397
No one provided any explantion for their vote.
USA, the country where everything's made up and the legal justifications don't matter.
Border control is literally federal jurisdiction. It's weird that they didn't just say that.
5-4 vote, I wonder what the four's reasoning was.
Dumbass dickheads is the reason.
Partisanship. pure and simple.
the five voted- appropriately- as the supremacy clause has already answered the question.
"Fuck brown people", probably.
You're expecting conservatives to be consistent in their reasoning?
They're extremely consistent in their actual reasons. It's their stated reasons that vary depending on their political needs.
Just read the decision form the court below.
No one provided any explantion for their vote.
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.
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.
They are partisan hacks.
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
Heard in news "it is inhumane" while the governments assisting Israel building a wall around gaza and commiting genocide.
load more comments
(3 replies)
From NBC:
“The brief order noted that four conservative members of the nine-justice court would have rejected the government's request. They were Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Samuel Alito, Justice Neil Gorsuch and Justice Brett Kavanaugh.”
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.
We're almost at the point of nobody cares what the supreme court has to say.
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.
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....
load more comments
(1 replies)
A People's History of the Supreme Court has good info on the terrible track record of the Supreme Court.
Sounds interesting, will check it out.
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.
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.
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.
Almost?
We still let them decide what is and isn't legal. I wish anyone cared that much about what I say.
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.
Can we just give Texas to Mexico and redraw the border?
Pretty sure they wouldn't want it either, at this point
Shit, if we threatened to give Texas back, Mexico may just build that wall that Trump promised they would, and pay for it!
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.
They wouldn't be able to send their illegals to other states as easily if a wall is build around them tho.
I live in Texas, and to be honest, I hear more Spanish than English when I walk around town
What would that fix
Diversifying the border between 4 states?
How is that better? The point is people from Mexico are trying to get into the US, and but getting the services they need
Man, i got no idea what giving Texas away would solve. I was just pointing out what would happen.
"the supreme court of heaven" based on the article thumbnail
It's a dream sequence.
With this court? More like a nightmare sequence
Supreme court allows federal agents to cut razor wire Texas
installed on US-Mexico border
Uninstall.exe
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 22 Jan 2024
397 points (99.0% liked)
News
23311 readers
3663 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS