All I know is that àpparently States cannot enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, but they can enforce Immigration Law. I get that right SCOTUS?
When it’s in your:
-
Uterus: Your state has the power to tell you what can be removed.
-
Election Ballot: lol your state has no power to tell you what can be removed.
Ones what gop wants and the other isn’t. Amazing how that works just like almost all of the decisions this court has made. Almost like they don’t give a shit about presidence or the law!
They don’t even remotely give a shit about legal precedent. I haven’t been keeping score but this and Roe v Wade makes at least two examples of “settled law” being thrown in the dumpster.
Student loan one was taken without an actual victim party
Or…
- When it’s thee: rules apply
- When it’s me rules don’t apply
-
I almost want another state to pull him from the ballot and cite this case
Well yeah one primarily affects brown people and the other primarily effects white nationalists. It makes perfect sense when you understand where their obligations lie.
Of, by, and for the [white] people.
Though this order is temporary, the result is quite surprising. Texas’s law, which allows state officials to arrest migrants and state courts to order them deported to Mexico, violates 150 years of settled law establishing that the federal government, and not the states, gets to decide which foreign nationals may enter or remain in the United States.
I think we can safely say that there is no longer such a thing as “settled law”. JFC I just cannot with these illegitimate hacks.
Stare Decisis is for suckers.
It’s for legitimate courts. Scotus is illegitimate.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The Court has held consistently, over at least a century and a half, that “the authority to control immigration — to admit or exclude aliens — is vested solely in the Federal Government.”
This principle, that the federal government has virtually exclusive authority over immigration policy, stretches back at least as far as the Court’s decision in Chy Lung v. Freeman (1875), which held that “the passage of laws which concern the admission of citizens and subjects of foreign nations to our shores belongs to Congress, and not to the states.”
As the Court warned in Hines v. Davidowitz (1941), “international controversies of the gravest moment, sometimes even leading to war, may arise from real or imagined wrongs” committed against foreign nationals.
As that judge explained, the Constitution “and Supreme Court precedent affirm that states may not exercise immigration enforcement power except as authorized by the federal government.”
On top of that, the Fifth Circuit panel that issued this “administrative stay” temporarily delayed its own order by seven days to give the Supreme Court enough time to hear the case.
But the fact that she turned a blind eye to such a transparent effort to evade the rules in the Texas case does not suggest that Barrett will police this line very closely.
The original article contains 1,339 words, the summary contains 213 words. Saved 84%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Clearly time to bring back the DC snipers.
