SCOTUS

[a fan]

The Supreme Court Just Gave Texas a Green Light to Harass Every Latino Person in the State

In the manner of a drunk teenager with a hand on a light switch, the Supreme Court has spent the past few days turning federal immigration law in Texas on and off, on and off, while making mewling noises about whether it was on or off when the party started. In a 6–3 decision along the usual lines on Tuesday afternoon, the Supreme Court allowed S.B. 4—Texas’ stunning usurpation of federal immigration law—to take effect. Through this divided and unreasoned vote, the high court will allow Texas to seize enforcement of immigration powers away from the federal government, a direct violation of a 2012 Supreme Court decision striking down Arizona’s infamous “show me your papers” law. In so doing, the conservative majority has blessed galling chicanery by the Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, which sought to shield Texas’ law from Supreme Court review indefinitely. As two of the dissenters noted, the six justices in the majority have injected “chaos and crisis in immigration enforcement” through oblivious procedural formalism that does not withstand the slightest scrutiny.

As signed into law late last year, S.B. 4 criminalizes unauthorized migration under Texas law, thereby turning unlawful entry and presence in the U.S. into an offense separate and apart from existing federal immigration law. The Texas measure also allows state law enforcement officers to stop and detain anyone they “suspect” of having entered Texas unlawfully, while instructing state courts to disregard any ongoing federal immigration proceedings. It also allows state judges to begin deportation proceedings and permits state magistrate judges to remove migrants back to Mexico as an alternative to continued prosecution. (Those who cannot prove their legal status may be jailed or deported back to Mexico, whether or not they’re Mexican.) This radical revision of immigration law will hinder migrants’ ability to cross safely into the country and seek asylum once here. It will also subject Latinos, including citizens and permanent residents, to heightened suspicion and harassment by law enforcement.

Texas justified S.B. 4 as a necessary exercise of Texas’ constitutional authority to repel an “actual invasion,” an absurd claim with zero basis in law or fact. As Texas Gov. Greg Abbott declared, S.B. 4 embodies Texas’ssingular view that its constitutional authority “is the supreme law of the land and supersedes any federal statutes to the contrary.” All of this, as a federal district court in Texas noted last month, amounts to “nullification of federal law and authority—a notion that is antithetical to the Constitution and has been unequivocally rejected by federal courts since the Civil War.” (Fact check: true.)

And yet shortly after that district court blocked S.B. 4, the 5th Circuit—and of course it was the 5th Circuit—froze its injunction and let Texas enforce the new law from top to bottom. So the Department of Justice, joined by pro-immigration groups, asked SCOTUS for relief. While the full court mulled this request, Justice Samuel Alito kept the law on hold until Tuesday (with a four-minute lapse on Monday afternoon when he let it take effect, apparently by accident, for a short moment). After Tuesday’s order, Texas can begin arresting people suspected of unauthorized presence in the country, interfering with migrants’ ability to seek asylum, and removing residents to Mexico—a sovereign foreign nation that has not actually agreed to take back individuals deemed deportable by Texas.

..

Meh. Look at it this way: 40% of Texas are hispanic. By all means, start messing with them and showing up in headlines. I'm SURE there aren't any negative consequences if they take that road.

I also LOVE that the TX Gov signed up his taxpayers to pony up to pay for cops and jails to go after illegal immigrants. Works for me. You want to build jails and blow tax money on this? Okie-dokie.

Or, you could give them all work visas, and collect taxes from ALL of them.

Naaaaah. Why do that, when you can, instead, F with your own people?

[jhu72]

The Supreme Court Just Gave Texas a Green Light to Harass Every Latino Person in the State

In the manner of a drunk teenager with a hand on a light switch, the Supreme Court has spent the past few days turning federal immigration law in Texas on and off, on and off, while making mewling noises about whether it was on or off when the party started. In a 6–3 decision along the usual lines on Tuesday afternoon, the Supreme Court allowed S.B. 4—Texas’ stunning usurpation of federal immigration law—to take effect. Through this divided and unreasoned vote, the high court will allow Texas to seize enforcement of immigration powers away from the federal government, a direct violation of a 2012 Supreme Court decision striking down Arizona’s infamous “show me your papers” law. In so doing, the conservative majority has blessed galling chicanery by the Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, which sought to shield Texas’ law from Supreme Court review indefinitely. As two of the dissenters noted, the six justices in the majority have injected “chaos and crisis in immigration enforcement” through oblivious procedural formalism that does not withstand the slightest scrutiny.

As signed into law late last year, S.B. 4 criminalizes unauthorized migration under Texas law, thereby turning unlawful entry and presence in the U.S. into an offense separate and apart from existing federal immigration law. The Texas measure also allows state law enforcement officers to stop and detain anyone they “suspect” of having entered Texas unlawfully, while instructing state courts to disregard any ongoing federal immigration proceedings. It also allows state judges to begin deportation proceedings and permits state magistrate judges to remove migrants back to Mexico as an alternative to continued prosecution. (Those who cannot prove their legal status may be jailed or deported back to Mexico, whether or not they’re Mexican.) This radical revision of immigration law will hinder migrants’ ability to cross safely into the country and seek asylum once here. It will also subject Latinos, including citizens and permanent residents, to heightened suspicion and harassment by law enforcement.

Texas justified S.B. 4 as a necessary exercise of Texas’ constitutional authority to repel an “actual invasion,” an absurd claim with zero basis in law or fact. As Texas Gov. Greg Abbott declared, S.B. 4 embodies Texas’ssingular view that its constitutional authority “is the supreme law of the land and supersedes any federal statutes to the contrary.” All of this, as a federal district court in Texas noted last month, amounts to “nullification of federal law and authority—a notion that is antithetical to the Constitution and has been unequivocally rejected by federal courts since the Civil War.” (Fact check: true.)

And yet shortly after that district court blocked S.B. 4, the 5th Circuit—and of course it was the 5th Circuit—froze its injunction and let Texas enforce the new law from top to bottom. So the Department of Justice, joined by pro-immigration groups, asked SCOTUS for relief. While the full court mulled this request, Justice Samuel Alito kept the law on hold until Tuesday (with a four-minute lapse on Monday afternoon when he let it take effect, apparently by accident, for a short moment). After Tuesday’s order, Texas can begin arresting people suspected of unauthorized presence in the country, interfering with migrants’ ability to seek asylum, and removing residents to Mexico—a sovereign foreign nation that has not actually agreed to take back individuals deemed deportable by Texas.

..

Meh. Look at it this way: 40% of Texas are hispanic. By all means, start messing with them and showing up in headlines. I'm SURE there aren't any negative consequences if they take that road.

I also LOVE that the TX Gov signed up his taxpayers to pony up to pay for cops and jails to go after illegal immigrants. Works for me. You want to build jails and blow tax money on this? Okie-dokie.

Or, you could give them all work visas, and collect taxes from ALL of them.

Naaaaah. Why do that, when you can, instead, F with your own people?

... its almost like SCROTUS wants to push Texas Hispanics into the lap of the democrats.

[youthathletics]

The Supreme Court Just Gave Texas a Green Light to Harass Every Latino Person in the State

In the manner of a drunk teenager with a hand on a light switch, the Supreme Court has spent the past few days turning federal immigration law in Texas on and off, on and off, while making mewling noises about whether it was on or off when the party started. In a 6–3 decision along the usual lines on Tuesday afternoon, the Supreme Court allowed S.B. 4—Texas’ stunning usurpation of federal immigration law—to take effect. Through this divided and unreasoned vote, the high court will allow Texas to seize enforcement of immigration powers away from the federal government, a direct violation of a 2012 Supreme Court decision striking down Arizona’s infamous “show me your papers” law. In so doing, the conservative majority has blessed galling chicanery by the Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, which sought to shield Texas’ law from Supreme Court review indefinitely. As two of the dissenters noted, the six justices in the majority have injected “chaos and crisis in immigration enforcement” through oblivious procedural formalism that does not withstand the slightest scrutiny.

As signed into law late last year, S.B. 4 criminalizes unauthorized migration under Texas law, thereby turning unlawful entry and presence in the U.S. into an offense separate and apart from existing federal immigration law. The Texas measure also allows state law enforcement officers to stop and detain anyone they “suspect” of having entered Texas unlawfully, while instructing state courts to disregard any ongoing federal immigration proceedings. It also allows state judges to begin deportation proceedings and permits state magistrate judges to remove migrants back to Mexico as an alternative to continued prosecution. (Those who cannot prove their legal status may be jailed or deported back to Mexico, whether or not they’re Mexican.) This radical revision of immigration law will hinder migrants’ ability to cross safely into the country and seek asylum once here. It will also subject Latinos, including citizens and permanent residents, to heightened suspicion and harassment by law enforcement.

Texas justified S.B. 4 as a necessary exercise of Texas’ constitutional authority to repel an “actual invasion,” an absurd claim with zero basis in law or fact. As Texas Gov. Greg Abbott declared, S.B. 4 embodies Texas’ssingular view that its constitutional authority “is the supreme law of the land and supersedes any federal statutes to the contrary.” All of this, as a federal district court in Texas noted last month, amounts to “nullification of federal law and authority—a notion that is antithetical to the Constitution and has been unequivocally rejected by federal courts since the Civil War.” (Fact check: true.)

And yet shortly after that district court blocked S.B. 4, the 5th Circuit—and of course it was the 5th Circuit—froze its injunction and let Texas enforce the new law from top to bottom. So the Department of Justice, joined by pro-immigration groups, asked SCOTUS for relief. While the full court mulled this request, Justice Samuel Alito kept the law on hold until Tuesday (with a four-minute lapse on Monday afternoon when he let it take effect, apparently by accident, for a short moment). After Tuesday’s order, Texas can begin arresting people suspected of unauthorized presence in the country, interfering with migrants’ ability to seek asylum, and removing residents to Mexico—a sovereign foreign nation that has not actually agreed to take back individuals deemed deportable by Texas.

..

Meh. Look at it this way: 40% of Texas are hispanic. By all means, start messing with them and showing up in headlines. I'm SURE there aren't any negative consequences if they take that road.

I also LOVE that the TX Gov signed up his taxpayers to pony up to pay for cops and jails to go after illegal immigrants. Works for me. You want to build jails and blow tax money on this? Okie-dokie.

Or, you could give them all work visas, and collect taxes from ALL of them.

Naaaaah. Why do that, when you can, instead, F with your own people?

... its almost like SCROTUS wants to push Texas Hispanics into the lap of the democrats.

....or Texas will send the Feds the bill for doing they job they have refused to do.

[runrussellrun]

The Supreme Court Just Gave Texas a Green Light to Harass Every Latino Person in the State

In the manner of a drunk teenager with a hand on a light switch, the Supreme Court has spent the past few days turning federal immigration law in Texas on and off, on and off, while making mewling noises about whether it was on or off when the party started. In a 6–3 decision along the usual lines on Tuesday afternoon, the Supreme Court allowed S.B. 4—Texas’ stunning usurpation of federal immigration law—to take effect. Through this divided and unreasoned vote, the high court will allow Texas to seize enforcement of immigration powers away from the federal government, a direct violation of a 2012 Supreme Court decision striking down Arizona’s infamous “show me your papers” law. In so doing, the conservative majority has blessed galling chicanery by the Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, which sought to shield Texas’ law from Supreme Court review indefinitely. As two of the dissenters noted, the six justices in the majority have injected “chaos and crisis in immigration enforcement” through oblivious procedural formalism that does not withstand the slightest scrutiny.

As signed into law late last year, S.B. 4 criminalizes unauthorized migration under Texas law, thereby turning unlawful entry and presence in the U.S. into an offense separate and apart from existing federal immigration law. The Texas measure also allows state law enforcement officers to stop and detain anyone they “suspect” of having entered Texas unlawfully, while instructing state courts to disregard any ongoing federal immigration proceedings. It also allows state judges to begin deportation proceedings and permits state magistrate judges to remove migrants back to Mexico as an alternative to continued prosecution. (Those who cannot prove their legal status may be jailed or deported back to Mexico, whether or not they’re Mexican.) This radical revision of immigration law will hinder migrants’ ability to cross safely into the country and seek asylum once here. It will also subject Latinos, including citizens and permanent residents, to heightened suspicion and harassment by law enforcement.

Texas justified S.B. 4 as a necessary exercise of Texas’ constitutional authority to repel an “actual invasion,” an absurd claim with zero basis in law or fact. As Texas Gov. Greg Abbott declared, S.B. 4 embodies Texas’ssingular view that its constitutional authority “is the supreme law of the land and supersedes any federal statutes to the contrary.” All of this, as a federal district court in Texas noted last month, amounts to “nullification of federal law and authority—a notion that is antithetical to the Constitution and has been unequivocally rejected by federal courts since the Civil War.” (Fact check: true.)

And yet shortly after that district court blocked S.B. 4, the 5th Circuit—and of course it was the 5th Circuit—froze its injunction and let Texas enforce the new law from top to bottom. So the Department of Justice, joined by pro-immigration groups, asked SCOTUS for relief. While the full court mulled this request, Justice Samuel Alito kept the law on hold until Tuesday (with a four-minute lapse on Monday afternoon when he let it take effect, apparently by accident, for a short moment). After Tuesday’s order, Texas can begin arresting people suspected of unauthorized presence in the country, interfering with migrants’ ability to seek asylum, and removing residents to Mexico—a sovereign foreign nation that has not actually agreed to take back individuals deemed deportable by Texas.

..

Meh. Look at it this way: 40% of Texas are hispanic. By all means, start messing with them and showing up in headlines. I'm SURE there aren't any negative consequences if they take that road.

I also LOVE that the TX Gov signed up his taxpayers to pony up to pay for cops and jails to go after illegal immigrants. Works for me. You want to build jails and blow tax money on this? Okie-dokie.

Or, you could give them all work visas, and collect taxes from ALL of them.

Naaaaah. Why do that, when you can, instead, F with your own people?

... its almost like SCROTUS wants to push Texas Hispanics into the lap of the democrats.

why you assume Texas "hispanics", whomever that refers too, will vote for crazy tranny pushers, is beyond fact. Reality.

Many are practicing Katholics. (Especially in Maryland, where La Casa works with the Katholics )........oooops.

[a fan]

The Supreme Court Just Gave Texas a Green Light to Harass Every Latino Person in the State

In the manner of a drunk teenager with a hand on a light switch, the Supreme Court has spent the past few days turning federal immigration law in Texas on and off, on and off, while making mewling noises about whether it was on or off when the party started. In a 6–3 decision along the usual lines on Tuesday afternoon, the Supreme Court allowed S.B. 4—Texas’ stunning usurpation of federal immigration law—to take effect. Through this divided and unreasoned vote, the high court will allow Texas to seize enforcement of immigration powers away from the federal government, a direct violation of a 2012 Supreme Court decision striking down Arizona’s infamous “show me your papers” law. In so doing, the conservative majority has blessed galling chicanery by the Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, which sought to shield Texas’ law from Supreme Court review indefinitely. As two of the dissenters noted, the six justices in the majority have injected “chaos and crisis in immigration enforcement” through oblivious procedural formalism that does not withstand the slightest scrutiny.

As signed into law late last year, S.B. 4 criminalizes unauthorized migration under Texas law, thereby turning unlawful entry and presence in the U.S. into an offense separate and apart from existing federal immigration law. The Texas measure also allows state law enforcement officers to stop and detain anyone they “suspect” of having entered Texas unlawfully, while instructing state courts to disregard any ongoing federal immigration proceedings. It also allows state judges to begin deportation proceedings and permits state magistrate judges to remove migrants back to Mexico as an alternative to continued prosecution. (Those who cannot prove their legal status may be jailed or deported back to Mexico, whether or not they’re Mexican.) This radical revision of immigration law will hinder migrants’ ability to cross safely into the country and seek asylum once here. It will also subject Latinos, including citizens and permanent residents, to heightened suspicion and harassment by law enforcement.

Texas justified S.B. 4 as a necessary exercise of Texas’ constitutional authority to repel an “actual invasion,” an absurd claim with zero basis in law or fact. As Texas Gov. Greg Abbott declared, S.B. 4 embodies Texas’ssingular view that its constitutional authority “is the supreme law of the land and supersedes any federal statutes to the contrary.” All of this, as a federal district court in Texas noted last month, amounts to “nullification of federal law and authority—a notion that is antithetical to the Constitution and has been unequivocally rejected by federal courts since the Civil War.” (Fact check: true.)

And yet shortly after that district court blocked S.B. 4, the 5th Circuit—and of course it was the 5th Circuit—froze its injunction and let Texas enforce the new law from top to bottom. So the Department of Justice, joined by pro-immigration groups, asked SCOTUS for relief. While the full court mulled this request, Justice Samuel Alito kept the law on hold until Tuesday (with a four-minute lapse on Monday afternoon when he let it take effect, apparently by accident, for a short moment). After Tuesday’s order, Texas can begin arresting people suspected of unauthorized presence in the country, interfering with migrants’ ability to seek asylum, and removing residents to Mexico—a sovereign foreign nation that has not actually agreed to take back individuals deemed deportable by Texas.

..

Meh. Look at it this way: 40% of Texas are hispanic. By all means, start messing with them and showing up in headlines. I'm SURE there aren't any negative consequences if they take that road.

I also LOVE that the TX Gov signed up his taxpayers to pony up to pay for cops and jails to go after illegal immigrants. Works for me. You want to build jails and blow tax money on this? Okie-dokie.

Or, you could give them all work visas, and collect taxes from ALL of them.

Naaaaah. Why do that, when you can, instead, F with your own people?

... its almost like SCROTUS wants to push Texas Hispanics into the lap of the democrats.

....or Texas will send the Feds the bill for doing they job they have refused to do.

Good luck with that.

Are you going to play this game where you claim that Texas didn't have to foot the bill for illegal immigrants until Joe Biden showed up?

You better hope this idea here doesn't catch on, YA: that the States step in and do the job the Federal .gov refuses to do.

Because if you believe in that? Put me in the Colorado governor's chair: I'll issue Colorado work VISAS IMMEDIATELY to every single immigrant that shows up in my State. Immediately, and without hesitation. And start collecting State-only taxes from the workers, and the Fed doesn't get a penny.

Then what's your plan?

[youthathletics]

The Supreme Court Just Gave Texas a Green Light to Harass Every Latino Person in the State

In the manner of a drunk teenager with a hand on a light switch, the Supreme Court has spent the past few days turning federal immigration law in Texas on and off, on and off, while making mewling noises about whether it was on or off when the party started. In a 6–3 decision along the usual lines on Tuesday afternoon, the Supreme Court allowed S.B. 4—Texas’ stunning usurpation of federal immigration law—to take effect. Through this divided and unreasoned vote, the high court will allow Texas to seize enforcement of immigration powers away from the federal government, a direct violation of a 2012 Supreme Court decision striking down Arizona’s infamous “show me your papers” law. In so doing, the conservative majority has blessed galling chicanery by the Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, which sought to shield Texas’ law from Supreme Court review indefinitely. As two of the dissenters noted, the six justices in the majority have injected “chaos and crisis in immigration enforcement” through oblivious procedural formalism that does not withstand the slightest scrutiny.

As signed into law late last year, S.B. 4 criminalizes unauthorized migration under Texas law, thereby turning unlawful entry and presence in the U.S. into an offense separate and apart from existing federal immigration law. The Texas measure also allows state law enforcement officers to stop and detain anyone they “suspect” of having entered Texas unlawfully, while instructing state courts to disregard any ongoing federal immigration proceedings. It also allows state judges to begin deportation proceedings and permits state magistrate judges to remove migrants back to Mexico as an alternative to continued prosecution. (Those who cannot prove their legal status may be jailed or deported back to Mexico, whether or not they’re Mexican.) This radical revision of immigration law will hinder migrants’ ability to cross safely into the country and seek asylum once here. It will also subject Latinos, including citizens and permanent residents, to heightened suspicion and harassment by law enforcement.

Texas justified S.B. 4 as a necessary exercise of Texas’ constitutional authority to repel an “actual invasion,” an absurd claim with zero basis in law or fact. As Texas Gov. Greg Abbott declared, S.B. 4 embodies Texas’ssingular view that its constitutional authority “is the supreme law of the land and supersedes any federal statutes to the contrary.” All of this, as a federal district court in Texas noted last month, amounts to “nullification of federal law and authority—a notion that is antithetical to the Constitution and has been unequivocally rejected by federal courts since the Civil War.” (Fact check: true.)

And yet shortly after that district court blocked S.B. 4, the 5th Circuit—and of course it was the 5th Circuit—froze its injunction and let Texas enforce the new law from top to bottom. So the Department of Justice, joined by pro-immigration groups, asked SCOTUS for relief. While the full court mulled this request, Justice Samuel Alito kept the law on hold until Tuesday (with a four-minute lapse on Monday afternoon when he let it take effect, apparently by accident, for a short moment). After Tuesday’s order, Texas can begin arresting people suspected of unauthorized presence in the country, interfering with migrants’ ability to seek asylum, and removing residents to Mexico—a sovereign foreign nation that has not actually agreed to take back individuals deemed deportable by Texas.

..

Meh. Look at it this way: 40% of Texas are hispanic. By all means, start messing with them and showing up in headlines. I'm SURE there aren't any negative consequences if they take that road.

I also LOVE that the TX Gov signed up his taxpayers to pony up to pay for cops and jails to go after illegal immigrants. Works for me. You want to build jails and blow tax money on this? Okie-dokie.

Or, you could give them all work visas, and collect taxes from ALL of them.

Naaaaah. Why do that, when you can, instead, F with your own people?

... its almost like SCROTUS wants to push Texas Hispanics into the lap of the democrats.

....or Texas will send the Feds the bill for doing they job they have refused to do.

Good luck with that.

Are you going to play this game where you claim that Texas didn't have to foot the bill for illegal immigrants until Joe Biden showed up?

You better hope this idea here doesn't catch on, YA: that the States step in and do the job the Federal .gov refuses to do.

Because if you believe in that? Put me in the Colorado governor's chair: I'll issue Colorado work VISAS IMMEDIATELY to every single immigrant that shows up in my State. Immediately, and without hesitation. And start collecting State-only taxes from the workers, and the Fed doesn't get a penny.

Then what's your plan?

My guess, the Feds want this to all happen...there is always an end game. I would not be surprised if Texas is already part of it, in cahoots with the Fed. I am wondering when the other shoe drops....maybe it will be e-verify legislation. Your theory, is fine....until they dont pay those taxes, then you are left with a rather expansive decision....who to enforce. Happy to hear you want to grow government.

[a fan]

The Supreme Court Just Gave Texas a Green Light to Harass Every Latino Person in the State

In the manner of a drunk teenager with a hand on a light switch, the Supreme Court has spent the past few days turning federal immigration law in Texas on and off, on and off, while making mewling noises about whether it was on or off when the party started. In a 6–3 decision along the usual lines on Tuesday afternoon, the Supreme Court allowed S.B. 4—Texas’ stunning usurpation of federal immigration law—to take effect. Through this divided and unreasoned vote, the high court will allow Texas to seize enforcement of immigration powers away from the federal government, a direct violation of a 2012 Supreme Court decision striking down Arizona’s infamous “show me your papers” law. In so doing, the conservative majority has blessed galling chicanery by the Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, which sought to shield Texas’ law from Supreme Court review indefinitely. As two of the dissenters noted, the six justices in the majority have injected “chaos and crisis in immigration enforcement” through oblivious procedural formalism that does not withstand the slightest scrutiny.

As signed into law late last year, S.B. 4 criminalizes unauthorized migration under Texas law, thereby turning unlawful entry and presence in the U.S. into an offense separate and apart from existing federal immigration law. The Texas measure also allows state law enforcement officers to stop and detain anyone they “suspect” of having entered Texas unlawfully, while instructing state courts to disregard any ongoing federal immigration proceedings. It also allows state judges to begin deportation proceedings and permits state magistrate judges to remove migrants back to Mexico as an alternative to continued prosecution. (Those who cannot prove their legal status may be jailed or deported back to Mexico, whether or not they’re Mexican.) This radical revision of immigration law will hinder migrants’ ability to cross safely into the country and seek asylum once here. It will also subject Latinos, including citizens and permanent residents, to heightened suspicion and harassment by law enforcement.

Texas justified S.B. 4 as a necessary exercise of Texas’ constitutional authority to repel an “actual invasion,” an absurd claim with zero basis in law or fact. As Texas Gov. Greg Abbott declared, S.B. 4 embodies Texas’ssingular view that its constitutional authority “is the supreme law of the land and supersedes any federal statutes to the contrary.” All of this, as a federal district court in Texas noted last month, amounts to “nullification of federal law and authority—a notion that is antithetical to the Constitution and has been unequivocally rejected by federal courts since the Civil War.” (Fact check: true.)

And yet shortly after that district court blocked S.B. 4, the 5th Circuit—and of course it was the 5th Circuit—froze its injunction and let Texas enforce the new law from top to bottom. So the Department of Justice, joined by pro-immigration groups, asked SCOTUS for relief. While the full court mulled this request, Justice Samuel Alito kept the law on hold until Tuesday (with a four-minute lapse on Monday afternoon when he let it take effect, apparently by accident, for a short moment). After Tuesday’s order, Texas can begin arresting people suspected of unauthorized presence in the country, interfering with migrants’ ability to seek asylum, and removing residents to Mexico—a sovereign foreign nation that has not actually agreed to take back individuals deemed deportable by Texas.

..

Meh. Look at it this way: 40% of Texas are hispanic. By all means, start messing with them and showing up in headlines. I'm SURE there aren't any negative consequences if they take that road.

I also LOVE that the TX Gov signed up his taxpayers to pony up to pay for cops and jails to go after illegal immigrants. Works for me. You want to build jails and blow tax money on this? Okie-dokie.

Or, you could give them all work visas, and collect taxes from ALL of them.

Naaaaah. Why do that, when you can, instead, F with your own people?

... its almost like SCROTUS wants to push Texas Hispanics into the lap of the democrats.

....or Texas will send the Feds the bill for doing they job they have refused to do.

Good luck with that.

Are you going to play this game where you claim that Texas didn't have to foot the bill for illegal immigrants until Joe Biden showed up?

You better hope this idea here doesn't catch on, YA: that the States step in and do the job the Federal .gov refuses to do.

Because if you believe in that? Put me in the Colorado governor's chair: I'll issue Colorado work VISAS IMMEDIATELY to every single immigrant that shows up in my State. Immediately, and without hesitation. And start collecting State-only taxes from the workers, and the Fed doesn't get a penny.

Then what's your plan?

My guess, the Feds want this to all happen...there is always an end game. I would not be surprised if Texas is already part of it, in cahoots with the Fed. I am wondering when the other shoe drops....maybe it will be e-verify legislation. Your theory, is fine....until they dont pay those taxes, then you are left with a rather expansive decision....who to enforce. Happy to hear you want to grow government.

A. these are work visas......I'd make 100% of the tax State payroll taxes. Fed gets nothing, since they "can't do their job". All these cats want is work, despite all the childish Republican rhetoric. Even Reagan got it, FFS...this isn't all that complicated.
B. how do you think this "grows government"? This makes it so that the government GETS PAID for their work here. You know: the gripe your party is making?

This is EASY to fix. Your party doesn't want to fix it, YA. Neither do the Dems, but who the F cares about them? Focus on YOUR party's failure to act...or why else would you register as a R?

[Seacoaster(1)]

This appears to be the current chronology and timeline of SB4, the Texas law allowing the state to seize and deport:

Before 4:00 PM CT yesterday: Not in effect.

From 4:00 to 4:04 PM: In effect.

From 4:04 PM yesterday to 1:05 AM today: Not in effect.

From 1:05 today to 9:44 tonight: In effect.

Currently: Not in effect.

Hearing at the Fifth Circuit this morning on Texas's motion to lift the federal district court's stay. Roberts Court engaging in remarkable clusterf*ckery here.

[jhu72]

This appears to be the current chronology and timeline of SB4, the Texas law allowing the state to seize and deport:

Before 4:00 PM CT yesterday: Not in effect.

From 4:00 to 4:04 PM: In effect.

From 4:04 PM yesterday to 1:05 AM today: Not in effect.

From 1:05 today to 9:44 tonight: In effect.

Currently: Not in effect.

Hearing at the Fifth Circuit this morning on Texas's motion to lift the federal district court's stay. Roberts Court engaging in remarkable clusterf*ckery here.

[PizzaSnake]

This appears to be the current chronology and timeline of SB4, the Texas law allowing the state to seize and deport:

Before 4:00 PM CT yesterday: Not in effect.

From 4:00 to 4:04 PM: In effect.

From 4:04 PM yesterday to 1:05 AM today: Not in effect.

From 1:05 today to 9:44 tonight: In effect.

Currently: Not in effect.

Hearing at the Fifth Circuit this morning on Texas's motion to lift the federal district court's stay. Roberts Court engaging in remarkable clusterf*ckery here.

Considering a public statement by a senior Mexican official that they would not accept any deportees from Tejas, and that Mexico regards this as a federal gov't to federal gov't issue, could get interesting.

"While Senate Bill (SB) 4 continues to ricochet through the judicial process, Mexico has condemned the Texas law, stating clearly that it “will not accept, under any circumstances, repatriations by the State of Texas.”

On its official website, the Mexican government lambasts SB 4 for “encouraging the separation of families, discrimination and racial profiling that violate the human rights of the migrant community.”

“As stated since the law was debated in the Texas legislature last year, Mexico categorically rejects any measure that allows state or local authorities to exercise immigration control, and to arrest and return nationals or foreigners to Mexican territory.”"

https://thetexan.news/issues/immigratio ... c889c.html

I say we give Tejas back to Mexico. Fcuk 'em and the horse they rode in on. If we are feeling kindly disposed, we could give it "special trade" status, but no movement from The Lone Dcik State to the rest of the CONUS.

[dislaxxic]

Meh. Look at it this way: 40% of Texas are hispanic. By all means, start messing with them and showing up in headlines. I'm SURE there aren't any negative consequences if they take that road.

I also LOVE that the TX Gov signed up his taxpayers to pony up to pay for cops and jails to go after illegal immigrants. Works for me. You want to build jails and blow tax money on this? Okie-dokie.

Or, you could give them all work visas, and collect taxes from ALL of them.

Naaaaah. Why do that, when you can, instead, F with your own people?

The truly stunning part of this SCOTUS chicanery is that they seem perfectly AOK with overwriting hundreds, yes, HUNDREDS of years of precedent to put a state in control of what has, heretofore, been the sole lawful province of the federal government. These bozos are redefining the old chestnut "activist judges" in wildly partisan ways.

Just stunning.

..

[jhu72]

Based on today's arguments it sure looks like the Mifepristone case will be decided for the government. This is likely to be as much because of the impending election as defense arguments (very good) made. If we the people don't take further action the fascists will just continue the assault and the existing SC will find for them at a future date.

Vote.

[jhu72]

Just great, just what we needed. the 6 stooges are now influencing law in other countries.

[dislaxxic]

Thomas, Alito, and Goresuch...the three biggest NUMBNUTS in Supreme Court HISTORY. If these three sway the court in this case...it's time to start talking about either impeachment, or expanding the court.

Hundreds of Jan. 6 Prosecutions—Including Donald Trump’s—Are Suddenly in Peril at the Supreme Court

Will the Supreme Court jeopardize the prosecution of more than 350 defendants involved with Jan. 6, including Donald Trump, by gutting the federal statute that prohibits their unlawful conduct? Maybe so. Tuesday’s oral arguments in Fischer v. United States were rough sledding for the government, as the conservative justices lined up to thwap Joe Biden’s Department of Justice for allegedly overreaching in its pursuit of Jan. 6 convictions. Six members of the court took turns wringing their hands over the application of a criminal obstruction law to the rioters, fretting that they faced overly harsh penalties for participating in the violent attack. Unmentioned but lurking in the background was Trump himself, who can wriggle out of two major charges against him with a favorable decision in this case.

There are, no doubt, too many criminal laws whose vague wording gives prosecutors near-limitless leeway to threaten citizens with decades in prison. But this isn’t one of them. Congress wrote a perfectly legible law and the overwhelming majority of judges have had no trouble applying it. It would be all too telling if the Supreme Court decides to pretend the statute is somehow too sweeping or jumbled to use as a tool of accountability for Jan. 6.

Start with the obstruction law itself, known as Section 1552(c), which Congress enacted to close loopholes that Enron exploited to impede probes into its misconduct. The provision is remarkably straightforward—a far cry from the ambiguous, sloppy, or muddled laws that typically flummox the judiciary. It’s a mainstay of the Department of Justice’s “Capitol siege” prosecutions, deployed in about a quarter of all cases. Overall, 350 people face charges under this statute, Trump among them, and the DOJ has used it to secure the convictions of about 150 rioters. It targets anyone who “corruptly … obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so.” And it clarifies that an official proceeding includes “a proceeding before the Congress.”

The government argues that some rioters attempted to “obstruct” an “official proceeding” by halting the count of electoral votes through “corrupt” means. That includes Joseph Fischer, the defendant in the current case. Fischer, who served as a police officer before Jan. 6, allegedly texted that the protest “might get violent”; that “they should storm the capital and drag all the democrates [sic] into the street and have a mob trial”; and that protesters should “take democratic congress to the gallows,” because they “can’t vote if they can’t breathe..lol.” Video evidence shows Fischer assaulting multiple police officers on the afternoon of Jan. 6 after breaching the Capitol.

Would anyone seriously argue that this person did not attempt to corruptly obstruct an official proceeding? For a time, it seemed not: 14 of the 15 federal judges—all but Judge Carl Nichols in this case—considering the charge in various Jan. 6 cases agreed that it applied to violent rioters bent on stopping the electoral count. So did every judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit except one, Judge Gregory Katsas. Both Nichols and Katsas were appointed by Trump. Their crusade to kneecap the law caught SCOTUS’ attention, and the court decided to intervene despite overwhelming consensus among lower court judges. The Supreme Court’s decision will have major implications for Trump: Two of the four charges brought by special counsel Jack Smith in the former president’s Jan. 6 prosecution revolve around this offense. A ruling that eviscerates the obstruction law would arguably cut out the heart of the indictment.

At least three justices seem ready to do just that. Justice Clarence Thomas—back on the bench after yesterday’s unexplained absence—grilled Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar over the law’s application to Jan. 6. “There have been many violent protests that have interfered with proceedings. Has the government applied this provision to other protests in the past?” Thomas asked, as if to nail the Justice Department for inconsistency and reveal some improper motive for wielding the law against violent insurrectionists. Justice Neil Gorsuch trolled Prelogar by alluding to Democratic Rep. Jamaal Bowman’s infamous fire alarm incident. “Would pulling a fire alarm before a vote qualify for 20 years in federal prison?” he asked. Justice Samuel Alito joined in to ask about “protests in the courtroom” when an audience member interrupts the justices and “delays the proceeding for five minutes.”

“For all the protests that have occurred in this court,” Alito noted pointedly, “the Justice Department has not charged any serious offenses, and I don’t think any one of those protestors has been sentenced to even one day in prison.” Why, he wondered, weren’t they charged under the obstruction statute?

Alito, audibly angry, continued: “Yesterday protestors blocked the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco and disrupted traffic in San Francisco,” he told Prelogar. “What if something similar to that happened all around the Capitol so … all the bridges from Virginia were blocked, and members from Virginia who needed to appear at a hearing couldn’t get there or were delayed in getting there? Would that be a violation of this provision?”

To be clear, this is trolling: There is simply no comparison between a violent attack on the Capitol and protests that take the form of civil disobedience. And these justices expressed no similar concern about an ongoing red-state effort to persecute peaceful protesters who participate in Black Lives Matter demonstrations. Gorsuch and Alito’s hypotheticals ignore the reality that there are two layers of protection between minor protests and this rather major law. First, the Constitution affords prosecutorial discretion to the executive branch, allowing the Department of Justice to decide when an illegal “protest” is dangerous enough to warrant the use of a criminal law like the obstruction statute. Second, prosecutors must always prove the alleged offense to a jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, creating a democratic check on the abusive use of a stringent law to punish a silly crime.

Again...THIS is the country we want to live in, with these kind of radical, activist, rightwingnut "justices" on our highest court?

..

[Seacoaster(1)]

Here is Amy Howe's overview on the arguments and questions.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/04/just ... on-charge/

[cradleandshoot]

Thomas, Alito, and Goresuch...the three biggest NUMBNUTS in Supreme Court HISTORY. If these three sway the court in this case...it's time to start talking about either impeachment, or expanding the court.

Hundreds of Jan. 6 Prosecutions—Including Donald Trump’s—Are Suddenly in Peril at the Supreme Court

Will the Supreme Court jeopardize the prosecution of more than 350 defendants involved with Jan. 6, including Donald Trump, by gutting the federal statute that prohibits their unlawful conduct? Maybe so. Tuesday’s oral arguments in Fischer v. United States were rough sledding for the government, as the conservative justices lined up to thwap Joe Biden’s Department of Justice for allegedly overreaching in its pursuit of Jan. 6 convictions. Six members of the court took turns wringing their hands over the application of a criminal obstruction law to the rioters, fretting that they faced overly harsh penalties for participating in the violent attack. Unmentioned but lurking in the background was Trump himself, who can wriggle out of two major charges against him with a favorable decision in this case.

There are, no doubt, too many criminal laws whose vague wording gives prosecutors near-limitless leeway to threaten citizens with decades in prison. But this isn’t one of them. Congress wrote a perfectly legible law and the overwhelming majority of judges have had no trouble applying it. It would be all too telling if the Supreme Court decides to pretend the statute is somehow too sweeping or jumbled to use as a tool of accountability for Jan. 6.

Start with the obstruction law itself, known as Section 1552(c), which Congress enacted to close loopholes that Enron exploited to impede probes into its misconduct. The provision is remarkably straightforward—a far cry from the ambiguous, sloppy, or muddled laws that typically flummox the judiciary. It’s a mainstay of the Department of Justice’s “Capitol siege” prosecutions, deployed in about a quarter of all cases. Overall, 350 people face charges under this statute, Trump among them, and the DOJ has used it to secure the convictions of about 150 rioters. It targets anyone who “corruptly … obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so.” And it clarifies that an official proceeding includes “a proceeding before the Congress.”

The government argues that some rioters attempted to “obstruct” an “official proceeding” by halting the count of electoral votes through “corrupt” means. That includes Joseph Fischer, the defendant in the current case. Fischer, who served as a police officer before Jan. 6, allegedly texted that the protest “might get violent”; that “they should storm the capital and drag all the democrates [sic] into the street and have a mob trial”; and that protesters should “take democratic congress to the gallows,” because they “can’t vote if they can’t breathe..lol.” Video evidence shows Fischer assaulting multiple police officers on the afternoon of Jan. 6 after breaching the Capitol.

Would anyone seriously argue that this person did not attempt to corruptly obstruct an official proceeding? For a time, it seemed not: 14 of the 15 federal judges—all but Judge Carl Nichols in this case—considering the charge in various Jan. 6 cases agreed that it applied to violent rioters bent on stopping the electoral count. So did every judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit except one, Judge Gregory Katsas. Both Nichols and Katsas were appointed by Trump. Their crusade to kneecap the law caught SCOTUS’ attention, and the court decided to intervene despite overwhelming consensus among lower court judges. The Supreme Court’s decision will have major implications for Trump: Two of the four charges brought by special counsel Jack Smith in the former president’s Jan. 6 prosecution revolve around this offense. A ruling that eviscerates the obstruction law would arguably cut out the heart of the indictment.

At least three justices seem ready to do just that. Justice Clarence Thomas—back on the bench after yesterday’s unexplained absence—grilled Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar over the law’s application to Jan. 6. “There have been many violent protests that have interfered with proceedings. Has the government applied this provision to other protests in the past?” Thomas asked, as if to nail the Justice Department for inconsistency and reveal some improper motive for wielding the law against violent insurrectionists. Justice Neil Gorsuch trolled Prelogar by alluding to Democratic Rep. Jamaal Bowman’s infamous fire alarm incident. “Would pulling a fire alarm before a vote qualify for 20 years in federal prison?” he asked. Justice Samuel Alito joined in to ask about “protests in the courtroom” when an audience member interrupts the justices and “delays the proceeding for five minutes.”

“For all the protests that have occurred in this court,” Alito noted pointedly, “the Justice Department has not charged any serious offenses, and I don’t think any one of those protestors has been sentenced to even one day in prison.” Why, he wondered, weren’t they charged under the obstruction statute?

Alito, audibly angry, continued: “Yesterday protestors blocked the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco and disrupted traffic in San Francisco,” he told Prelogar. “What if something similar to that happened all around the Capitol so … all the bridges from Virginia were blocked, and members from Virginia who needed to appear at a hearing couldn’t get there or were delayed in getting there? Would that be a violation of this provision?”

To be clear, this is trolling: There is simply no comparison between a violent attack on the Capitol and protests that take the form of civil disobedience. And these justices expressed no similar concern about an ongoing red-state effort to persecute peaceful protesters who participate in Black Lives Matter demonstrations. Gorsuch and Alito’s hypotheticals ignore the reality that there are two layers of protection between minor protests and this rather major law. First, the Constitution affords prosecutorial discretion to the executive branch, allowing the Department of Justice to decide when an illegal “protest” is dangerous enough to warrant the use of a criminal law like the obstruction statute. Second, prosecutors must always prove the alleged offense to a jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, creating a democratic check on the abusive use of a stringent law to punish a silly crime.

Again...THIS is the country we want to live in, with these kind of radical, activist, rightwingnut "justices" on our highest court?

..

Since when does civil disobedience include taking over 2 city blocks and declaring them to be " SOVEREIGN TERRITORY" ? Since when does civil disobedience include over running police stations and burning them down. You have a unique definition as to how you define civil disobedience. I guess in your eyes out of control anarchists have been redefined as simply engaging in civil disobedience....

[Brooklyn]

Since when does civil disobedience include taking over 2 city blocks and declaring them to be " SOVEREIGN TERRITORY" ? Since when does civil disobedience include over running police stations and burning them down. You have a unique definition as to how you define civil disobedience. I guess in your eyes out of control anarchists have been redefined as simply engaging in civil disobedience....

Especially when it was a RIGHT WING Boogaloo Boi Ivan Harrison Hunter (Texass right wing extremist) who burned down the Minneapolis cop compound. His fellow Boogaloo Boi Steven Carrillo did the same thing and was convicted of killing a cop in California.

While it remains very convenient for the delusional right wing to blame leftists, it is their fellow rightists who are the real criminals.

[PizzaSnake]

Since when does civil disobedience include taking over 2 city blocks and declaring them to be " SOVEREIGN TERRITORY" ? Since when does civil disobedience include over running police stations and burning them down. You have a unique definition as to how you define civil disobedience. I guess in your eyes out of control anarchists have been redefined as simply engaging in civil disobedience....

Especially when it was a RIGHT WING Boogaloo Boi Ivan Harrison Hunter (Texass right wing extremist) who burned down the Minneapolis cop compound. His fellow Boogaloo Boi Steven Carrillo did the same thing and was convicted of killing a cop in California.

While it remains very convenient for the delusional right wing to blame leftists, it is their fellow rightists who are the real criminals.

Don’t forget “Umbrella Man”…

“A masked, umbrella-wielding man accused of helping incite riots and looting in the aftermath of George Floyd's police-involved death has been identified as a member of a white supremacist group that aimed to stir racial tensions amid largely peaceful Black Lives Matter protests, according to police.

The 32-year-old, dubbed "Umbrella Man," was captured in a viral video back in May wearing a black hooded outfit and a black gas mask as he smashed store windows with a sledgehammer and encouraged people to steal, according to a search warrant affidavit filed in court this week.”

“"This was the first fire that set off a string of fires and looting throughout the precinct and the rest of the city," Erika Christensen, a Minneapolis Police Department arson investigator, wrote in a search warrant affidavit filed in court this week. "Until the actions of ... 'Umbrella Man,' the protests had been relatively peaceful."”

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/man-helpe ... d=72051536

[Brooklyn]

Don’t forget “Umbrella Man”…

“A masked, umbrella-wielding man accused of helping incite riots and looting in the aftermath of George Floyd's police-involved death has been identified as a member of a white supremacist group that aimed to stir racial tensions amid largely peaceful Black Lives Matter protests, according to police.

The 32-year-old, dubbed "Umbrella Man," was captured in a viral video back in May wearing a black hooded outfit and a black gas mask as he smashed store windows with a sledgehammer and encouraged people to steal, according to a search warrant affidavit filed in court this week.”

“"This was the first fire that set off a string of fires and looting throughout the precinct and the rest of the city," Erika Christensen, a Minneapolis Police Department arson investigator, wrote in a search warrant affidavit filed in court this week. "Until the actions of ... 'Umbrella Man,' the protests had been relatively peaceful."”

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/man-helpe ... d=72051536

No question that Umbrella Man was an agent provocateur as were police who slashed tires all throughout both cities:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WR4M_c7pFs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wk-mRv1Nlo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfb_zJiMTFU


Whether anyone likes it or not, it's the cops who are the problem.