Spyke

Syndicated from the fediverse. Read and engage on the original instance.

View original on lemm.ee

50 replies

No one provided any explantion for their vote.

USA, the country where everything's made up and the legal justifications don't matter.

100
Omegareply
lemmy.world

Border control is literally federal jurisdiction. It's weird that they didn't just say that.

86
Nougatreply
kbin.social

5-4 vote, I wonder what the four's reasoning was.

57

Partisanship. pure and simple.

the five voted- appropriately- as the supremacy clause has already answered the question.

31
stolyreply
lemmy.world

You're expecting conservatives to be consistent in their reasoning?

19
Nougatreply
kbin.social

No one provided any explantion for their vote.

4

This story is about the Supreme Court's en banc decision on the application for certiorari, on appeal from the court below which I believe was the Fifth Circuit. The Fifth Circuit tossed the district court's order finding in favor of Texas. The denial of certiorari is the explanation, it means they agree with the reasoning and analysis of the Fifth Circuit. It's very rare for a denial of certiorari to have any commentary.

8
Nougatreply
kbin.social

Ohhh the lower court. "Court below" kind of threw me.

Still, the SCOTUS vote on cert was 5-4 against. Four of them voted for cert, and while that was not the thing I was initially asking about, I do wonder about why they did.

1

The court below provided the justification when it vacated the district court's ruling. Denying certiorari as in this order is the court saying they agree with how the lower court resolved the appeal.

19

Heard in news "it is inhumane" while the governments assisting Israel building a wall around gaza and commiting genocide.

3
Empricornreply
feddit.nl

I'm giving you an updoot for that. Don't spend it all at one place!

-4
Maggotyreply
lemmy.world

This is literally settled shit since the Civil War. They're trying to bring back state law supremacy. Which led to... The fucking civil war.

45
lemmy.world

If the rebels in question include several state governments then they may indeed be nuclear capable.

0

They require presidential authority to launch, but the physical operation of the weapons themselves is wholly independent. This allows for things like retaliatory strikes in case leadership is killed or can't be reached immediately following an attack. This also makes them vulnerable however, if the people overseeing these weapons and the states they're housed in become compromised by extremist ideologies.

1
stolyreply
lemmy.world

The SCOTUS has been filled with scumbags since day one, very seriously. They literally caused the civil war and prolonged the great depression. They also gutted the 13th and 14th amendments while deciding that people are militias.

22
Maggotyreply
lemmy.world

Oh no, one small edit with a huge difference. The people as a whole are the militia. No it doesn't make any sense. But when you gotta get that gun lobby money for your next private jet Caribbean vacation....

5
Shyferreply
ttrpg.network

A People's History of the Supreme Court has good info on the terrible track record of the Supreme Court.

3
frezikreply
midwest.social

It's an institution that only exists because the other two branches listen. It doesn't have an army or a police force. Even the Marshals technically operate under the Executive branch. If the Legislature and Executive branches both decided to ignore them, then Roberts could whine a bunch, but nothing would happen.

It's there because of respect built over two centuries and then some. They seem determined to throw it away.

9

Nah the litigants can apply to lower courts for affirmative relief in compliance with the higher court's orders and the judges can issues writs of mandamus to any proper officer requiring the officer to do a thing, the failure of which is remedied by a writ of capias, which is a judicial arrest warrant. Would have to be a whole hell of a lot of local judges, cops, marshals, lawyers, clerks, administrators, etc., who would have to ignore it, before nobody ends up in jail or has their assets seized.

1

Yeah but if the legislative branch doesn't fund it and the executive branch doesn't enforce it, then as my granpappy always said: "a writ ain't worth a shit." Lower courts, judges, lawyers, clerks, police, Marshalls, and even administrators notwithstanding.

4
lolcatnipreply
reddthat.com

We still let them decide what is and isn't legal. I wish anyone cared that much about what I say.

2

Well they're about to decide they get to set regulations, not agencies. So that's going to be fun and not at all a giant overreach for power.

3
lookorexreply
lemmy.world

Pretty sure they wouldn't want it either, at this point

24

Shit, if we threatened to give Texas back, Mexico may just build that wall that Trump promised they would, and pay for it!

15

I propose we build a wall around the entirety of Texas and yeet it from the states. Then we can use any federal funds they were receiving to help people move in/out of Texas. They already have their own power grid, I'm sure it'll be fine.

9

They wouldn't be able to send their illegals to other states as easily if a wall is build around them tho.

3
GBU_28reply
lemm.ee

How is that better? The point is people from Mexico are trying to get into the US, and but getting the services they need

1

Man, i got no idea what giving Texas away would solve. I was just pointing out what would happen.

1
lemmy.world

"the supreme court of heaven" based on the article thumbnail

17

Supreme court allows federal agents to cut razor wire Texas

installed on US-Mexico border

Uninstall.exe

14