JohnBoy . Do the âleftâ thing.
Massachusetts v. Mellon is the case Breyer cited. It stands for the principal that to âinvoke the judicial power to disregard a statute as unconstitutional, the party who assails it must show not only that the statute is invalid, but that he has sustained, or is immediately in danger of sustaining, some direct injury as a result of its enforcement, and not merely that he suffers in some indefinite way in common with people generally.â This means a party has to show it has sustained or is in immediate danger of sustaining real damage.
Robertâs chucks that case out the window at the peril of all of us. It would turn the Supreme Court in to a sort of an unelected super legislature.
Of course, Texas is being totally hypocritical (surprise). If the Federal Government stepped up the enforcement of deportation, the construction industry in Texas would grind to a halt. The Feds could call Texasâ bluff and conduct workplace raids. Then you would hear real squealingâŚ
Thatâs what the Courts been for some time. Can you reason Citizens United? No one can. Bush v Gore? the same. The Courts been a clearing house for GOPâer crap for a long time. Ill bet Roberts gives the GOP what it wants.
The amount of money they lose issuing drivers licenses â for a fee â gives them standing. Whew. Looking at other cases that have been dismissed for lack of standing, uh.
This article mentions both âdrivers licensesâ and âdriverâs licenses.â Itâs actually a âdriver license.â
Just saying.
God, I hope you are wrong, but I am afraid you are right.
Texas is arguing that it is allowed to sue the feds over the immigration policy because it will cost the state money to issue drivers licenses to the immigrants covered by Obamaâs actions.
Texas would face the same expense if these immigrants became naturalized citizens. It would face the same expense if U.S. citizens moved to Texas from another state. So should Texas be allowed to block naturalization? Should Texas be allowed to turn away moving vans at the border? What a ridiculous argument.
âWhether the immigration actions violated the Constitution â a question the Court signaled it was interested in when it added it to its briefing requests â was not addressed at all during the arguments.â
Maybe that question died with ASS.
A shocking thought - some of the thousands of american skilled tradespersons could get jobs instead of getting undercut by illegals operating without insurance or licenses. And that Union labor might have a chance in TX again, instead of getting underbid by a tidal wave of illegals. A stunning thought for some here, of course, but having a provision that would actually favor American workers in America. Wow, that is stunning. The Democratic Party position has, since Prop 187, been that they prefer to help illegals instead of American workers. One strong reason why the WWC AND the BWC are going away from the D party.
Not in Michigan, sorry.
I agree, if theyâre here they should be required to get driverâs licenses and if theyâre going to work construction they should be required to get the appropriate licenses. They should also be required to pay federal income and payroll taxes.
Well, this is where the right wing circles back and agrees with the left wing. Even if they wonât admit it. The business establishment has always been in favor of immigration (legal or otherwise) because it suppresses wages and labor. The phrase has always been âImmigrants will do the jobs that Americans will not doâ. The phrase has always been incomplete. You need to add âat the wages we are willing to payâ.
That is the case, and there is also the economic truths which are simply ignored by Democrats, or considered as irrelevant. The increase in supply produces a decrease in demand. Your ability to command high wages is a strict function of the ability to exclude others from the workforce. This is why Cesar Chavez had the UFW (an American farm workers union) wait along the border and beat the crap out of the âwetbacksâ (the term Chavez used; you can look it up). This notion that it is all the employer and that the illegals are not responsible for part of the problem is similarly wrong. The employer needs to be monitored, sanctioned, and fined using e-Verify (this is going up for votes in TN and OR). The employees are not helpless innocents. They are here to get jobs, and the jobs come from American workers. Zero-sum.
I wondered about that too being used to claim damages. Donât the fees charged to issue licenses cover the administrative costs?
I like what you did there.
What a false argument. These criminals are not going to be naturalized. If the administration prevails, they are simply not going to be deported. Not even Obama has attempted to circumvent the law to the extent of naturalizing these folks by regal fiat.
Surely the Guys and Gals in white hats can scam some Sagesbrushistan Governor in the 9th Circuit into a similar lawsuit. The Ninth will then have a contradictory ruling (ideally clear and radical), to be decided (against whatever mealy-mouthed excuses Vanilla Roberts gives for changing his mind this time) once a majority is seated in the USSOC.
Arizonaâs Governor Ducey, with possibly tangential involvement in franchise skulldudgery around his Coldstone atrocity-of-a-business, might be just the ticket. Some Right Winger with delusions of intelligence.
I would look, more likely, to Judge Kennedy to be prudent, and protect the powers that Nixon, Reagan, and Bush enjoyed so much.
Roberts is, as his partyâs most likely standardbearer would say, a Hyuge Lo-o-o-ser. Kennedy is just pissed off at the foolishness of his gang.
Have you noticed that those illegals are being hired by American construction companies? Do you think the companies are charging less for illegals than for American craftsmen? Who is really pocketing the profits generated by the illegals. By the way, many of those illegals are just as skilled as the Americans they are displacing.