- cross-posted to:
- chapotraphouse@hexbear.net
- cross-posted to:
- chapotraphouse@hexbear.net
You must log in or register to comment.
Note that this is not a decision that the law is constitutional.
[The decision] means the law can go into effect while litigation continues in lower courts. It could still be blocked at a later date.
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.
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…)
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.
It’s still ridiculous given the effect. People will be jailed and probably deported in the meantime. The guideline should be that if a law reduces individual rights it should be stayed until a decision is made. They’re not going to compensate anyone for wrongful imprisonment or reimport people that were ejected if this is ultimately struck down.
So can any state with a country border just decide how it goes then?
So if a state… Idk, wants ICE gone, then they’re out?
Alright, bet. I’ll phone my local representatives tomorrow. You should too.
That’s basically how sanctuary cities work.
Sotomayor had a good rebuttal to this. Made good points, one of which is about maintaining security: with this new Texas law, if you’re a non citizen, you’ll be very wary of reporting suspicious activity or crimes. If I’m a non citizen and witness illegal activity, I’m not going to be inclined to report it.
This has always been the situation in Texas.
It’s like they’re a pack of right-wing handpicked fascist enabling shitheads, some idiot drunken rapists, and the last liberal few.
So proud.
Awaiting the flood of American citizens with too much melanin being erroneously deported to Mexico.
*again
This is madness.
Sorry, I just couldn’t help myself.
Madness? This is Texas!
Please let me leave…!
I think that some of the arguments Texas is making are silly but the overall reasoning isn’t ridiculous. State law can’t forbid people to enter who are allowed to enter by federal law (or allow people to enter who are forbidden to enter by federal law) but I don’t see any clear constitutional reason why a state cannot enforce a state law against someone entering in violation of federal law. The federal government still has ultimate authority; it just needs to exercise it by changing the law rather than by failing to enforce existing law.
And, as a practical matter, letting Texas do this may be a way of addressing an issue voters care a lot about while bypassing both obstructionist Republicans in Congress and Democratic activists.
The federal government is the entity who decides who is or is not legal.
This runs afoul of that, because it’s now the state not the Feds making that decision.
It also runs afoul of unreasonable search and seizure because the state has no way to know if they’re illegal or not.
Further, they’re killing people trying to cross, which is grossly illegal.
And unethical. And immoral. And gross. And stupid.
Texas! It’s what’s for dinner!
Just leaving this here to remind people of the mistakes of our past.
Well…damn! It’s not a final decision, and must keep going through lower courts.(Note: haven’t read the decision yet, though)
“But her emails” might be America’s epitaph
This is the best summary I could come up with:
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed Texas to enforce a contentious new law that gives local police the power to arrest migrants.
“The court gives a green light to a law that will upend the longstanding federal-state balance of power and sow chaos,” liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a dissenting opinion.
The law in question, known as SB4, allows police to arrest migrants who illegally cross the border from Mexico and imposes criminal penalties.
On March 4, Justice Samuel Alito issued a temporary freeze on the law to give the Supreme Court time to consider the federal government’s request.
The Constitution “recognizes that Texas has the sovereign right to defend itself from violent transnational cartels that flood the state with fentanyl, weapons, and all manner of brutality,” he added.
Texas is “the nation’s first-line defense against transnational violence and has been forced to deal with the deadly consequences of the federal government’s inability or unwillingness to protect the border,” Paxton said.
The original article contains 542 words, the summary contains 163 words. Saved 70%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Third world illegals when they wanna reach the supposedly best country of the world: goes through the trump wall with a high risk of getting unsubscribed from life.
Me, a third world poor intellectual who knows USA bad: buys a plane ticket with disgust to visit one of the McDonald’s restaurants in burger and freedom land just for the lols.
/S
