• Neato
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Wow. So they’re willing to let a potentially unconstitutional law be enforced while they let the courts rule. This isn’t if an app is misusing data or if a company didn’t pay its bills on time. This is if a state can do the Constitutionally-mandated job of the federal government.

    I hope another state just blatantly starts setting and enforcing their own immigration policy that the Republicans shit their pants over so the courts can get a decision faster on whether the constitution fucking matters.

    • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Every law is potentially unconstitutional until the Supreme Court says is isn’t. Here the court is just saying that this particular law isn’t so obviously and extremely unconstitutional that the ordinary process of appeals ought to be bypassed.

      (I happen to think that the law is probably constitutional so IMO the Supreme Court is being reasonable, but I’m not a lawyer…)

      • quindraco@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        4 months ago

        It’s blatantly, abundantly unconstitutional. That hasn’t exactly stopped SCOTUS in the past, but it’s exactly as unconstitutional as the Feds having jurisdiction over pot possession.