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?
this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2024
153 points (98.7% liked)
politics
18894 readers
3388 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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.
I know it's not nice to badmouth the deceased but Ruth Bader Ginsburg did het county such a disservice by not vacating her seat and dying in the last months of Trump's presidency.
It's unbelievable
She will not be remembered for making strides in women rights but for being the reason women lost rights for her own hubris. Her legacy is trash and I hope older politicians or judges take note and just fucking retire when you basically are in hospice care.
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.