Supreme Court allows Texas to enforce immigration law

[mystery-ak]

Supreme Court allows Texas to enforce immigration law
The Biden administration sued to block the law, saying it tramples on the federal government’s exclusive authority to oversee immigration issues.

March 19, 2024, 1:11 PM CDT / Updated March 19, 2024, 1:22 PM CDT
By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that it will allow Texas to enforce for now a contentious new law that gives local police the power to arrest migrants.

The conservative-majority court, with three liberal justices dissenting, rejected an emergency request by the Biden administration, which said states have no authority to legislate on immigration, an issue the federal government has sole authority over.

That means the law can go into effect while litigation continues in lower courts. It could still be blocked at a later date.

"The court gives a green light to a law that will upend the longstanding federal-state balance of power and sow chaos," liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a dissenting opinion. Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson also objected to the decision.

more
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-allows-texas-enforce-immigration-law-rcna142971?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma&taid=65f9d63acdbb8100015da8f2&utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

[Wingnut]

 Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson objected to the decision.

The usual suspects I see.

[GtHawk]

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson objected to the decision.

The usual suspects I see.

             Tweedledee, Tweedledumb and Tweedledumbest
           

[Wingnut]

             Tweedledee, Tweedledumb and Tweedledumbest
           

They deserve nothing but piles of Poisonous Platitudes.

[Bigun]

https://twitter.com/brianeharrison/status/1770164106034823664

[mystery-ak]

 Sotomayor chastises Supreme Court for allowing Texas law to stand
by Sarah Fortinsky - 03/19/24 4:38 PM ET

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor sharply rebuked the high court’s majority Tuesday for temporarily allowing a Texas law to take effect that empowers state law enforcement to arrest people they suspect of illegally entering the United States from Mexico.

In her dissent, Sotomayor warned that, in allowing this highly controversial law to take effect without first carefully considering its constitutionality, “the Court invites further chaos and crisis in immigration enforcement.”

“Texas passed a law that directly regulates the entry and removal of noncitizens and explicitly instructs its state courts to disregard any ongoing federal immigration proceedings,” Sotomayor wrote in her dissent, which was joined by Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. “That law upends the federal-state balance of power that has existed for over a century, in which the National Government has had exclusive authority over entry and removal of noncitizens.”

“The Court gives a green light to a law that will upend the longstanding federal-state balance of power and sow chaos, when the only court to consider the law concluded that it is likely unconstitutional,” Sotomayor wrote.

more
https://thehill.com/campaign-issues/immigration/4542757-sow-chaos-sotomayor-chastises-supreme-court-for-allowing-texas-law-to-stand/

[Hoodat]

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson objected to the decision.

The usual suspects I see.

I will cut Kagan some slack here.  Her dissent at least was built on precedence, making reference to Nken v. Holder (2009) and satisfying the four-factor test set that Barrett outlined in her opinion.  Kagan and Barrett had disagreement.   But that disagreement was based on solid legal foundation which Kagan was able to cover in a single page.

But the same cannot be said for Sotomayor.  Her opinion had zero basis in law or precedent.  She rambled on for ten pages offering a political argument which outlined her opinions on hypotheticals that had no connection to the case at hand.   She offered idiocies such as how difficult this would be on the Mexican government if they had to go through the Texas government to inquire on the safety and welfare of its citizens who entered the US illegally.

The incompetence permeating throughout her dissent is a sight to behold.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24487735-23a814-and-23a815-march-19

As for Jackson, she had a choice of joining Kagan or Sotomayor.   She chose poorly.

[Hoodat]

In her dissent, Sotomayor warned that, in allowing this highly controversial law to take effect without first carefully considering its constitutionality

A point which Sotomayor utterly failed to consider at any point in her dissent.

“The Court gives a green light to a law that will upend the longstanding federal-state balance of power and sow chaos, when the only court to consider the law concluded that it is likely unconstitutional,” Sotomayor wrote.

This here is a perfect example of the liberal fascist horseshit that I am talking about.  "Upend the balance of power".  "Sow chaos".  "The law is likely unconstitutional."

Likely?  Based on what?  Didn't she learn anything in law school?  Someone on a high school debate team knows better than offer up this crap.  If it is "likely unconstitutional", then make your case.  She wasted ten pages, and this is the best it got for her.  "Likely unconstitutional".  Not because of anything the Constitution says.  But because of her desire to poison it.