SCOTUS Allows Feds To Remove Wire Along Border, Deferring Showdown With Texas - TPM – Talking Points Memo

[dr_coyote]

@sniffit

Then hurry the fuck up! hahaha

Feel free to relocate and lend a hand.

[sniffit]

@lestatdelc

Ah yes, the “originalist” on the corrupt court, spitting in the face of the plain text of the Constitution and over 234 years of precedent.

The Supremacy Clause was voided on November 4, 2008 when it was proven that superior/supreme race was no longer guaranteed control over the federal government, because that’s what they intended in 1787.

[hornblower]

4 women and the Chief. Don’t think that doesn’t matter.

[dangoodbar]

The problem is she is currently leading in the polls to win the Arizona Republican nomination for the US Senate.

However, it is hard not to agree with your comments which has good news in that it rules out Jodi Ernst but bad news because everything you say points to Kristi Noem.

[dryheat]

@txlawyer

Just because Congress has legislated in an area does not automatically mean that the states are prohibited from acting in that same area.

This dispute does not really involve the Supremacy Clause.

DOJ seems pretty certain that this dispute involves the Supremacy Clause.

In fact, the government’s very first argument in its application to vacate the injunction at the Supreme Court is based directly on the Supremacy Clause:

Federal law unambiguously grants Border Patrol agents the authority, without a warrant, to access private land within 25 miles of the international border… as well as to “interrogate” and “arrest” anyone “who in [their] presence or view is entering or attempting to enter the United States in violation of any law” and is likely to abscond…
…
Under the Supremacy Clause, state law cannot be applied to restrain those federal agents from carrying out their federally authorized activities.

[rickjones]

Does this mean that Texas is still part of the United States?

[brutus1910]

@voreason

I have no idea what happens next.

Yes, you do. Bloodshed of Americans killing Americans because of the misguided philosophy of “state’s rights.” Sound familiar?

[txlawyer]

It’s an implied preemption case. If federal immigration law impliedly preempts state immigration law and enforcement, the Supremacy Clause automatically overrides the state. If federal immigration law does not impliedly preempt state immigration law and enforcement, the Supremacy Clause has no application.

So the Supremacy Clause isn’t the issue. The issue is implied preemption.

[brutus1910]

@ClutchCargo

but they still have concertina hands .

Must be a pretty small accordion for those tiny hands.

[kentford]

Not if this buffoon can help it:

https://twitter.com/RepClayHiggins/status/1749537832564056197

[globalguy]

@dr_coyote

I’m in TX

@dr_coyote

Fuck that noise.

Do you and @txlawyer coordinate your outfits too?

[trustywoods]

LOL yes the Feds are staging a civil war! I feel sorry for what ever family that half full bucket has.

[globalguy]

@commanderogg

But Barrett the Hand Maiden siding with the Government? What is her motivation?

Compelling blue states along our northern border to enforce the 2025 Fugitive Uterus Act.

[brian512]

@demosthenes59

I wouldn’t be in the least surprised if the feckless timid AG Merrick Garland advised President Biden to use the courts to reassert federal control of the border.

So it’s a bad thing now if the Department of Justice seeks to use the court system?

ISTG, it’s getting harder and harder to tell if there was supposed to be a “/s” there or not.

[brian512]

And in the “strange historical resonance” department…

Fence Cutting Wars

[mike_in_houston]

@txlawyer

Four justices of the Supreme Court apparently do not think that federal immigration law impliedly preempts state enforcement of immigration law.

Just because Congress has legislated in an area does not automatically mean that the states are prohibited from acting in that same area.

This dispute does not really involve the Supremacy Clause.

I’ll take Bad Legal Takes for $100, Alex.

[mike_in_houston]

Never going to happen.

He will never get someone more telegenic than himself.

[george_c]

@dangoodbar

When I read the story that was my thought, that the big news is 4 Supreme Court Justices think that individual states can set border and immigration policy

I actually think it’s worse than that. They’re not saying states can pre-empt federal authority, they’re saying Democrats are on the losing end of these disputes. Recall the 2018 budget that explicitly precluded Trump from using any federal funds to “build a wall”. When he ignored that statute, the Supremes thought of a work-around anyway and let him move forward.

Wise move on their part not dissenting: their logic would have been grounds for impeachment.

[george_c]

@txlawyer

Just because Congress has legislated in an area does not automatically mean that the states are prohibited from acting in that same area.

Well, I don’t think Texas has the authority to prevent a Mexican citizen from proceeding through the airport in Houston or Dallas. Or, for that matter, to exempt Texans from paying federal income taxes.

[txlawyer]

@mike_in_houston

I’ll take Bad Legal Takes for $100, Alex.

And you’ll be wrong. Send the money to Colin Allred.

ETA: The Constitution is the Baseball Rulebook. The Supremacy clause is Chapter 5, “Playing the Game,” which never bothers to get around to explaining what kind of pitch counts as a strike. Implied preemption is like the “Strike Zone,” which is buried in the Definitions, only the term “implied preemption” is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution and you can only find its definition in the case law.

Everybody agrees a strike is a strike. The question is what is the strike zone.