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.
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.
I'm giving you an updoot for that. Don't spend it all at one place!
βThe 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.β
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.
I say bring it. Finish it proper this time.
With every party involved being nuclear capable?
The US is nuclear capable. Rebels would not be. They're barely capable of wiping their own asses.
If the rebels in question include several state governments then they may indeed be nuclear capable.
I don't think they can just turn on them bombs without some sort of electronic approval from the feds.
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.
Man, I just hope they're not as stupid as trying to use nuclear weapons on American soil, because it will be the end of them. I mean, even Putin hasn't dared to use them (yet....) - and he's in an almost all-out war with Ukraine.
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....
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
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?
Just read the decision form the court below.
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.
Toxic masculinity?
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.
I'm giving you an updoot for that. Don't spend it all at one place!
dies of cringe
Better that, than a Dootrupcy.
From NBC:
βThe 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.β
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.
I say bring it. Finish it proper this time.
With every party involved being nuclear capable?
The US is nuclear capable. Rebels would not be. They're barely capable of wiping their own asses.
If the rebels in question include several state governments then they may indeed be nuclear capable.
I don't think they can just turn on them bombs without some sort of electronic approval from the feds.
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.
Man, I just hope they're not as stupid as trying to use nuclear weapons on American soil, because it will be the end of them. I mean, even Putin hasn't dared to use them (yet....) - and he's in an almost all-out war with Ukraine.
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....
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
Uninstall.exe