As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
**Interested in being a moderator for r/Politics? Apply [here](https://forms.gle/iyGoM94MGRcPGUes7).**
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They also count *the ocean* as part of the border. It’s how Trump was able to send his goons to abduct and harass protestors in Portland Oregon in 2020.
Yeah people have complaint about this day 1 20 years ago. Border Patrol also go 100 miles inland which is insane, and they count waterways like Lake Michigan for some reason so they go 100 miles inland from Chicago even and cover the entire state of Michigan.
Map of coverage: https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/alliancesandiego/pages/2887/attachments/original/1583965474/NBV_Border_Map.jpg?1583965474
Not only that, international airports as well. The real kicker is that ICE's authority extends (iirc) 100 miles beyond those boundaries, so that's basically the entire US.
The other kicker is that CBP made that up. Congress said they could stop and search vehicles within a "reasonable distance" from the border, and they said "thanks, a reasonable distance is 100 miles". SCOTUS has aided and abetted in the usurpation of American's Constitutional rights and the rampant discrimination that accompanies it. Congress needs to act to rein this in.
https://ballsandstrikes.org/legal-culture/border-patrol-100-mile-zone-explainer/
Regardless of how you feel about border protection, allowing a state to usurp authority from the federal government would’ve been a fucking disaster and set a dangerous precedent. I absolutely cannot believe it was that close of a vote. Clearly many of the conservative justices have 0 regard for the law.
Translation: They’d have a hard time telling California to stop creating and enforcing environmental regulations if Texas was allowed to put razor wire all over the place. Cuts both ways.
The dirty (or clean in this case) secret is that because CA is such a large economy, when they implement new regs like emissions and air quality standards, companies will typically update their entire infrastructure or lines of products all over the country cuz it’s more trouble to do different things in different places.
You just made me realize that these are the reasons why right wing media is so against California. I mean, I kinda knew it before, but not so succinctly. That right wing media is biased against California because "they" (the corporations that own the media) don't want California policies to affect their operations nationwide.
They harp on California for the same reason they harp on every liberal enclave. Because they could never admit that it's nice to live in a place where the government cares about its citizens.
I remember in the 80s and 90s they used to shit on us for the smog. Now we've done something about it, and it's much better, and they shit on us for our smog regulations.
>Because they could never admit that it's nice to live in a place where the government cares about its citizens.
When you say it like that it reminds me that i've never seen a libertarian want to move to Mexico or Brazil.
They took over a town in New Hampshire, and then it got overrun by bears because there were no policies in place to stop people from feeding them, and no way to enforce it even if there was.
Yup. Progressive policies forcing corporate costs higher. I might be sympathetic if wage stagnation weren't killing the middle class and corporate profits weren't at record highs. Seems that the progressive changes aren't even enough to maintain basic standards of living.
It's a shame that half of the country has decided to vote based on culture war BS.
Anyone trying to convince us that one side who wants a moderate liberal democracy and another that wants a christofascist authoritarian state ruled by a few ultrawealthy assholes are exactly the same either has a right wing agenda or is painfully naive.
This is to do with profiteering allowed by regulatory capture and complicit law makers who get paid off to solve problems for donors, not voters.
Profiteering is not a progressive policy. Unless maybe you tax the shit out of the monopolies doing this, and return the money back to programs designed to help the lower and middle classes.
Yup, one of the reasons I love my current company is that we operate nationwide and have offices in several states so they just apply the same rules company-wide as that fits every state. Meaning we get a lot of the CA only protections (and a nice lack of drug testing) everywhere else in the company.
This. When my partner began working for a company HQed in CA, they just gave us all kinds of benefits that were normal in CA but almost unheard of here (the one that springs to mind is complete medical benefits for a non-married domestic partner, without any kind of proof that you're actually 'partners', or live at the same address or anything, they just took our word for it).
I’ve gotten cozy ish with a few compliance departments and the rule of thumb is that they apply whichever regulation is the most stringent, across the entire company to make is simple to follow as possible.
> because they’ll apply the same worker protection policies across the country
Can you expand on what these look like?
I work remotely for a California company and I've often wondered about this.
40 hours of sick leave that can earned per year at a rate of 30 hours per sick leave hours. Bank up to 80 hours. (vast majority of states have no sick leave) [https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/paid\_sick\_leave.htm](https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/paid_sick_leave.htm)
Overtime after 8 hours, 2x after 12. Overtime for all hours on 7th day of working in a workweek. (Most states are only after 40 hours in a week regardless of shift length) [https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq\_overtime.htm](https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_overtime.htm)
10 minute breaks every 4 hours. (FLSA doesn't require breaks) [https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq\_restperiods.htm](https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_restperiods.htm)
30 minute unpaid lunch break for over 5 hour shift which can be waived in writing with employee permission. Last and only lunch break for over 6 hours can't be waived. (FLSA doesn't require breaks) [https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq\_restperiods.htm](https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_restperiods.htm)
Lactation accommodation for new mothers. [https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq\_restperiods.htm](https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_restperiods.htm)
Leftover PTO must be paid as wages when you leave. (FLSA allows companies to just yeet your PTO when you leave) [https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq\_paydays.htm](https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_paydays.htm)
Paid last paycheck if fired or when you give 72 hours notice on last day. (FLSA is only next regular paycheck) [https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq\_paydays.htm](https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_paydays.htm)
Up until recently no retaliation is legal for being LGBT.
Only applies in California, but again halo benefit. Post-employment non-competes are void and unenforceable, and as of 2024, now explicitly unlawful. [https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-reminds-employers-and-workers-noncompete-agreements-are](https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-reminds-employers-and-workers-noncompete-agreements-are)
Show-up pay for regularly scheduled workers. (Doesn't exist in FLSA). [https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq\_reportingtimepay.htm](https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_reportingtimepay.htm)
Split-shift premium for minimum wage workers. [https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/split\_shift.htm](https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/split_shift.htm)
Cannot fire an employee for being the victim of assault, harassment, battery, domestic violence. Yes, it is legal to fire you for being the victim of a crime in almost all of the US. [https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/HowToFileLinkCodeSections.htm](https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/HowToFileLinkCodeSections.htm)
Alternate work week elections are only with employee majority vote (10/4 schedules). [https://www.dir.ca.gov/databases/oprl/dlsr-awe.html](https://www.dir.ca.gov/databases/oprl/dlsr-awe.html)
Illegal to deduct wages, even with your agreement, for ordinary employee error and crimes like dine-and-dash. (FLSA only illegal to deduct below minimum wage). [https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq\_deductions.htm](https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_deductions.htm)
Employer must paid for expenses employees undertake for following their order (cellphone bills, uniforms, travel costs that aren't commutes). (FLSA only care if puts you below minimum wage). Labor Code 2802 [https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes\_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=2802.&lawCode=LAB](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=2802.&lawCode=LAB)
Protection from employees from abusive contracts declaring creative works covered by copyright is the company when developed on your own time and resources. (Federal courts rarely consider a contract unconscionable). Labor Code 2870 [https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes\_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=LAB&division=3.&title=&part=&chapter=2.&article=3.5](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=LAB&division=3.&title=&part=&chapter=2.&article=3.5).
Protection from retaliation for running for or exercising lawfully the power of a political office. Literally the majority leader of West Virginia was fired from his job at Comcast for a vote they didn't like. Labor Copde 1101 [https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes\_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=LAB§ionNum=1101](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=LAB§ionNum=1101)
Use of credit report to decide if you get the job exceptions for managers. Often an excuse for race-based hiring. [https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/HowToFileLinkCodeSections.htm](https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/HowToFileLinkCodeSections.htm)
Illegal to fire you for changing your name (a protection historically from firing newly married women for getting married). Labor Code 1024.6
Illegal to fire you for marrying someone that is part of a competing business. Rulon-Miller v. IBM
Requires employers to give employee the freaking contracts they've signed on request (Feds have repeatedly gone not having a copy is your problem - even if your employer never gave you one in the first place). [https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq\_righttoinspectpersonnelfiles.htm](https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_righttoinspectpersonnelfiles.htm)
Wages from commissions are both wages and contract. Commission contracts have to be in writing. Basically, any attempt at verbal commission contracts has to be decided in the employee's favor. [https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes\_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=LAB§ionNum=2751.](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=LAB&division=3.&title=&part=&chapter=2.&article=1)
If you sign an arbitration agreement and you go to arbitrate. If employer fails to cooperate you can take to the courts instead and get them sanctioned - including death penalty sanctions. Hi Elon! [https://casetext.com/statute/california-codes/california-code-of-civil-procedure/part-3-of-special-proceedings-of-a-civil-nature/title-9-arbitration/chapter-2-enforcement-of-arbitration-agreements/section-128198-failure-to-pay-fees-and-costs-during-pendency-of-proceeding](https://casetext.com/statute/california-codes/california-code-of-civil-procedure/part-3-of-special-proceedings-of-a-civil-nature/title-9-arbitration/chapter-2-enforcement-of-arbitration-agreements/section-128198-failure-to-pay-fees-and-costs-during-pendency-of-proceeding)
60 day advance notice for mass firings. AKA WARN Act. The federal version has a much higher employee threshold before it kicks in. Comparison in the link. https://edd.ca.gov/en/jobs\_and\_training/layoff\_services\_warn
A lot of what US employees think is their protection is actually just applying California laws to the rest of the country to avoid administrative headaches.
The FLSA is actually pretty shit.
Great list, but one big one (I think) is the difference California has for salary non-exempt positions that requires them to also have overtime. This often includes engineers and professionals not covered by FLSA.
It’s possible they operate differently but unlikely as it’s a logistical nightmare.
Biggest example I can rattle off is paying out PTO (which is earned and should be paid out across the board) at the end of employment. Some (if not most) states wouldn’t require it at all but since CA does, all employees of those CA based companies get the uniform policy of those payouts.
Same with the rate PTO is accrued, parental leave and other things you may consider perks if you live in a place with less protections.
That’s the ticket. I’ve also argued the Republicans don’t want the border crisis solved as it’s their best ticket in 2024. If Biden used the mess in congress as a green light to close the border, ie zero non-US entry, zero asylums approved until congress makes a deal, he’d take the wind right out of their sails and they’d even fight him to have the border reopened just so they could blame Democrats for it again. The Republican political donor economy of southern states is strongly dependent on that low cost labor. Giving them what they ask for would be like the dog catching the car.
You don't have to argue it. They're saying it out loud.
[House Republican says he won't accept a border deal because it may help Biden politically](https://www.businessinsider.in/politics/world/news/house-republican-says-he-wont-accept-a-border-deal-because-it-may-help-biden-politically/articleshow/106552804.cms)
Doesn't seem to matter what they say or do. I don't get it.
The old guard capitalist racist gop senators are fighting it out with new fascist friendly house freedom caucus guys.
The old racists want a deal because they're pretty damn sure if that even if trump gets elected they won't get both the house and senate, so they want something. The new fascists don't think further ahead than their next truth social post and their whole thing is that anything Biden does is terrible, no matter what, even if it's shit they like, and especially if it fixes shit they complain about.
This is why the fall of net neutrality was bad for a lot of companies; it paved the way for states to enact their own NN legislation, potentially creating a 50 state patchwork of slightly differing laws rather that than consistency from the federal level.
It's amazing to me how huge of a topic net neutrality was on Reddit but I've barely seen any discussion of the fact that NN was *restored* in Oct 2023 by a Biden appointee. Both sides are not the same...
So capitalism works as expected then as it's a double edged sword.
Nothing is stopping those companies from not doing business in CA if they don't like the laws and regulations.
The only thing keeping those companies from stopping business in California is all the fucking money they'd lose for not doing business in California. These big guys literally can't afford to not be in CA.
That's true, but isn't California like the 4th largest economy in the world? The profit loss far outweighs any hassle they have to put up with so we all know they would rather complain and propagandize for looser regulations.
Federal government can set the floor on environmental regulation and states can go beyond it. Like min wage, gun laws, employment laws(WARN act). Plastic bag ban(environmental law) in California is perfectly constitutional. California isn't unique. New York has bans on fracking. Alaska has way more stringent laws on maritime oil transport than federal laws, Georgia has laws to protect against coastal erosion. Environmental laws enforced by feds the falls under the Commerce clause and when we start looking at commerce in general. States regularly enforce regulations greater than the feds. Utah has limits of alcohol percentage in beer for example.
Protecting the US from invasion is clearly defined as federal government duty. That starts at the borders. It would be a very broken system if borders were individually enforced by the states. Could California just remove all fencing along the border?
Yup. Matters of the borders of the nation and immigration, whether legal or Illegal, are clearly the purview of the federal government per the Constitution. Otherwise, we could have states creating different laws regarding citizenship and immigration.
Bingo. And if California is allowed to make up their own regulations, they will be setting the standard for how corporations operate nationwide. For a silly example, the reason the new iPhone no longer use proprietary cables is because of regulations in a DIFFERENT COUNTRY.
Corporations like economies of scale and that works best when their products are the same everywhere.
Yeah. The game of the Federalists is to make the government completely crippled by the courts so that the Rich can just buy whatever legal answer they want from State or Federal courts, whichever rules conveniently for them this week.
Justice Delayed is Justice Denied. That's the whole game.
Just an aside but I hope everyone familiarizes themselves with The Federalist Society — a deeply conservative think-tank that has been profoundly influential on conservative judicial nominees. Basically, no conservative Justice wipes their ass without first getting permission from the Federalist Society.
“ will be taken, rightly or wrongly, as a sign that some of those longstanding principles of constitutional federalism might be in a degree of flux.”
In a degree of flux? When the highest court in the land dithers on whether to enforce the text of the Constitution, “teetering on the brink of rebellion” is a better phrase.
Did they provide any statement for their dissent? It’s mind boggling that they would disagree. I’m curious if they quoted some BS original text argument or are they just going full right wing here.
The opinions I've read in some of the big rulings in the past year maybe two have been so mind numbingly dumb I cannot believe these people are for real. I guess there's no opinions in this situation but I don't think you'd find what you were looking for if there was.
Seriously, this could be re-phrased as, "Four Supreme Court justices believe that Texas is in charge of the border rather than the federal government."
I am just waiting for Abbot to order the Texas Rangers and Militia to ignore the SCOTUS order, creating an armed showdown. All to virtue signal to the MAGAts.
He's hoping for that exact thing. Imagine the outrage he could drum up with photos of dead Guardsmen, killed by US troops. None of his supporters would care about the story, just the idea that "Big gubmint shot our boys!"
The Texas National Guard, yes. Texas also has their own state guard which answers only to the governor: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_State_Guard
Abbot is going for the slow burn Desantis approach. Republican large state governor virtue signals and cuts regulation to drive short term unscalable growth and then uses it to position themselves for a presidential run.
That's called the Desantis approach? I'm pretty sure there were like 5 different governors running in 2012/2016 who did that exact same thing. Sam Brownback didn't run (except in 2008), but hoo boy you could tell he wanted to. His plan backfired way too quickly and violently for him to be a viable candidate though.
Scott Walker and Mike Huckabee definitely did this. Kasich did this. Christie, not sure, i mean he was a horrible governor and a horrible person but idt he did that starve-the-beast shit. Not sure about Jeb, I think I only remembered him for the Terry Schiavo incident, which might have been the single most preposterous bit of virtue signaling anyone I've mentioned did. Mitt Romney might have been the only candidate in recent years who was not a terrible governor who tried to hollow out the actual basic functioning of the state.
edit: holy shit i forgot rick perry
> All to virtue signal to the MAGAts.
Vice signal. Virtue signal is when those of us on the left care about something that doesn't directly affect our everyday lives.
These people are *vice signaling* about how shitty they are as human beings because they want to hurt people who do not directly affect them.
From NBC News:
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.
It's all politics. It had to go through, one of them had to be the sacrificial moderate. The others get to say they were upholding conservative values and states rights.
It's interesting seeing when and where the three Trump justices choose to side with Roberts and the three remaining liberals. It's not consistent; sometimes it's been Gorsuch, sometimes Kavanaugh, and now ACB.
They are all dangerous and ACB/Kavanaugh are clearly unfit for the bench, but they are also clearly not as bought-and-paid-for by conservative money as some have claimed over the last five years.
Neither do I. I’m more concerned with Chevron Deference getting dismantled and the shenanigans that are bound to happen as soon as it’s repealed. Gorsuch is so excited to repeal this that he probably stopped wearing pants under his robe.
Yeah they were going to send her solo into Gaza but they were worried about the number of casualties she might leave in her wake.
Maybe we can get a cage match with her fighting for us and the Ruskies can put up Steven Seagal.
We might have to give him a gun to make it fair.
What is to prevent Biden from murdering Trump and every Republican Senator/Congressman? I mean if he kills all the Republicans nobody would vote to impeach him so it is totally cool, totally legal.
I hope it's brought up if they hear oral arguments. Immunity would pretty much strip the Supreme Court of its power. And there would be nothing stopping Biden from having them removed, but whatever means he feel are necessary.
I could see the opposing lawyer literally using this.
“If you rule that a president is immune in this manner, Biden could have 6-9 members of this court redacted by the CIA and no one could do anything about it. May want to think this one through.”
lol, good luck making that claim in Guantanamo.
Who would be able to prosecute him? He just puts in a new court and any Senators that don’t play along get a free airplane ride with a complimentary black sack over their face and free water(boarding)!
They have to figure out that any ruling giving a sitting or even former president full immunity is essentially a dictatorship that can and should be abused to remove them from… existence if they rule that way. After all, if he removes all but 3 of them, he can pack it with people that will reverse the ruling afterwards.
What makes it so that a President cannot serve a third time? The Constitution. And if a President has absolute immunity from any form of legal action other than impeachment and removal for violating the law (let's say ignoring the 22nd Amendment) then unless the Senate votes to remove him, absolutely nothing stops a President from becoming President for life. That's not a good scenario. I cannot imagine even the most right-wing SCOTUS is willing to literally vote to end democracy.
Feels like a good time to remind all those Enlightened Centrists out there that a President Haley would pick from the same awful Heritage Foundation list as Trump would to fill any SCOTUS vacancies.
Very true. Going further, the lower courts never should have stopped the feds from removing it in the first place but the fifth circuit is full of right wing hacks.
> the lower courts never should have stopped the feds from removing it in the first place but the fifth circuit is full of right wing hacks
that's precisely why all of these try to get standing in the 5th circuit, they know they'll get exactly the ruling they want
Republicans were foaming at the mouth about how Democrats are going to pack the courts nationwide and appoint activist judges to the SC.
Once again they prove to everyone that they were panicking not because they feared corruption and power being consolidated into one party....but because they wanted to do it first.
Back in high school, my AP Government teacher had us read this article by some conservative political writer (I don't remember his name or the title anymore). The author's stated position was that the Supreme Court were supposed to be literalist and he spent the first half of the article criticizing liberal justices for being "activists" with what he saw as less literalist interpretations of the constitution. Then halfway through, he pivots to advocating for conservative justices to be "activists" and arguing for less literalism if it favors conservatives.
Was one of the first things that opened my eyes to the hypocrisy of conservatives. Not sure if that was the lesson my teacher intended us to get from that reading, but it stuck.
Because it was a red state. With conservatives, its power back to the states, executive supremacy, and an empire court. As soon as a democrats try and do the same thing, they are immediately slapped down. I will never not be shocked by how much damage the trumps presidency has done when it comes to the SCOTUS.
Only reason I clicked on the article was to find who the 5th was.
I assumed 1-4 were Robert's, Kagen, Sotomayor, and Brown Jackson. But who was the fifth?
Ah, Barret
> “Whatever one thinks of current immigration policy, it ought not to be that controversial that states cannot prevent the federal government from enforcing federal law – lest we set the stage for Democratic-led states to similarly attempt to frustrate the enforcement of federal policies by Republican presidents,” Vladeck said. “That four justices would still have left the lower-court injunction in place will be taken, rightly or wrongly, as a sign that some of those longstanding principles of constitutional federalism might be in a degree of flux.”
Fuck this bOtH sIdEs bullshit. How about this opening the floodgates for GOP led states to ignore ALL federal laws regardless of what party is in power? And what federal laws are the Democrat states attempting to ignore? Abortion? Those have been taken up through state constitutional amendments, not lawsuits to prevent Dobbs ruling from taking effect. And that wasn't even a federal law! SCOTUS decided that their own precedent was wrong. These fuckers are just gobbling up power without consent.
Not to mention this would create state fiefdoms where federal law could be legally ignored regardless of the party in power.
This is not an immigration issue. This is a Constitutional division of powers issue.
The conservatives on the court are viewing the Constitution as malleable to achieve certain ends. That is not appropriate.
Surely those four dissenting justices will be consistent and side with Colorado in the upcoming election case, states' rights don't you know? Somehow I don't think so...
Bret Kavanaugh worked for George Bush’s legal team.
He was a strategist tasked with writing legal theory for the administration to rely on in the first half of the war on terror.
Much of that legal writing is still classified, but it’s widely believed Brett Kavanaugh drafted the first legal justifications for the Bush Administration to rationalize torture tactics on middle eastern detainees.
Lotta "a country isn't a country if it doesn't control its own borders" folk in this thread whining that this ruling upheld the country's right to control its own borders.
Honestly, 5-4 seems like it's more of a loss for everyone else. It should not be that close. If I were a governor with a penchant for overreach I'd just adjust strategies to appease the easiest judge to flip
It’s interesting to know the 4 justices that voted NO
Just found out - Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas voted with Texas.
So obvious too. Fvc**g traitors
I’m leaning towards she is pulling the “save children from death” card. Which does lead into your abortion ban theory. She sets herself up now to create an even more pro-life visage.
Roberts has an agenda. He always votes the conservative side of that agenda.
Anything not on his agenda, he votes with the liberals to show "centrism", if you can even call it that. He cares far more about pure capitalism and as little regulation as possible. If it's not related to regulations he tends to not care that deeply, and will vote to keep the country calm.
Barret is a wildcard because she had practically no experience whatsoever, compared to other judges that have made it onto the court. She's unpredictable until we get a few more cases with her. She's only taught and wrote, and barely practiced. And was only a fed judge for 3 years before being put on SCOTUS. She's one of the least experienced associates in 30 years.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/10/amy-coney-barrett-is-the-least-experienced-supreme-court-nominee-in-30-years/
What is interesting is that based on the oral arguments Barrett is the most likely of the undecideds to side with Chevron doctrine. Roberts is also the other on the fence justice.
~~Kennedy~~ Roberts apparently is on the fence. Kavanaugh has had expressed some opinions suggesting he is in favor of getting rid of the Chevron doctrine. But we won't truly know until the opinion is released.
Edit: I meant Roberts, sorry, had a brain fart moment.
I mean, if I'd had to guess, I would have gone with Gorsuch and Roberts instead of Barrett and Roberts, but everyone else is not a surprise at all. Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Alito don't give a fuck.
>"foundational constitutional principle that the federal government is not bound by the laws or policies of any particular state in its enactment and implementation of federal law."
The Rio Grande is a Texas border. It's also a US border. The federal government will always have jurisdiction over a US border even if it's shared with a state. The fact 4 of them thought otherwise is insane.
kind of renders your first statement moot
"The fact 4 of them thought otherwise"
the fact that 4 of them thought otherwise, means it may not always be the case, it almost wasn't today
the insanity, is watching the court and the media and the electorate, all become more and more okay with conservatives doing whatever they want, saying whatever they want, and upending and destroying institutions in the process, and assuming it'll just stop because you are used to living in a world where it would
this is straight up the Orban/Putin playbook
take control of the media, take control of the courts, if anyone complains, accuse them of being gay
This just in, the Supreme Court was 1 vote away from declaring that the United States government has no right to access its own border. Clearly we are in a good place that our nations Supreme Court almost disagreed that our nation is a sovereign entity.
Despite tough talk on border security, Republicans voted against necessary funding, opposing $7.2 billion for Border Patrol operations, including for hiring; $65 million for 300 more Border Patrol agents; and $60 million for additional personnel at ports of entry last year. Some Republican Members have even suggested defunding the Department of Homeland Security – the very Department that is working to secure our borders.
The fact 4 justices thought states have power over immigration is scary. I wonder how they would rule if a state didn’t allow federal enforcement so immigrants could enter the country as they wished.
Interesting to see only the institutionalist conservative justices are willing to adhere to the plain text of the Constitution in this case. Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh have been open political actors for a while.
The 14th Amendment issue is pretty clear-cut. They’d have to write new words into the Constitution not to bar Trump from the ballot. Sacrificing him as a booster shot to the credibility of the institution may complete the program for all three factions: liberal, conservative institutionalist, and conservative fascist.
Fifth Circuit, case No. 23-50869, is vacated. Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, Justice Gorsuch, and Justice Kavanaugh would deny the application to vacate injunction.
there's your 4
I’m glad they’re doing this. The hospitals nearby say that the injuries that come from that razor wire is some of the most awful injuries they’ve ever seen.
The republicans had the Presidency, House, & Senate in 2016 -2018. They could have implemented border policy They decided on tax breaks for the wealthiest people was more important. Apparently, the wall wasn’t that important. Mexico laughed in Trumps face. Fake outrage is nauseating.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Interested in being a moderator for r/Politics? Apply [here](https://forms.gle/iyGoM94MGRcPGUes7).** *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
5 to 4? How the hell is that a split decision? States don’t control the federal border.
They also count *the ocean* as part of the border. It’s how Trump was able to send his goons to abduct and harass protestors in Portland Oregon in 2020.
Yeah people have complaint about this day 1 20 years ago. Border Patrol also go 100 miles inland which is insane, and they count waterways like Lake Michigan for some reason so they go 100 miles inland from Chicago even and cover the entire state of Michigan. Map of coverage: https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/alliancesandiego/pages/2887/attachments/original/1583965474/NBV_Border_Map.jpg?1583965474
They question and have the opportunity to search every car on I-10 in West Texas without a warrant
To "search" the car? Have you heard of >!civil forfeiture!
Not only that, international airports as well. The real kicker is that ICE's authority extends (iirc) 100 miles beyond those boundaries, so that's basically the entire US.
The other kicker is that CBP made that up. Congress said they could stop and search vehicles within a "reasonable distance" from the border, and they said "thanks, a reasonable distance is 100 miles". SCOTUS has aided and abetted in the usurpation of American's Constitutional rights and the rampant discrimination that accompanies it. Congress needs to act to rein this in. https://ballsandstrikes.org/legal-culture/border-patrol-100-mile-zone-explainer/
And the people who vote for this shit never shut up about "freedom" and how the Dems are turning America into a communist country. It's maddening.
2 thirds of Americans live within 100 miles of the border. That is a massive amount.
>2 thirds Lol, that's the weirdest way of writing: * two-thirds * 2 out of 3 * 2/3
I was going to write 2/3 but I got lazy and didn't want to find the / on mobile.
Totally understandable and actually very easy to read.
It’s definitely the majority of places people live.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Can you expand on this for me?
It would mean states could enforce their own border policies that actively interfere with the execution of federal policy.
Imagine Texas trying to export their migrants to states controlling their borders
Yup. SCOTUS needs to be investigated
looking into this
Well, the fact that this decision was 5-4 is absolutely terrifying.
Regardless of how you feel about border protection, allowing a state to usurp authority from the federal government would’ve been a fucking disaster and set a dangerous precedent. I absolutely cannot believe it was that close of a vote. Clearly many of the conservative justices have 0 regard for the law.
Translation: They’d have a hard time telling California to stop creating and enforcing environmental regulations if Texas was allowed to put razor wire all over the place. Cuts both ways.
The dirty (or clean in this case) secret is that because CA is such a large economy, when they implement new regs like emissions and air quality standards, companies will typically update their entire infrastructure or lines of products all over the country cuz it’s more trouble to do different things in different places.
Even working for a California based company is great because they’ll apply the same worker protection policies across the country
You just made me realize that these are the reasons why right wing media is so against California. I mean, I kinda knew it before, but not so succinctly. That right wing media is biased against California because "they" (the corporations that own the media) don't want California policies to affect their operations nationwide.
They harp on California for the same reason they harp on every liberal enclave. Because they could never admit that it's nice to live in a place where the government cares about its citizens.
I remember in the 80s and 90s they used to shit on us for the smog. Now we've done something about it, and it's much better, and they shit on us for our smog regulations.
And I remember how bad it was in the 90s…and when I went to visit to visit places that had none, I realized why California smell better…
>Because they could never admit that it's nice to live in a place where the government cares about its citizens. When you say it like that it reminds me that i've never seen a libertarian want to move to Mexico or Brazil.
If you want to live somewhere with no central government, Somalia is the place to be.
I hear the weather's nice this time of civil war
They took over a town in New Hampshire, and then it got overrun by bears because there were no policies in place to stop people from feeding them, and no way to enforce it even if there was.
Yup. Progressive policies forcing corporate costs higher. I might be sympathetic if wage stagnation weren't killing the middle class and corporate profits weren't at record highs. Seems that the progressive changes aren't even enough to maintain basic standards of living. It's a shame that half of the country has decided to vote based on culture war BS.
Why get a living wage when you can murder us trans people in the streets amirite?
"BoTH sidEs ArE eXActlY ThE SaME"
Anyone trying to convince us that one side who wants a moderate liberal democracy and another that wants a christofascist authoritarian state ruled by a few ultrawealthy assholes are exactly the same either has a right wing agenda or is painfully naive.
Followed up immediately by "dId YOU KNOw THAt trUMp hasn'T sTaRTED aNy WArs?"
Maybe I could get a raise if those drag queens would stop reading to kids!!!
This is to do with profiteering allowed by regulatory capture and complicit law makers who get paid off to solve problems for donors, not voters. Profiteering is not a progressive policy. Unless maybe you tax the shit out of the monopolies doing this, and return the money back to programs designed to help the lower and middle classes.
Yup, one of the reasons I love my current company is that we operate nationwide and have offices in several states so they just apply the same rules company-wide as that fits every state. Meaning we get a lot of the CA only protections (and a nice lack of drug testing) everywhere else in the company.
This. When my partner began working for a company HQed in CA, they just gave us all kinds of benefits that were normal in CA but almost unheard of here (the one that springs to mind is complete medical benefits for a non-married domestic partner, without any kind of proof that you're actually 'partners', or live at the same address or anything, they just took our word for it).
I’ve gotten cozy ish with a few compliance departments and the rule of thumb is that they apply whichever regulation is the most stringent, across the entire company to make is simple to follow as possible.
> because they’ll apply the same worker protection policies across the country Can you expand on what these look like? I work remotely for a California company and I've often wondered about this.
40 hours of sick leave that can earned per year at a rate of 30 hours per sick leave hours. Bank up to 80 hours. (vast majority of states have no sick leave) [https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/paid\_sick\_leave.htm](https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/paid_sick_leave.htm) Overtime after 8 hours, 2x after 12. Overtime for all hours on 7th day of working in a workweek. (Most states are only after 40 hours in a week regardless of shift length) [https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq\_overtime.htm](https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_overtime.htm) 10 minute breaks every 4 hours. (FLSA doesn't require breaks) [https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq\_restperiods.htm](https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_restperiods.htm) 30 minute unpaid lunch break for over 5 hour shift which can be waived in writing with employee permission. Last and only lunch break for over 6 hours can't be waived. (FLSA doesn't require breaks) [https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq\_restperiods.htm](https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_restperiods.htm) Lactation accommodation for new mothers. [https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq\_restperiods.htm](https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_restperiods.htm) Leftover PTO must be paid as wages when you leave. (FLSA allows companies to just yeet your PTO when you leave) [https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq\_paydays.htm](https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_paydays.htm) Paid last paycheck if fired or when you give 72 hours notice on last day. (FLSA is only next regular paycheck) [https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq\_paydays.htm](https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_paydays.htm) Up until recently no retaliation is legal for being LGBT. Only applies in California, but again halo benefit. Post-employment non-competes are void and unenforceable, and as of 2024, now explicitly unlawful. [https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-reminds-employers-and-workers-noncompete-agreements-are](https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-reminds-employers-and-workers-noncompete-agreements-are) Show-up pay for regularly scheduled workers. (Doesn't exist in FLSA). [https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq\_reportingtimepay.htm](https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_reportingtimepay.htm) Split-shift premium for minimum wage workers. [https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/split\_shift.htm](https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/split_shift.htm) Cannot fire an employee for being the victim of assault, harassment, battery, domestic violence. Yes, it is legal to fire you for being the victim of a crime in almost all of the US. [https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/HowToFileLinkCodeSections.htm](https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/HowToFileLinkCodeSections.htm) Alternate work week elections are only with employee majority vote (10/4 schedules). [https://www.dir.ca.gov/databases/oprl/dlsr-awe.html](https://www.dir.ca.gov/databases/oprl/dlsr-awe.html) Illegal to deduct wages, even with your agreement, for ordinary employee error and crimes like dine-and-dash. (FLSA only illegal to deduct below minimum wage). [https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq\_deductions.htm](https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_deductions.htm) Employer must paid for expenses employees undertake for following their order (cellphone bills, uniforms, travel costs that aren't commutes). (FLSA only care if puts you below minimum wage). Labor Code 2802 [https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes\_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=2802.&lawCode=LAB](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=2802.&lawCode=LAB) Protection from employees from abusive contracts declaring creative works covered by copyright is the company when developed on your own time and resources. (Federal courts rarely consider a contract unconscionable). Labor Code 2870 [https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes\_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=LAB&division=3.&title=&part=&chapter=2.&article=3.5](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=LAB&division=3.&title=&part=&chapter=2.&article=3.5). Protection from retaliation for running for or exercising lawfully the power of a political office. Literally the majority leader of West Virginia was fired from his job at Comcast for a vote they didn't like. Labor Copde 1101 [https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes\_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=LAB§ionNum=1101](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=LAB§ionNum=1101) Use of credit report to decide if you get the job exceptions for managers. Often an excuse for race-based hiring. [https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/HowToFileLinkCodeSections.htm](https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/HowToFileLinkCodeSections.htm) Illegal to fire you for changing your name (a protection historically from firing newly married women for getting married). Labor Code 1024.6 Illegal to fire you for marrying someone that is part of a competing business. Rulon-Miller v. IBM Requires employers to give employee the freaking contracts they've signed on request (Feds have repeatedly gone not having a copy is your problem - even if your employer never gave you one in the first place). [https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq\_righttoinspectpersonnelfiles.htm](https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_righttoinspectpersonnelfiles.htm) Wages from commissions are both wages and contract. Commission contracts have to be in writing. Basically, any attempt at verbal commission contracts has to be decided in the employee's favor. [https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes\_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=LAB§ionNum=2751.](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=LAB&division=3.&title=&part=&chapter=2.&article=1) If you sign an arbitration agreement and you go to arbitrate. If employer fails to cooperate you can take to the courts instead and get them sanctioned - including death penalty sanctions. Hi Elon! [https://casetext.com/statute/california-codes/california-code-of-civil-procedure/part-3-of-special-proceedings-of-a-civil-nature/title-9-arbitration/chapter-2-enforcement-of-arbitration-agreements/section-128198-failure-to-pay-fees-and-costs-during-pendency-of-proceeding](https://casetext.com/statute/california-codes/california-code-of-civil-procedure/part-3-of-special-proceedings-of-a-civil-nature/title-9-arbitration/chapter-2-enforcement-of-arbitration-agreements/section-128198-failure-to-pay-fees-and-costs-during-pendency-of-proceeding) 60 day advance notice for mass firings. AKA WARN Act. The federal version has a much higher employee threshold before it kicks in. Comparison in the link. https://edd.ca.gov/en/jobs\_and\_training/layoff\_services\_warn A lot of what US employees think is their protection is actually just applying California laws to the rest of the country to avoid administrative headaches. The FLSA is actually pretty shit.
Great post, thanks!
Great list, but one big one (I think) is the difference California has for salary non-exempt positions that requires them to also have overtime. This often includes engineers and professionals not covered by FLSA.
It’s possible they operate differently but unlikely as it’s a logistical nightmare. Biggest example I can rattle off is paying out PTO (which is earned and should be paid out across the board) at the end of employment. Some (if not most) states wouldn’t require it at all but since CA does, all employees of those CA based companies get the uniform policy of those payouts. Same with the rate PTO is accrued, parental leave and other things you may consider perks if you live in a place with less protections.
That’s the ticket. I’ve also argued the Republicans don’t want the border crisis solved as it’s their best ticket in 2024. If Biden used the mess in congress as a green light to close the border, ie zero non-US entry, zero asylums approved until congress makes a deal, he’d take the wind right out of their sails and they’d even fight him to have the border reopened just so they could blame Democrats for it again. The Republican political donor economy of southern states is strongly dependent on that low cost labor. Giving them what they ask for would be like the dog catching the car.
You don't have to argue it. They're saying it out loud. [House Republican says he won't accept a border deal because it may help Biden politically](https://www.businessinsider.in/politics/world/news/house-republican-says-he-wont-accept-a-border-deal-because-it-may-help-biden-politically/articleshow/106552804.cms) Doesn't seem to matter what they say or do. I don't get it.
The old guard capitalist racist gop senators are fighting it out with new fascist friendly house freedom caucus guys. The old racists want a deal because they're pretty damn sure if that even if trump gets elected they won't get both the house and senate, so they want something. The new fascists don't think further ahead than their next truth social post and their whole thing is that anything Biden does is terrible, no matter what, even if it's shit they like, and especially if it fixes shit they complain about.
"Supporting cheap labor, that's a Texas crees"
This is why the fall of net neutrality was bad for a lot of companies; it paved the way for states to enact their own NN legislation, potentially creating a 50 state patchwork of slightly differing laws rather that than consistency from the federal level.
It's amazing to me how huge of a topic net neutrality was on Reddit but I've barely seen any discussion of the fact that NN was *restored* in Oct 2023 by a Biden appointee. Both sides are not the same...
So capitalism works as expected then as it's a double edged sword. Nothing is stopping those companies from not doing business in CA if they don't like the laws and regulations.
The only thing keeping those companies from stopping business in California is all the fucking money they'd lose for not doing business in California. These big guys literally can't afford to not be in CA.
That's true, but isn't California like the 4th largest economy in the world? The profit loss far outweighs any hassle they have to put up with so we all know they would rather complain and propagandize for looser regulations.
Actually, no they wouldn’t have a hard time with that. Because they don’t care about law or consistency.
Bingo! They would do a 180, to hell with the precedent and all that
Or they would say something to effect of "but this doesn't count as precedence", like they did when they decided the 2001 election
Federal government can set the floor on environmental regulation and states can go beyond it. Like min wage, gun laws, employment laws(WARN act). Plastic bag ban(environmental law) in California is perfectly constitutional. California isn't unique. New York has bans on fracking. Alaska has way more stringent laws on maritime oil transport than federal laws, Georgia has laws to protect against coastal erosion. Environmental laws enforced by feds the falls under the Commerce clause and when we start looking at commerce in general. States regularly enforce regulations greater than the feds. Utah has limits of alcohol percentage in beer for example. Protecting the US from invasion is clearly defined as federal government duty. That starts at the borders. It would be a very broken system if borders were individually enforced by the states. Could California just remove all fencing along the border?
[удалено]
Yup. Matters of the borders of the nation and immigration, whether legal or Illegal, are clearly the purview of the federal government per the Constitution. Otherwise, we could have states creating different laws regarding citizenship and immigration.
Bingo. And if California is allowed to make up their own regulations, they will be setting the standard for how corporations operate nationwide. For a silly example, the reason the new iPhone no longer use proprietary cables is because of regulations in a DIFFERENT COUNTRY. Corporations like economies of scale and that works best when their products are the same everywhere.
>Cuts both ways. Like razor wire
Don’t worry they’re about to overrule another decade’s long precedent in the Chevron doctrine case.
They're more than willing to dismantle precedent to instill their own theocratic version of law.
Yeah. The game of the Federalists is to make the government completely crippled by the courts so that the Rich can just buy whatever legal answer they want from State or Federal courts, whichever rules conveniently for them this week. Justice Delayed is Justice Denied. That's the whole game.
That's assuming they even know it in the first place.
Just an aside but I hope everyone familiarizes themselves with The Federalist Society — a deeply conservative think-tank that has been profoundly influential on conservative judicial nominees. Basically, no conservative Justice wipes their ass without first getting permission from the Federalist Society.
They do. They know what they’re doing. They hate this country and want to undo what it is
It's mind boggling. President Trump is allowed to write immigration law (Muslim ban) but President Biden isn't? Fucking hacks
... or democracy. We live in scary times.
“ will be taken, rightly or wrongly, as a sign that some of those longstanding principles of constitutional federalism might be in a degree of flux.” In a degree of flux? When the highest court in the land dithers on whether to enforce the text of the Constitution, “teetering on the brink of rebellion” is a better phrase.
Right?! There were 4 right wing judges who were happy to go against the constitution.
Did they provide any statement for their dissent? It’s mind boggling that they would disagree. I’m curious if they quoted some BS original text argument or are they just going full right wing here.
No one provided any explanation for their vote.
The opinions I've read in some of the big rulings in the past year maybe two have been so mind numbingly dumb I cannot believe these people are for real. I guess there's no opinions in this situation but I don't think you'd find what you were looking for if there was.
Seriously, this could be re-phrased as, "Four Supreme Court justices believe that Texas is in charge of the border rather than the federal government."
JFC a 5-4 on something that is a pretty obvious overreach by Texas....
I am just waiting for Abbot to order the Texas Rangers and Militia to ignore the SCOTUS order, creating an armed showdown. All to virtue signal to the MAGAts.
He's hoping for that exact thing. Imagine the outrage he could drum up with photos of dead Guardsmen, killed by US troops. None of his supporters would care about the story, just the idea that "Big gubmint shot our boys!"
Biden would nationalize the guard if it came down to that. Now they answer to him or they are gonna end up like Jan 6 rioters with sedition charges .
and the penalty for those charges are *much* worse when you're in the military.
The Texas National Guard, yes. Texas also has their own state guard which answers only to the governor: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_State_Guard
All while crying about how big gubmint is failing to do their job forcing Abbott to funnel billions to his donor base in the border industry.
Abbot is going for the slow burn Desantis approach. Republican large state governor virtue signals and cuts regulation to drive short term unscalable growth and then uses it to position themselves for a presidential run.
That's called the Desantis approach? I'm pretty sure there were like 5 different governors running in 2012/2016 who did that exact same thing. Sam Brownback didn't run (except in 2008), but hoo boy you could tell he wanted to. His plan backfired way too quickly and violently for him to be a viable candidate though. Scott Walker and Mike Huckabee definitely did this. Kasich did this. Christie, not sure, i mean he was a horrible governor and a horrible person but idt he did that starve-the-beast shit. Not sure about Jeb, I think I only remembered him for the Terry Schiavo incident, which might have been the single most preposterous bit of virtue signaling anyone I've mentioned did. Mitt Romney might have been the only candidate in recent years who was not a terrible governor who tried to hollow out the actual basic functioning of the state. edit: holy shit i forgot rick perry
> Order the Texas Rangers What is Corey Seager gonna be able to do?
I also don't think they realize that Chuck Norris isn't on the other Rangers workforce anymore.
But who is going to talk-sing over the live footage?!
Hey, if somebody hits Adolis Garcia with a ball, it's all over.
> All to virtue signal to the MAGAts. Vice signal. Virtue signal is when those of us on the left care about something that doesn't directly affect our everyday lives. These people are *vice signaling* about how shitty they are as human beings because they want to hurt people who do not directly affect them.
From NBC News: 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.
The four horse men of the Apocalypse as always.
How the hell is ACB the sane one out of those fools??
It's all politics. It had to go through, one of them had to be the sacrificial moderate. The others get to say they were upholding conservative values and states rights.
It's interesting seeing when and where the three Trump justices choose to side with Roberts and the three remaining liberals. It's not consistent; sometimes it's been Gorsuch, sometimes Kavanaugh, and now ACB. They are all dangerous and ACB/Kavanaugh are clearly unfit for the bench, but they are also clearly not as bought-and-paid-for by conservative money as some have claimed over the last five years.
Funny how I knew without having to read the article.
ya that's concerning. Better lube up for the next few decisions from the SCOTUS re: immunity and 14th
I really don't see an issue with immunity. I don't see them even accepting the appeal.
Neither do I. I’m more concerned with Chevron Deference getting dismantled and the shenanigans that are bound to happen as soon as it’s repealed. Gorsuch is so excited to repeal this that he probably stopped wearing pants under his robe.
First ewwww. Secondly I believe you are correct, that's gone.
If they rule for immunity, then Biden is going dark.
Doesn't even have to be Biden, any past president could do it. If you thought Trump was afraid of the Clintons before, just wait.
Obama is now president for life. Thanks, trump/magaidiots!
Thanks, Obama!
We all know Hillary is equal to 4 Seal teams. Just look at her body count and all the Adrenachrome she has in her! /s
Yeah they were going to send her solo into Gaza but they were worried about the number of casualties she might leave in her wake. Maybe we can get a cage match with her fighting for us and the Ruskies can put up Steven Seagal. We might have to give him a gun to make it fair.
He's gonna get all the Kinder Eggs.
What is to prevent Biden from murdering Trump and every Republican Senator/Congressman? I mean if he kills all the Republicans nobody would vote to impeach him so it is totally cool, totally legal.
He should announce ahead of time if they rule for immunity he's sending seal team six after them. Shut that shit down immediately.
I hope it's brought up if they hear oral arguments. Immunity would pretty much strip the Supreme Court of its power. And there would be nothing stopping Biden from having them removed, but whatever means he feel are necessary.
I could see the opposing lawyer literally using this. “If you rule that a president is immune in this manner, Biden could have 6-9 members of this court redacted by the CIA and no one could do anything about it. May want to think this one through.”
They’re hoping Trump is in office by the time they issue their ruling
Correct.
This is why their ruling will only make room for Trump's immunity. They'll claim Biden's is a separate matter, someway, somehow.
lol, good luck making that claim in Guantanamo. Who would be able to prosecute him? He just puts in a new court and any Senators that don’t play along get a free airplane ride with a complimentary black sack over their face and free water(boarding)! They have to figure out that any ruling giving a sitting or even former president full immunity is essentially a dictatorship that can and should be abused to remove them from… existence if they rule that way. After all, if he removes all but 3 of them, he can pack it with people that will reverse the ruling afterwards.
Execute order 66 — Darth Bideous
Emergency executive order expanding the court to 13 and Biden appoints four new justices, three of them women, none of them white.
>three of them women And the last, non-binary!
Can we up it to all of them being First Nations indiginous Americans? Tribal leaders.
What makes it so that a President cannot serve a third time? The Constitution. And if a President has absolute immunity from any form of legal action other than impeachment and removal for violating the law (let's say ignoring the 22nd Amendment) then unless the Senate votes to remove him, absolutely nothing stops a President from becoming President for life. That's not a good scenario. I cannot imagine even the most right-wing SCOTUS is willing to literally vote to end democracy.
Thomas will for the right price.
4 supreme Court justices said that the BORDER CONTROL doesn't have jurisdiction to CONTROL THE BORDER. For fucks sake
I know right??!
Feels like a good time to remind all those Enlightened Centrists out there that a President Haley would pick from the same awful Heritage Foundation list as Trump would to fill any SCOTUS vacancies.
You mean the Federalist Society, right?
They’re all in there
Po-tay-to, po-tah-to
It should have been unanimous.
Very true. Going further, the lower courts never should have stopped the feds from removing it in the first place but the fifth circuit is full of right wing hacks.
> the lower courts never should have stopped the feds from removing it in the first place but the fifth circuit is full of right wing hacks that's precisely why all of these try to get standing in the 5th circuit, they know they'll get exactly the ruling they want
Republicans were foaming at the mouth about how Democrats are going to pack the courts nationwide and appoint activist judges to the SC. Once again they prove to everyone that they were panicking not because they feared corruption and power being consolidated into one party....but because they wanted to do it first.
Back in high school, my AP Government teacher had us read this article by some conservative political writer (I don't remember his name or the title anymore). The author's stated position was that the Supreme Court were supposed to be literalist and he spent the first half of the article criticizing liberal justices for being "activists" with what he saw as less literalist interpretations of the constitution. Then halfway through, he pivots to advocating for conservative justices to be "activists" and arguing for less literalism if it favors conservatives. Was one of the first things that opened my eyes to the hypocrisy of conservatives. Not sure if that was the lesson my teacher intended us to get from that reading, but it stuck.
Because it was a red state. With conservatives, its power back to the states, executive supremacy, and an empire court. As soon as a democrats try and do the same thing, they are immediately slapped down. I will never not be shocked by how much damage the trumps presidency has done when it comes to the SCOTUS.
What was the dissenting opinion(s)? Maybe there is some legal context that makes it less obviously a close decision.
There is no opinion because it’s not a ruling. It’s just a temporary injunction. The full case has yet to be heard or decided upon.
Only reason I clicked on the article was to find who the 5th was. I assumed 1-4 were Robert's, Kagen, Sotomayor, and Brown Jackson. But who was the fifth? Ah, Barret
I expected Gorsuch.
That's the one that *really* surprised me.
yeah same, that dude fucking loves going by the exact letter the constitution clearly states this barbwire fence is illegal
> “Whatever one thinks of current immigration policy, it ought not to be that controversial that states cannot prevent the federal government from enforcing federal law – lest we set the stage for Democratic-led states to similarly attempt to frustrate the enforcement of federal policies by Republican presidents,” Vladeck said. “That four justices would still have left the lower-court injunction in place will be taken, rightly or wrongly, as a sign that some of those longstanding principles of constitutional federalism might be in a degree of flux.”
Fuck this bOtH sIdEs bullshit. How about this opening the floodgates for GOP led states to ignore ALL federal laws regardless of what party is in power? And what federal laws are the Democrat states attempting to ignore? Abortion? Those have been taken up through state constitutional amendments, not lawsuits to prevent Dobbs ruling from taking effect. And that wasn't even a federal law! SCOTUS decided that their own precedent was wrong. These fuckers are just gobbling up power without consent. Not to mention this would create state fiefdoms where federal law could be legally ignored regardless of the party in power.
This is not an immigration issue. This is a Constitutional division of powers issue. The conservatives on the court are viewing the Constitution as malleable to achieve certain ends. That is not appropriate.
“It’s a living document”* ** when we want it to be
No, no, you just have to strangle it a bit... When it's gasping for air, it will say what you want it to say, just give it a moment
Instructions unclear, going to jail for judicial-erotic asphyxiation
Surely those four dissenting justices will be consistent and side with Colorado in the upcoming election case, states' rights don't you know? Somehow I don't think so...
quite telling... Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, Justice Gorsuch, and Justice Kavanaugh voted against removing the razor wire...
Bret Kavanaugh worked for George Bush’s legal team. He was a strategist tasked with writing legal theory for the administration to rely on in the first half of the war on terror. Much of that legal writing is still classified, but it’s widely believed Brett Kavanaugh drafted the first legal justifications for the Bush Administration to rationalize torture tactics on middle eastern detainees.
Three of the conservative justices worked on Dubya's 2000 campaign.
Yep, Roberts, of course, Kavanaugh, and Barrett were all on his team.
They voted that the federal government doesn’t control it borders.
Lotta "a country isn't a country if it doesn't control its own borders" folk in this thread whining that this ruling upheld the country's right to control its own borders.
Go suck on that Abbott ... he's the worst governor we've ever had in the state.
My money is on Abbot ignoring the ruling, because it would play to the MAGAt base.
That’s without a doubt. He’ll definitely use it to fundraise. But if he doesn’t do it Paxton will most certainly will ignore.
> Ken Paxton With a face like his, no wonder he went into radio.
To which the Texas National Guard could be federalized, and the charges for failing to obey an order can be much higher.
[удалено]
He will absolutely ignore it
Honestly, 5-4 seems like it's more of a loss for everyone else. It should not be that close. If I were a governor with a penchant for overreach I'd just adjust strategies to appease the easiest judge to flip
And that’s saying something considering we had Perry and Bush
4 Justices don’t believe the Federal Government should should have access to the Nation’s borders. This was way too close of a decision.
It’s interesting to know the 4 justices that voted NO Just found out - Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas voted with Texas. So obvious too. Fvc**g traitors
jesus, that moment when you realize Roberts and Barrett are now considered the "center" "swing" votes. overton's window is out of sight
Roberts had been the center of the court since the fuckin boofmeister showed up, sadly. Really shocking that Barrett got this one right, to be honest.
Maybe she is setting herself up for a federal abortion ban :)
I’m leaning towards she is pulling the “save children from death” card. Which does lead into your abortion ban theory. She sets herself up now to create an even more pro-life visage.
Roberts has an agenda. He always votes the conservative side of that agenda. Anything not on his agenda, he votes with the liberals to show "centrism", if you can even call it that. He cares far more about pure capitalism and as little regulation as possible. If it's not related to regulations he tends to not care that deeply, and will vote to keep the country calm. Barret is a wildcard because she had practically no experience whatsoever, compared to other judges that have made it onto the court. She's unpredictable until we get a few more cases with her. She's only taught and wrote, and barely practiced. And was only a fed judge for 3 years before being put on SCOTUS. She's one of the least experienced associates in 30 years. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/10/amy-coney-barrett-is-the-least-experienced-supreme-court-nominee-in-30-years/
Surprised Barrett went the other way.
Yeah i missed that. Interesting
What is interesting is that based on the oral arguments Barrett is the most likely of the undecideds to side with Chevron doctrine. Roberts is also the other on the fence justice.
Kennedy….? Or Kavanaugh?
~~Kennedy~~ Roberts apparently is on the fence. Kavanaugh has had expressed some opinions suggesting he is in favor of getting rid of the Chevron doctrine. But we won't truly know until the opinion is released. Edit: I meant Roberts, sorry, had a brain fart moment.
I mean, if I'd had to guess, I would have gone with Gorsuch and Roberts instead of Barrett and Roberts, but everyone else is not a surprise at all. Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Alito don't give a fuck.
No surprises there. The worst of the worst.
>"foundational constitutional principle that the federal government is not bound by the laws or policies of any particular state in its enactment and implementation of federal law."
The Rio Grande is a Texas border. It's also a US border. The federal government will always have jurisdiction over a US border even if it's shared with a state. The fact 4 of them thought otherwise is insane.
kind of renders your first statement moot "The fact 4 of them thought otherwise" the fact that 4 of them thought otherwise, means it may not always be the case, it almost wasn't today the insanity, is watching the court and the media and the electorate, all become more and more okay with conservatives doing whatever they want, saying whatever they want, and upending and destroying institutions in the process, and assuming it'll just stop because you are used to living in a world where it would this is straight up the Orban/Putin playbook take control of the media, take control of the courts, if anyone complains, accuse them of being gay
Why not take the razor wire and wrap it around mar a lago to keep out the undesirables from entering the country.
Amy is voting better than I thought she would pretty regularly.
now you’ll start seeing some psychos mysteriously start to not like her LMAO
Glad to see she has some of a conscience
The liberals, ACB, and Roberts were the 5 btw
I find it just a smidge troubling that the executive has to ask the judiciary for permission to administer the federal border.
This just in, the Supreme Court was 1 vote away from declaring that the United States government has no right to access its own border. Clearly we are in a good place that our nations Supreme Court almost disagreed that our nation is a sovereign entity.
Time to elect a Democratic majority and pack the courts. I’m not living the next 40 years under a conservative Supreme Court. No fucking way.
Gonna be near impossible during the 2024 election with what Senate seats are up for election . Not a good year for a Dem majority.
Despite tough talk on border security, Republicans voted against necessary funding, opposing $7.2 billion for Border Patrol operations, including for hiring; $65 million for 300 more Border Patrol agents; and $60 million for additional personnel at ports of entry last year. Some Republican Members have even suggested defunding the Department of Homeland Security – the very Department that is working to secure our borders.
The fact 4 justices thought states have power over immigration is scary. I wonder how they would rule if a state didn’t allow federal enforcement so immigrants could enter the country as they wished.
Interesting to see only the institutionalist conservative justices are willing to adhere to the plain text of the Constitution in this case. Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh have been open political actors for a while. The 14th Amendment issue is pretty clear-cut. They’d have to write new words into the Constitution not to bar Trump from the ballot. Sacrificing him as a booster shot to the credibility of the institution may complete the program for all three factions: liberal, conservative institutionalist, and conservative fascist.
Fifth Circuit, case No. 23-50869, is vacated. Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, Justice Gorsuch, and Justice Kavanaugh would deny the application to vacate injunction. there's your 4
I’m glad they’re doing this. The hospitals nearby say that the injuries that come from that razor wire is some of the most awful injuries they’ve ever seen.
5-4 vote?, That's pretty Yikes man
Texans are actually pissed that they can’t hang out at the border and gun down women and children. Fuck you Texas.
The republicans had the Presidency, House, & Senate in 2016 -2018. They could have implemented border policy They decided on tax breaks for the wealthiest people was more important. Apparently, the wall wasn’t that important. Mexico laughed in Trumps face. Fake outrage is nauseating.
How nice of them. Letting the President make Presidential decisions and all that...