• Snot Flickerman
    link
    fedilink
    English
    99
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    No one provided any explantion for their vote.

    USA, the country where everything’s made up and the legal justifications don’t matter.

    • Omega
      link
      fedilink
      831 year ago

      Border control is literally federal jurisdiction. It’s weird that they didn’t just say that.

      • Nougat
        link
        fedilink
        551 year ago

        5-4 vote, I wonder what the four’s reasoning was.

        • FuglyDuck
          link
          fedilink
          English
          311 year ago

          Partisanship. pure and simple.

          the five voted- appropriately- as the supremacy clause has already answered the question.

          • Kool_Newt
            link
            fedilink
            English
            281 year ago

            They’re extremely consistent in their actual reasons. It’s their stated reasons that vary depending on their political needs.

          • Nougat
            link
            fedilink
            41 year ago

            No one provided any explantion for their vote.

            • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】
              link
              fedilink
              8
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              This story is about the Supreme Court’s en banc decision on the application for certiorari, on appeal from the court below which I believe was the Fifth Circuit. The Fifth Circuit tossed the district court’s order finding in favor of Texas. The denial of certiorari is the explanation, it means they agree with the reasoning and analysis of the Fifth Circuit. It’s very rare for a denial of certiorari to have any commentary.

              • Nougat
                link
                fedilink
                11 year ago

                Ohhh the lower court. “Court below” kind of threw me.

                Still, the SCOTUS vote on cert was 5-4 against. Four of them voted for cert, and while that was not the thing I was initially asking about, I do wonder about why they did.

    • The court below provided the justification when it vacated the district court’s ruling. Denying certiorari as in this order is the court saying they agree with how the lower court resolved the appeal.

    • @Doorbook@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      31 year ago

      Heard in news “it is inhumane” while the governments assisting Israel building a wall around gaza and commiting genocide.

  • @reddig33@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    571 year ago

    From NBC:

    “The brief order noted that four conservative members of the nine-justice court would have rejected the government’s request. They were Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Samuel Alito, Justice Neil Gorsuch and Justice Brett Kavanaugh.”

    • @Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      431 year ago

      This is literally settled shit since the Civil War. They’re trying to bring back state law supremacy. Which led to… The fucking civil war.

              • El Barto
                link
                fedilink
                11 year ago

                I don’t think they can just turn on them bombs without some sort of electronic approval from the feds.

                • @PRUSSIA_x86@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  11 year ago

                  They require presidential authority to launch, but the physical operation of the weapons themselves is wholly independent. This allows for things like retaliatory strikes in case leadership is killed or can’t be reached immediately following an attack. This also makes them vulnerable however, if the people overseeing these weapons and the states they’re housed in become compromised by extremist ideologies.

    • @stoly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      201 year ago

      The SCOTUS has been filled with scumbags since day one, very seriously. They literally caused the civil war and prolonged the great depression. They also gutted the 13th and 14th amendments while deciding that people are militias.

    • @frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      8
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It’s an institution that only exists because the other two branches listen. It doesn’t have an army or a police force. Even the Marshals technically operate under the Executive branch. If the Legislature and Executive branches both decided to ignore them, then Roberts could whine a bunch, but nothing would happen.

      It’s there because of respect built over two centuries and then some. They seem determined to throw it away.

      • Nah the litigants can apply to lower courts for affirmative relief in compliance with the higher court’s orders and the judges can issues writs of mandamus to any proper officer requiring the officer to do a thing, the failure of which is remedied by a writ of capias, which is a judicial arrest warrant. Would have to be a whole hell of a lot of local judges, cops, marshals, lawyers, clerks, administrators, etc., who would have to ignore it, before nobody ends up in jail or has their assets seized.

        • Yeah but if the legislative branch doesn’t fund it and the executive branch doesn’t enforce it, then as my granpappy always said: “a writ ain’t worth a shit.” Lower courts, judges, lawyers, clerks, police, Marshalls, and even administrators notwithstanding.

        • @Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          31 year ago

          Well they’re about to decide they get to set regulations, not agencies. So that’s going to be fun and not at all a giant overreach for power.

  • andrew_bidlaw
    link
    fedilink
    141 year ago

    Supreme court allows federal agents to cut razor wire Texas

    installed on US-Mexico border

    Uninstall.exe