mdgv2
OT Cowboy
Posts: 487
|
Post by mdgv2 on Mar 19, 2024 4:04:54 GMT -5
Get your deepfake videos of Trump up to his tiny orange conkers on Epstein Island, I guess?
|
|
|
Post by Peregrine on Mar 19, 2024 5:16:35 GMT -5
Hopefully this goes nowhere. Precedent is absolutely against these clowns and they have no coherent legal argument. The only way they win is if the court shamelessly takes their bribes and ignores any law beyond "what the republican party currently wants". And the fact that SCOTUS put the lower court decision on hold rather than leave it in place during the appeal suggests they probably aren't interested in trashing their credibility that badly.
|
|
|
Post by easye on Mar 19, 2024 9:44:09 GMT -5
Has precedent mattered in the past few rulings?
The 5th circuit is just slow -pitching these things to the SC over, and over, and over again.
|
|
|
Post by easye on Mar 19, 2024 15:58:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Peregrine on Mar 19, 2024 16:42:13 GMT -5
Wow, I thought the Disinformation case was bad..... this is right up there with Dred Scott for terrible jurisprudence.
Not even remotely and TBH that's a pretty offensive comparison. Not only is deporting illegal immigrants nowhere near the moral crime of slavery this wasn't even a ruling on the merits of the case, it was merely a minor procedural ruling on exactly how the appeal in the lower courts would work.
|
|
|
Post by easye on Mar 20, 2024 9:29:08 GMT -5
Yes, but both case are setting up the idea that the State's can do whatever they want. That is just as much anarchy as not allowing Government to try and counter-disinformation, or that States can kidnap the citizens of other states and put them into slavery.
That is why I put the concept in the same pantheon as Dred Scott, it is a situation designed to take us back towards the Articles of Confederation. It will weaken our bonds as a Nation and a Federal government.
It might not be a "Ruling", but it is still allowing the State Law to over-ride Federal jurisdiction in an area pretty clearly in the Federal camp.
Edit: Looks like per NPR, this whole thing is on hold again.....
|
|
skyth
OT Cowboy
Posts: 344
|
Post by skyth on Mar 20, 2024 10:04:33 GMT -5
The law is also rooted in racism, which makes it similar to Dred Scott.
|
|
|
Post by dabbler on Mar 20, 2024 10:43:10 GMT -5
I'm just going to take a stab and say there's nothing stopping them arresting random brown people they see on suspicion, be they citizens or not?
|
|
|
Post by Peregrine on Mar 21, 2024 1:21:03 GMT -5
Yes, but both case are setting up the idea that the State's can do whatever they want.
Not at all. For example, a state can not suspend freedom of speech because that is specifically prohibited by the constitution. There is no such prohibition on enforcing immigration laws, only an unwritten rule that states deferred to the federal government. Even if the state wins this case it does not set anything even remotely like a precedent that states can do whatever they want.
Also, aside from the jurisdiction issues here, Texas is not trying anything new. It is well established precedent that immigration can be restricted and illegal immigrants can be deported, the only question is over exactly who has jurisdiction on enforcing those laws. The federal government says they have exclusive power and can opt not to enforce existing laws, Texas says they can also enforce immigration laws much like both states and the federal government can prosecute murder cases depending on the circumstances. Texas is not creating new crimes to prosecute and it's hard to imagine a ruling on this case being so broad that it allows states to do anything outside the scope of what the states and/or federal government can already do.
It doesn't allow any such thing. This is a case where you need to read beyond the clickbait headlines. SCOTUS ruled on an extremely minor procedural matter about how exactly the appeals process would be resolved. Not one word of it sets any precedent about state law overruling federal jurisdiction.
Now, it's possible that SCOTUS will rule in favor of Texas once the actual case gets to SCOTUS and in that case we can comment on the ruling. But until then this is a complete non-issue that you're only hearing about because the media needs your clicks.
|
|
skyth
OT Cowboy
Posts: 344
|
Post by skyth on Mar 21, 2024 4:10:28 GMT -5
Murder isn't talked about in the Constitution. Foreign Relations is, and that's the purview of the Federal government.
|
|
|
Post by Peregrine on Mar 21, 2024 4:17:27 GMT -5
Murder isn't talked about in the Constitution. Foreign Relations is, and that's the purview of the Federal government.
And whether or not Texas is right is not the point, I was only addressing easye's hyperbolic comparison with the Dred Scott decision and claims that the case would "set up the idea that states can do whatever they want".
|
|
skyth
OT Cowboy
Posts: 344
|
Post by skyth on Mar 21, 2024 5:26:30 GMT -5
Immigration is under the umbrella of foreign relations, which is the purview of the Federal government. The law was passed with racist intentions, so the comparison to Dred Scott is appropriate. And that states are trying to take over the explicit functions of the Federal government is basically saying they can do whatever they want.
|
|
|
Post by easye on Mar 21, 2024 11:32:11 GMT -5
The thing is the Feds ARE enforcing the current Federal law. Texas just doesn't LIKE the current Federal Laws. The Texas Representatives and Senators in the Federal government also aren't doing anything to change current Federal Law.
This whole issue is intended to trigger a Constitutional Crisis.
|
|
|
Post by Peregrine on Mar 21, 2024 15:47:33 GMT -5
Immigration is under the umbrella of foreign relations, which is the purview of the Federal government. Why? The Texas law is not about agreements or policy between the US and Mexico, it is about a crime which occurs entirely on US territory. Texas is not setting any conditions for Mexican citizens entering the US, they are merely changing the enforcement that happens when a person violates federal immigration law (the agreement/policy between the US and a foreign country) in Texas. Easye's comment was about the SCOTUS ruling not about the law. And it is hyperbolic nonsense when the SCOTUS ruling is on a minor procedural issue. And even if you broaden the scope to the law itself it's still an inappropriate comparison because it whitewashes the horrors of slavery. If the Dred Scott ruling is merely equivalent to having racist motives in choosing how to enforce immigration laws then slavery wasn't all that bad. Maybe this wasn't the intent but it's a popular tactic by confederate apologists (and conservatives in general), acknowledging that X was bad but so are all these other things and really in that context X wasn't that bad. See also Christians making the argument that sure, rape is a sin but so is thinking about a woman with sexual intent so all those kids the local priest raped were equally guilty and everyone needs Jesus to save them from hell. Not even remotely. Even if Texas wins this case it doesn't mean they can ban freedom of speech, for example. They're still constrained by the limits on what a government can do, the only challenge here is over which specific piece of government is allowed to do those things.
|
|
|
Post by easye on Mar 22, 2024 10:46:41 GMT -5
The whole situation is that the Feds are enforcing the law, but Texas doesn't like how the Federal law works, so they made their own. Do you think State Laws can over-ride Federal laws within the state?
|
|