This supreme court has made some interesting rulings. And it’s really all thanks to Trump.
I'm loving a lot of it, but we've had some severe missed opportunities too. This is still one of the best courts in ages, so I'm not here to whine...but holy shit, some of these people are retarded, and I'm not just talking the communist liberals.
"The court ruled that the stay on SB 4, that had been extended by Justice Samuel Alito just the day before will be lifted, allowing state authorities to enforce the immigration law."
OK, I thought so. They extended an existing Stay yesterday, then ruled in Texas' favor today. Weird, but (ultimately) the right decision.
Here's the situation. Texas enacts law. US Government asks for injunction against law. Federal court looks at issue and decides a merit hearing is needed to discuss the injunction and issues an ADMINISTRATIVE injunction.
Texas appeals THAT injunction to the Supreme court, which slaps down the administrative injunction, telling the Federal court to hurry up the determination on the merits of the actual injunction.
The problem the district court is facing is that the merits of issuing an injunction is based in part on a rough determination of which side is LIKELY to prevail. But this is such an unusual case that the merit determination is practically a decision itself.
Because Texas's argument is going to be that the government is abdicating their responsibilities. That's a novel question, whether the federal government's supremacy still applies when it is actively choosing to ignore a problem that a state is willing to step up to do.
In practical matters, it doesn't matter. The FedGov isn't doing something to protect people. If Texas steps up to protect people, then Texas acquires legitimacy that the FedGov doesn't have.
Why even bother paying taxes to FedGov if they won't do something basic like preventing invaders from another state coming in, selling drugs, rpng people, murdering them, etc.
Every other country in the world enforces their borders more tightly than ours. I actually went through the process of applying for and renewing a visa to live abroad, and I fully expected to be deported (or, at best, lose my job) if I stopped following the law.
I understand with the way courts and laws work that is has to be done this way, but it is beyond frustrating when the underlying issue is the Federal Government actively aiding and abetting our enemies. There isn't a great remedy because that is a somewhat subjective opinion (the government can say it is trying and failing, which is not technically illegal).
America isn’t a country. It’s an economic zone and a money laundering grift. We have open borders, we have wildly unsecure elections, we have birthright citizenship, and we have a government that deliberately refuses to fix any of it.
Sounds like the 6 at least who know their role as judges (although 3 of them are biased) that ruled against Texas previously because it was the state superseding the Federal.
Now that this is just enforcement of laws that the administration has NO SIGN of enforcing for a political agenda despite both national and civil security concerns, they seem to have gone 'fuck it, they can handle it then'
It will be interesting to see how the Fedbois attempt to interfere in this. Maybe they'll let it slide because it's an election year and they can't have BP colliding with state law enforcement for not enforcing federal laws. Or they'll just ship them or fly them in through other states that aren't Texas. But hopefully other states follow suit and deport.
It never occurred to anybody writing the original laws for the country that the federal government would just refuse to enforce any kind of borders. Honestly, why would it have?
Well, I'd imagine this problem, as with many others, forseen or not, probably falls under corruption and tyranny, generally speaking, which should be fixed by the 2nd Amendment (the catchall solution to these problems), if the people are willing to enforce it themselves, rather than insist on "voting harder [current year]" as the only acceptable solution.
If the founders saw America today, their first question would be “why aren’t you shooting all of these people who are deliberately destroying the country we created?”
It doesn't matter, as states are the sovereign authority.
10th amendment even says so where all powers not dedicated directly to the federal government are retained by states
Since there's no amendment (only roundabout court decisions on the concept of federalism) there's no reason a state can't also say 'yea uh, if we catch someone entering the US illegallly that's like... a crime'
This supreme court has made some interesting rulings. And it’s really all thanks to Trump.
I'm loving a lot of it, but we've had some severe missed opportunities too. This is still one of the best courts in ages, so I'm not here to whine...but holy shit, some of these people are retarded, and I'm not just talking the communist liberals.
Didn't they put an injunction on this yesterday? That's a really fast turnaround.
Oh it was an injunction? Naturally the media had made it sound like a decision against Texas.
OK, I thought so. They extended an existing Stay yesterday, then ruled in Texas' favor today. Weird, but (ultimately) the right decision.
The headlines are overreaching.
Here's the situation. Texas enacts law. US Government asks for injunction against law. Federal court looks at issue and decides a merit hearing is needed to discuss the injunction and issues an ADMINISTRATIVE injunction.
Texas appeals THAT injunction to the Supreme court, which slaps down the administrative injunction, telling the Federal court to hurry up the determination on the merits of the actual injunction.
The problem the district court is facing is that the merits of issuing an injunction is based in part on a rough determination of which side is LIKELY to prevail. But this is such an unusual case that the merit determination is practically a decision itself.
Because Texas's argument is going to be that the government is abdicating their responsibilities. That's a novel question, whether the federal government's supremacy still applies when it is actively choosing to ignore a problem that a state is willing to step up to do.
In practical matters, it doesn't matter. The FedGov isn't doing something to protect people. If Texas steps up to protect people, then Texas acquires legitimacy that the FedGov doesn't have.
Why even bother paying taxes to FedGov if they won't do something basic like preventing invaders from another state coming in, selling drugs, rpng people, murdering them, etc.
It should not be this complicated.
Every other country in the world enforces their borders more tightly than ours. I actually went through the process of applying for and renewing a visa to live abroad, and I fully expected to be deported (or, at best, lose my job) if I stopped following the law.
I understand with the way courts and laws work that is has to be done this way, but it is beyond frustrating when the underlying issue is the Federal Government actively aiding and abetting our enemies. There isn't a great remedy because that is a somewhat subjective opinion (the government can say it is trying and failing, which is not technically illegal).
America isn’t a country. It’s an economic zone and a money laundering grift. We have open borders, we have wildly unsecure elections, we have birthright citizenship, and we have a government that deliberately refuses to fix any of it.
What federal government supremacy? I think we should answer that question first.
Sounds like the 6 at least who know their role as judges (although 3 of them are biased) that ruled against Texas previously because it was the state superseding the Federal.
Now that this is just enforcement of laws that the administration has NO SIGN of enforcing for a political agenda despite both national and civil security concerns, they seem to have gone 'fuck it, they can handle it then'
It will be interesting to see how the Fedbois attempt to interfere in this. Maybe they'll let it slide because it's an election year and they can't have BP colliding with state law enforcement for not enforcing federal laws. Or they'll just ship them or fly them in through other states that aren't Texas. But hopefully other states follow suit and deport.
As if this should ever have been a question.
It never occurred to anybody writing the original laws for the country that the federal government would just refuse to enforce any kind of borders. Honestly, why would it have?
Well, I'd imagine this problem, as with many others, forseen or not, probably falls under corruption and tyranny, generally speaking, which should be fixed by the 2nd Amendment (the catchall solution to these problems), if the people are willing to enforce it themselves, rather than insist on "voting harder [current year]" as the only acceptable solution.
If the founders saw America today, their first question would be “why aren’t you shooting all of these people who are deliberately destroying the country we created?”
It doesn't matter, as states are the sovereign authority.
10th amendment even says so where all powers not dedicated directly to the federal government are retained by states
Since there's no amendment (only roundabout court decisions on the concept of federalism) there's no reason a state can't also say 'yea uh, if we catch someone entering the US illegallly that's like... a crime'
"Yeah, but, uh, all powers are ours, because, uhm, the penumbras and stuff," - The Federal Government.
There's a reason we don't take kindly to federal agents.