Posted on 08/03/2016 1:54:30 PM PDT by Elderberry
AUSTIN – Attorney General Ken Paxton yesterday filed a brief with the U.S. District Court opposing a request by three University of Texas professors for a preliminary injunction to block Texas’ new campus carry law that went into effect on August 1.
“It is a frivolous lawsuit and I’m confident it will be dismissed because the Legislature passed a constitutionally-sound law,” Attorney General Paxton said. “There is no legal justification to deny licensed, law-abiding citizens on campus the same measure of personal protection they are entitled to elsewhere in Texas.”
And Ken you just rolled on the voter id law that was also a solid law that was constitutional.
https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/files/epress/Response_to_PI_Motion_-_FILED.pdf
a request by three University of Texas professors for a preliminary injunction to block Texas’ new campus carry law
What the bozo should have said is:
Because of this Conflict of Interest between the legislature and the University they FUND, All Funding will STOP IMMEDIATELY until Final Disposition of this case.
Sounds to me like a fine entry into a Cruz challenge.
This is pretty splashy news for all those self righteous Cruzers who purported to be “strict” constitutionalists.
Only because they CANNOT READ:
From Judge Moore,
A recent detailed study of the courts of all 50 states and the District of Columbia determined that 46 states and the District of Columbia adopt the position that the precedents of lower federal courts are not binding in their jurisdictions. Wayne A. Logan, A House Divided: When State and Lower Federal Courts Disagree on Federal Constitutional Rights, 90 Notre Dame L. Rev. 235, 280-81 (2014). The position of three other states is uncertain. Only one state (Delaware) defers to the constitutional decisions of lower federal courts. Id. At 281.
Federal courts have recognized that state-court review of constitutional questions is independent of the same authority lodged in the lower federal courts. “In passing on federal constitutional questions, the state courts and the lower federal courts have the same responsibility and occupy the same position; there is a parallelism but not paramountcy for both sets of courts are governed by the same reviewing authority of the Supreme Court.” United States ex rel.Lawrence v. Woods, 432 F.2d 1072, 1075 (7th Cir. 1970).
Although consistency between state and federal courts is desirable in that it promotes respect for the law and prevents litigants from forum-shopping, there is nothing inherently offensive about two sovereigns reaching different legal conclusions. Indeed, such results were contemplated by our federal system, and neither sovereign is required to, nor expected to, yield to the other.
Surrick v. Killion, 449 F. 3d 520, 535 (3rd Cir. 2006).
The United States Supreme Court has acknowledged that state courts “possess the authority, absent a provision for exclusive federal jurisdiction, to render binding judicial decisions that rest on their own interpretations of federal law.” Asarco Inc. v. Kadish, 490 U.S. 605, 617 (1989). Two justices of the United States Supreme Court in special writings have elaborated on this principle.
The Supremacy Clause demands that state law yield to federal law, but neither federal supremacy nor any other principle of federal law requires that a state court’s interpretation of federal law give way to a (lower) federal court’s interpretation. In our federal system, a state trial court’s interpretation of federal law is no less authoritative than that of the federal court of appeals in whose circuit the trial court is located.
Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364, 375-76 (1993) (Thomas, J., concurring). See also Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 482, n. 3 (1974) (Rehnquist, J., concurring) (noting that a lower- federal-court decision “would not be accorded the stare decisis effect in state court that it would have in a subsequent proceeding within the same federal jurisdiction. Although the state court would not be compelled to follow the federal holding, the opinion might, of course, be viewed as highly persuasive.”).
Sounds to me like a fine entry into a Cruz challenge.
This is pretty splashy news for all those self righteous Cruzers who purported to be “strict” constitutionalists.
Paxton should RESIGN after his disgraceful surrender on voter ID. They must have MEGA dirt on him.
Leftists ALWAYS shiite on the 10th Amendment by disregarding state sovereignty and going to nanny federal government.
You took the words right out of my mouth.
That fold was shameful, I’m pissed, and unless he changes course, he can forgot about my vote in the future.
I’ve only been a Texan for 4 1/2 years, but I didn’t relocate here for this s***.
You took the words right out of my mouth.
That fold was shameful, I’m pissed, and unless he changes course, he can forgot about my vote in the future.
I’ve only been a Texan for 4 1/2 years, but I didn’t relocate here for this s***.
My apologies for the double post folks
And for the typo lol
Ok Ken, next help out the woman at UH being sentenced to a concentration camp
Sue these bastards
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.