Supreme Court allows Texas to enforce immigration law
www.nbcnews.com
The Biden administration sued to block the law, saying it tramples on the federal government’s exclusive authority to oversee immigration issues.

“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. Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson also objected to the decision.

The majority did not explain its reasoning.

    • nat_turner_overdrive [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
      36·
      8 months ago

      To be fair, this is pretty common with all SC justices. Their decisions are often completely unsupported with rational argument, they’ll just make a statement and proceed as though it were absolutely true. They’re not really intellectual titans or even particularly strong legal minds.

      edit: the 5-4 podcast is really good at going through a SC case every episode and really drawing out what complete jokes most SC justices are, making first year 1L mistakes isn’t out of the ordinary for the highest court of the land.

    • InevitableSwing [none/use name]@hexbear.netOPEnglish
      27·
      8 months ago

      To be honest - when I saw that I realized my GOP justices jokes have lacked panache and zing. My go-to has been to give an explanation even if it was a basic as that they pulled a premise out of thin air or out of their ass. I didn’t realize that instead I could go with the simple, darkly hilarious, and far funnier “the majority did not explain its reasoning”.

  • barrbaric [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
    45·
    8 months ago

    The majority did not explain its reasoning.

    Fucking lmao, better not stack the court though, that would undermine people’s belief in the supreme court!

    • operacion_ogro [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
      19·
      8 months ago

      One has to find humor in the federal government getting owned by the States but not putting up any real fight because the feds don’t actually care if border control is mask-off cruel

      Maybe one day the States will go too far for the feds’ taste, but at that point they won’t have the institutional muscle to enforce it. One step closer I guess

    • InevitableSwing [none/use name]@hexbear.netOPEnglish
      26·
      8 months ago

      On a major case I wonder if the answer is no. The situation is hilarious considering that the dems keep promising they will restore Roe. The only way to actually do that is to pack the court first. Of course the dems won’t do that. Which means there are only two outcomes if they control congress and Biden wins…

      Version one of abject failure: They fail to pass a law.

      Version two of abject failure: They pass a law but then the court rules 6-3 that it’s unconstitutional and Biden says he’s “surprised” by the ruling.

      And after that - I don’t know what happens.

        • InevitableSwing [none/use name]@hexbear.netOPEnglish
          6·
          8 months ago

          But what happens when the GOP grabs power and they pass a federal anti-abortion bill? What is the dems pitch in the upcoming - and future - elections?

          “Vote for us and we might kinda-sorta pack the court but we don’t promise you anything.”

          • queermunist she/her@lemmy.mlEnglish
            5·
            8 months ago

            Aside from “vote for us or it gets worse” they can promise to pack the court or pass an abortion bill or whatever, and then rely on one or two Democrats to block the legislation.

            But next time for sure!

      • regul [any]@hexbear.netEnglish
        6·
        8 months ago

        The only way to actually do that is to pack the court first

        I can think of a few other ways, but all just as unlikely.

          • regul [any]@hexbear.netEnglish
            14·
            8 months ago

            set up abortion clinics on federal land (military bases, VA hospitals, National Parks–fuck it, wherever)

            if people complain about the Hyde amendment there are a couple answers:

            1. Allow private abortion providers to set up on these bases
            2. Have the feds set up a charity fund all of whose money comes from private donations that is used to pay for these services

            if the states try to block them, federalize their national guard and slam on that accelerator

            but I think that anyone with a spine should stop giving so much of a shit about “legal” since the supreme court clearly doesn’t

            playing by the rules is how you lose

            • InevitableSwing [none/use name]@hexbear.netOPEnglish
              4·
              8 months ago

              I have no idea what the law is on this and how it works. But the GOP could simply close that loophole. Even if the law wasn’t really constitutional - it wouldn’t matter at all. The law would have been exactly designed to get the imprimatur of at least 5 GOP people in black robes to say it is constitutional. And that’s that.

              • regul [any]@hexbear.netEnglish
                10·
                8 months ago

                Well, here’s the thing. Supreme Court can say what it wants, but they’re not the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. Andrew Jackson figured this out through his intense commitment to being racist.

                There will come a time in the not too distant future where a sitting president ignores a Supreme Court ruling. I’d prefer that be in service of good rather than evil.

  • whatup@hexbear.netEnglish
    10·
    8 months ago

    I can’t stop thinking about the doctor who was caught forcibly sterilizing non-white women in immigration camps. All the major lib media outlets stopped talking about the investigation when sleepy Joe got elected, giving the impression that he ´fixed’ everything (spoiler alert: nothing has changed except that the SC is a million times worse and would probs legalize eugenics if given the chance). I hate living in a white supremacist, fascist state.