They know federal law supercedes state law, right?
the argument is that because they're being "invaded" and that the federal government isn't doing anything to protect them from that "invasion"... it's a "breach of contract" that then invalidates everything else.
Which is a dissenting opinion by a lone justice, and not what was the actual ruling in that precedent; and there's no legal or technical definition that defines migrant refugees showing up seeking asylum as an invasion.
Is Abbot on the SovCit bandwagon?
Wouldn't be too surprised if he's driving it. complete with the stupid little chauffeur hat.
They know federal law supercedes state law, right?
the argument is that because they're being "invaded" and that the federal government isn't doing anything to protect them from that "invasion"... it's a "breach of contract" that then invalidates everything else.
Which is a dissenting opinion by a lone justice, and not what was the actual ruling in that precedent; and there's no legal or technical definition that defines migrant refugees showing up seeking asylum as an invasion.
Is Abbot on the SovCit bandwagon?
Wouldn't be too surprised if he's driving it. complete with the stupid little chauffeur hat.