of course, like Alito and Clarence Thomas, you know, they were a bit more in Donald Trump's camp, just a little bit because they're always in Donald Trump's camp. But for the most part, the other justices were not happy. They weren't having it. And it got so bad that at one point Donald Trump stormed out of the Supreme Court. He got up in the middle of arguments. They were still ongoing. He heard how it was going.

His team was probably telling him how it was going because, you know, he knows nothing about the Supreme Court. And he got up and left. It was that bad. and almost immediately after he took to social media to rant about it, saying, we are the only country in the world stupid enough to allow birthright citizenship, President DJT. So you can tell how he was feeling. He said he sent this message almost immediately getting out of the Supreme Court. He took his rage and put it online as he normally does every single day. But this is pretty telling. We know how Donald Trump was feeling. And then

almost immediately after that, he posted this like essay. I mean, he posted this at 1252, the original message was posted at 1220. I guess in that time he and his, his aides were writing this essay for social media. And it was just a mess. I mean, he was saying, Republicans fully support our great men and women of law enforcement. Maybe the word should be love. I mean, this is the same guy who watched the January 6th police officers get beaten by his supporters and do nothing about it. Matter of fact, he complimented the insurrectionist, not the police officers. America thanks each and every one of our wonderful police, Border Patrol, ICE, and others for their work to protect our cities, town, streets, and indeed our country. Unlike Republicans, Democrats want to

defund the police, not true, border patrol, and all immigration enforcement. They want to allow criminals, the mentally insane and lunatics from all over the world to come into our country. Again, completely false. That's why we're going to for, excuse me, that's where we're going forward to fund our incredible ICE agents and border patrol through a process that doesn't need radical left Democrat votes and bypass the Senate filibuster, which should be repealed immediately. What Donald Trump is describing here is Republicans folding, because this is exactly what Democrats were advocating for. This is the deal that Democrats struck with Republicans where they would not vote for any ICE funding. They would only vote for FEMA, TSA, things like

that, and negotiate ICE on the side. And Republicans are saying, okay, we'll do that while simultaneously passing ICE funding by ourselves. But Democrats were advocating for a deal like this where they would not vote for ICE funding. And that's exactly what Donald Trump is admitting here. He's saying working in close conjunction with Mike Johnson and Leader Thune, we are going to work as fast and its focus as possible to replenish funding for our border and ICE agents, and the radical left won't be able to stop us. Remember that going into the midterms, that this is their priority. They want to fund ICE and not things like health care and social security, but I do want to show you some of the clips of Donald Trump's Solicitor General, Donald Trump,

while he's in the court, listening to his arguments get torn apart. This is John Roberts correcting Donald Trump's solicitor general, John Sawyer, about the Constitution, the fact that, yes, it still exists despite what they want to believe. Their interpretation has made a mess in the provision. Well, it certainly wasn't a problem in the 19th century. No, but of course, we're in a new world now, as Justice Alito pointed out to, where eight billion people are one plane right away from having a child as a U.S. citizen. Well, it's a new world.

It's the same constitution. It is. And as Justice Scalia said, I think in the case that Justice, Justice, Alito was referring to, you've got a constitutional provision that addresses certain evils and it should be extended to reasonably comparable evils. He said that about statutory interpretation. I think the same principle applies here. And I think we. Great quote from Chief Justice John Roberts. Kind of a weak justice sometimes, but he did say it's a new world. It's the same constitution. Getting insulted by a conservative. Here's another one. Brett Kavana. Brett Kavanaugh thrown some shots. And this is,

again, somebody that Donald Trump appointed. This in your opening that if we agree with you on how to read Wang Kim Ark, then you win. So that could be a, if we did agree with you on Juan Kim Ark, that could be just a short opinion, right? That says the better reading is respondents reading. Government doesn't ask us to overrule, affirmed. Yes. That's, that, then last question though, why would we? I mean, let you hear that in the background, the after. If we agree with you on how to read Wang Kim Arc, then you win, that could just be a short opinion. Yes, it could. Yes, it could. This should be a short opinion. That's something in the Constitution, the 14th Amendment birthright citizenship should not be something that takes, you know,

300 pages to address. I mean, this is like a one pager. You know what I mean? I'm not a lawyer, but it feels like a one pager. And the final clip I want to show you before we get into the article, Connie Barrett, Amy Coney Barrett, to Trump Solicitor General. You say the purpose of the 14th amendment was to put all newly freed slaves on equal footing, and so they would be citizens, but that's not textual. So she goes in on that, watch. Concept that creates allegiance. That's a general. General, he said in your reply brief, that the children of slaves who were brought here unlawfully, you know, in defiance of laws forbidding the slave trade, would, in fact, be citizens. And we can imagine that their parents were

not only brought here in violation of United States law, but we're here against their will, and so maybe felt allegiance to the countries where they were from. And you say that the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to put all slaves on equal footing, newly freed slaves on equal footing, and so they would be citizens. But that's not textual. So how do you get there? You say it in just a few sentences, so can you elaborate? Sure. I think if you look at the 19th century sources, what you see is that even though their entry may have been unlawful, 19th century antebellum law and never treated their presence is unlawful. In fact, quite the opposite.

Hmm. You kind of sound like he was rushing through that answer at the end there. It seemed a little panicked, but even to Amy Coney-Barritt, Trump appointee saying, not textual. Trump's justice insults his citizenship scheme to his face. Justice Amy Coney-Barrick called out Donald Trump's move to restrict birthright citizenship as he sat just 15 feet away. The Trump appointed justice was one of several conservative justices who went after the

government's arguments as the country's highest. court heard oral arguments today. Trump became the first president in history to go to the Supreme Court to hear oral arguments about a case in which he was implicated sitting just about 15 feet away from the bench beside Attorney General Pam Bondi. The case stems from Trump's executive order signed on his first day back in office, which moved to dramatically upend birthright citizenship for babies born in the United States. The move through citizenship of thousands of babies into limbo as the court battle played out. Quote, let's talk about its applications, Barrett's said, I can imagine it being messy on some applications, which, yeah, she questioned what would happen

if you do not know who the parents are when dealing with citizenship where they lived or if they intended to stay in the United States. Quote, if you're looking at parents as domicile, then you have to adjudicate both residents and intent to stay. What if you don't know who the parents are? And when Solicitor General John D. Sawyer went the technical route with immigration law, Barrett cut him off, said, yeah, yeah, yeah, but what about the Constitution? Sawyer claimed a domicile as a constitutional standard in all other kinds of

situations, but Barrett remained skeptical. Well, and it's hard, Barrett observed. The thing is, it has to be litigated because it turns on intent. How would it work? How would you adjudicate these cases? You're not going to know at the time of birth for some people whether they have the intent to stay or not. While the case has been argued around residents and intent to stay in the United States, Sawyer argued Trump's executive order focused on objectively verifiable criteria, such as immigration status and permanent or temporary residence in the United States. But after Barrett's questions were raised, Justice Katanji Brown Jackson, also seized on that line of questioning as well. Quote, how does this work? Are you suggesting that when a baby is born,

people have to have documents, present documents? Is this happening in the delivery room? How are we determining when or whether a newborn child is a citizen of the United States under your rule? Sawyer argued that Social Security numbers are generated based on a birth certificate, and that could still be done in the vast majority of cases, but Jackson was not satisfied. Now you say your rule turns on whether the person intended to stay in the United States. And I think Justice Barrett brought this up. So are we bringing pregnant women in for depositions? What are we doing to figure this out?

So you're seeing from the line of questioning from the Supreme Court justices that whatever Donald Trump is proposing here and whatever Sawyer is arguing for is just nonsense. It would create chaos. It would create madness. It would create confusion. It would create these really weird scenes where maybe they would argue for women coming in to have depositions based on their newborn child. It's insane.

what they're arguing for here. It's insane what Donald Trump is still backing. I mean, he's still arguing that this should be the case. Sawyer noted his early response to the executive order focused on immigration status. There's apparently no opportunity then for the person to prove or to say that they actually intended to stay in the United States. Jackson said, the Solicitor General, however, argued the opposite was true and they could dispute it if they think they were wrongly denied. After the fact, Jackson said, after their baby had been denied citizenship, then we can go through the process. An estimated 200,000 babies are born to immigrant parents in the United States each year.

According to the ACLU, the outcome of the case will impact the citizenship and rights of such children for generations to come. So Donald Trump's justices, and the liberals, of course, but Donald Trump's justices going in on his sham arguments in front of the Supreme Court, and you love to see it. You absolutely love to see it. So I will leave the video there. I just wanted to go through all of this stuff that we got today. Thank you so much for watching. Please make sure to subscribe down below. Drop a like on the video.

comment, let me know what you think about this story. And as I always say, I greatly appreciate you, and I hope you have an amazing rest of your day.