This week, the Supreme Court is set to hear the hotly-watched case on whether President Donald Trump can abolish the 14th Amendment's guarantee of birthright citizenship by executive order. And most people think he'll lose, justice correspondent Ken Dilanian told MS NOW's Katy Tur on Monday.This comes as Trump ups his social media attacks on the justices, warning them not to be "dumb" as they hear the case."Ken, let's talk about the Supreme Court," said Tur. "So he tried to do this by executive order. This case has already been considered by the Supreme Court more than 100 years ago. What is going to be considered this week?""Yes. And that was the case about the son of Chinese immigrants living legally in the United States," said Dilanian, referencing United States v. Wong Kim Ark. "And so what Donald Trump and his solicitor general and a few conservative scholars are bringing to the court are some fringe arguments that have been rejected for more than a century. As you said, the 14th Amendment clearly says 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,' and that term, 'subject to the jurisdiction,' has been held not to include diplomats and invading armies and initially Native Americans, although that was changed later. But now Donald Trump and his allies are trying to say that that should also not include people who are here illegally.""And look, he's already predicting he's going to lose," said Dilanian. "Most legal scholars think he's going to lose this. And this will be the second major defeat after tariffs. And politically, it will allow him to blame the court and say that he tried to fight the good fight and he lost. And it's going to further poison his relationship with this court, which is one of the most conservative courts in in decades."Despite the consensus he'll lose, continued Dilanian, "there are an increasing number of fringy legal scholars who have come to adopt the idea that maybe there is — it is time to take another look at this, that maybe that initial decision was wrong. So I don't think you can completely rule it out. But some conservative justices have hinted in previous arguments that they have very little patience for this argument and that there, you know, it would just it would just throw 100 years of jurisprudence into chaos." - YouTube www.youtube.com