If the States don’t have standing, who does? Is SCOTUS saying the feds are omnipotent?
This has always been the impediment to proper border enforcement - it’s completely under the power of the federal government, which is conveniently located far from the border. The border states have never had a say.
Do it anyway
There’s no precedent so let’s not make one.
Did the states go directly to SCOTUS or try in the lower courts first?
One thing they could all do is band together, take up the Tennessee lawsuit that was filed over Medicare payments, modify it and argue that bidens policies have created an unnecessary and harmful financial burden on their taxpayers.
But that ain’t gonna happen since most of the Governors and legislatures are RINOs and don’t care.
**************
How can the states not have standing when they are affected by the matter at hand?
And just like that, the US is over.
Tens of millions of Protected Class aliens will flood in uninhibited and simply lay claim to everything we have, cuz Da Soopremes said so.
I can see this.
Now, if states want to enforce what is federal law, and the feds forbid it - that is absurd (just as honestly, “sanctuary” cities etc should have the leaders arrested, as it violates fed law). That is largely what has been happening for decades.
Apparently here, the feds are sort of narrowing the definition. So states etc have no more standing to say they must be enforced.
Sounds to me like the SCOTUS assholes are saying we have no responsibility to accept foreign invaders into our state. When it comes to statelines, we have more friggin’ “STANDING” than you can shake a stick at. The Feds have no standing to tell the states how many foreign azzhos we are required to accept into our state to support and sponsor their illegal criminal azzes.
You will be invaded, your families will be preyed upon & there is nothing you can do about it.
8-1?
We still have Alito.
Aiding and abetting the dismantling of the American rule of law.
8-1 ruling. Justice Samuel Alito was the sole dissenting justice.
The real falt is the open ambiguity in the law that gives the executive too much leeway to its own interpretation. If the law was less ambiguous and spelled out less leeway for executive interpetation, that states could have argued that Biden was not “following the law”, but, as bad as it is the SCOTUS seems to be saying the horrible ICE policy is “not against the law”.
Congres is dominated by lawyers either in the elected offices or in their staffs that actually write the laws. Then those lawayers are dominated by Progressives and Leftists that want a strong executive, not a strong Congress, and they write the laws that leave so much to executive interpretation. Thwy are the arhitects of the administrative state regardless of the fact that they are elected to be the “democratic branch of government representing the people”.
An Invasion is not Migration
How did they get this wrong? Literally, one of the few roles of the federal government is to protect our borders...no?
Another way to look at this, Biden owns the issue of our swamped open border more than he might like.
Article 4 Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution states: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.
I want to learn more about this case, and the specific legal issues involved.
Clearly this case did not have a liberal/conservative split in the vote, because even most conservatives voted for this.
Bump
The decision was 8-1, even Thomas sided with the majority.