"The Supreme Court"

[Looking Glass]

This is a Disgrace and the Liberal Trash, is In for the Long Haul affecting our lives. The Only Bright Spot, Texas Gov. said this is NOT Over, and His Citizen's Safety is his #1 Priority if "Brandon" and the Supreme Court expect him to "Roll Over and Comply easily, 'Dream On"

Something is going to get Nasty here, and rightfully So!!

 

[sprintcvx]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1749515511279575115

 

[Luvnlife]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1749515511279575115

BlahBlahBlah

 

[sprintcvx]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1749611279860285816

 

[Looking Glass]

Roberts AND Amy Barrett, "FLIPPED". Trump helped her, only to get "Shit On"

 

[Doc]

Why should Abbot listen to the SC Biden didn't and nothing happened. Let him keep doing what he's doing.

 

[530RL]

Why should Abbot listen to the SC Biden didn't and nothing happened. Let him keep doing what he's doing.

That is where ACB and Roberts may have thought this through more thoroughly than the others.

If the SC would have ruled that a state has supremacy over federal law in immigration matters, then when Trump wins in 24 and attempts to close the border, blue states such as California, Arizona and New Mexico would have the legal precedent to tell Trump's federal government to go pound sand, they will leave the border as they so choose.

Probably not a precedent that is favorable to addressing the border issue.

 

[LazyLavey]

good point.

 

[Sandlord]

It’s not really that big of deal.
The Supreme Court ruling was that Texas can’t stop the feds from removing the razor wire if it blocks Federal agents from doing their job.

The immediate issue before the Supreme Court is not whether Texas is allowed to construct such a barrier against the wishes of the federal government, which is itself a doubtful proposition. The Supreme Court has long held that “the supremacy of the national power in the general field of foreign affairs, including power over immigration, naturalization and deportation, is made clear by the Constitution.”

Rather, the question in the Texas case is whether the state of Texas may obtain a court order forbidding federal agents from cutting the razor wire barriers when they need to do so in order to perform their official duties. In at least one instance, according to the Justice Department, an agent “saw an ‘unconscious subject floating on top of the water,’ but was ‘unable to retrieve or render aid to the subject due to the concertina wire barrier placed along the riverbank.’”

 

[Sandlord]

Texas can’t stop the feds from cutting the wire,
But the Feds can’t stop Texans from putting the wire out there either.

 

[Doc]

That is where ACB and Roberts may have thought this through more thoroughly than the others.

If the SC would have ruled that a state has supremacy over federal law in immigration matters, then when Trump wins in 24 and attempts to close the border, blue states such as California, Arizona and New Mexico would have the legal precedent to tell Trump's federal government to go pound sand, they will leave the border as they so choose.

Probably not a precedent that is favorable to addressing the border issue.

I see what you are saying but we have an serious issue here. The SC turned over Roe v. Wade and basically did what you just said, gave the power back to the states to choose. So when it comes to abortions the SC believes it's a state issue but when it comes to border security it's a Federal issue, oh ok. The administration has literally opened the flood gates at the borders not just bringing in people looking for asylum but known terrorist. They identified a man that was talking telling the person videoing people will know who he is soon. He was identified as Movsum Samadov a convicted terrorist. I doubt he's the only one that has slipped in the states.

So while the democrats have been letting in millions of people to garnish votes like I have been saying for years in here they are also letting in people that want to destroy this nation. I believe I have also said in the past that no country has the balls to show up to our coasts and actually invade us, they have to do it within and stealth. That exactly what is happening at this point.

 

[LargeOrangeFont]

I see what you are saying but we have an serious issue here. The SC turned over Roe v. Wade and basically did what you just said, gave the power back to the states to choose. So when it comes to abortions the SC believes it's a state issue but when it comes to border security it's a Federal issue, oh ok. The administration has literally opened the flood gates at the borders not just bringing in people looking for asylum but known terrorist. They identified a man that was talking telling the person videoing people will know who he is soon. He was identified as Movsum Samadov a convicted terrorist. I doubt he's the only one that has slipped in the states.

So while the democrats have been letting in millions of people to garnish votes like I have been saying for years in here they are also letting in people that want to destroy this nation. I believe I have also said in the past that no country has the balls to show up to our coasts and actually invade us, they have to do it within and stealth. That exactly what is happening at this point.

Abortion is not in the Constitution. Immigration is in the Constitution. That is the difference.

 

[530RL]

I see what you are saying but we have an serious issue here. The SC turned over Roe v. Wade and basically did what you just said, gave the power back to the states to choose. So when it comes to abortions the SC believes it's a state issue but when it comes to border security it's a Federal issue, oh ok. The administration has literally opened the flood gates at the borders not just bringing in people looking for asylum but known terrorist. They identified a man that was talking telling the person videoing people will know who he is soon. He was identified as Movsum Samadov a convicted terrorist. I doubt he's the only one that has slipped in the states.

So while the democrats have been letting in millions of people to garnish votes like I have been saying for years in here they are also letting in people that want to destroy this nation. I believe I have also said in the past that no country has the balls to show up to our coasts and actually invade us, they have to do it within and stealth. That exactly what is happening at this point.

That’s because the constitution specifically states protecting the border is the federal governments job. It doesn’t say anything about abortion being reserved to the federal government.

The courts job is to call balls and strikes not create or enforce legislation or policy. That is the job of the legislative and executive branches. And in both cases of abortion and the border they have been pretty consistent calling balls and strikes.

The problem lies at the feet of the legislative and executive branches of the federal government, not the SC.

 

[LazyLavey]

Saw the vid of the border agents removing the wire. A stream of illegals waiting and then being helped in by the agents....

Sickening

 

[Doc]

Saw the vid of the border agents removing the wire. A stream of illegals waiting and then being helped in by the agents....

Sickening

Oh bad things are definitely going to happen here in the next few years with who they are letting in. If Trump somehow manages to win the media and the left will me screaming that it's his fault. The truth is if people lose their lives because of terrorist attack the blood will be on the lefts hands and all who support them.

 

[LazyLavey]

The border patrol looked like a welcome wagon........physically helping the illegals maneuver through the razor ribbon

 

[rcmike]

That’s because the constitution specifically states protecting the border is the federal governments job. It doesn’t say anything about abortion being reserved to the federal government.

The courts job is to call balls and strikes not create or enforce legislation or policy. That is the job of the legislative and executive branches. And in both cases of abortion and the border they have been pretty consistent calling balls and strikes.

The problem lies at the feet of the legislative and executive branches of the federal government, not the SC.

and this right here is where your entire argument falls apart.

Abbott has said that he has no problem with people entering his state 'in accordance with federal laws.'

Crossing through the river and up an embankment is not in accordance with federal law.

Texas passed a law making it illegal to enter Texas in a manner that is not legal per federal law. That was not Texas taking over the border, or trying to claim supremacy. That is Texas saying that the federal law is clear, and what is legal is legal, and what is not is not.

The argument now is whether the administrative state has the right to ignore the law, and intentionally aid and abet others in violations of federal law, to include human trafficking, drug trafficking, trafficking of minors over international borders for sex acts, etc. and if they can do all of that without any protections against prosecution that come from the constitution. We know that if Biden himself got in the telehandler himself and lifted the wire for the illegal entry, he would need to be impeached and convicted before he could be prosecuted. That protection does not extend to low level flunkies.

Your argument is that a state could prevent the feds from enforcement of federal law. That would be illegal. Of course this is happening now, across the country. All these sanctuary cities and states are doing this.

One is choosing to demand that the federal government enforce federal law. One is choosing to demand that the federal government ignore federal law. they are not the same, and your argument that they somehow are is complete bullshit.

 

[530RL]

and this right here is where your entire argument falls apart.

Abbott has said that he has no problem with people entering his state 'in accordance with federal laws.'

Crossing through the river and up an embankment is not in accordance with federal law.

Texas passed a law making it illegal to enter Texas in a manner that is not legal per federal law. That was not Texas taking over the border, or trying to claim supremacy. That is Texas saying that the federal law is clear, and what is legal is legal, and what is not is not.

The argument now is whether the administrative state has the right to ignore the law, and intentionally aid and abet others in violations of federal law, to include human trafficking, drug trafficking, trafficking of minors over international borders for sex acts, etc. and if they can do all of that without any protections against prosecution that come from the constitution. We know that if Biden himself got in the telehandler himself and lifted the wire for the illegal entry, he would need to be impeached and convicted before he could be prosecuted. That protection does not extend to low level flunkies.

Your argument is that a state could prevent the feds from enforcement of federal law. That would be illegal. Of course this is happening now, across the country. All these sanctuary cities and states are doing this.

One is choosing to demand that the federal government enforce federal law. One is choosing to demand that the federal government ignore federal law. they are not the same, and your argument that they somehow are is complete bullshit.

If one crosses the border and presents themselves for asylum, their presence in the country becomes legal under the asylum laws.

That is why I continually argue that the Asylum laws need to be changed, but the MAGA folks think such language is totally fine.

I don't get why they want this cluster fuck to continue? But it is what it is.

 

[rcmike]

Incorrect. The crossing is still illegal. The person who crossed is entitled to a hearing to determine if they are entitled to asylum before removal.

 

[Racey]

If one crosses the border and presents themselves for asylum, their presence in the country becomes legal under the asylum laws.

That is why I continually argue that the Asylum laws need to be changed, but the MAGA folks think such language is totally fine.

I don't get why they want this cluster fuck to continue? But it is what it is.

You keep arguing that but never actually say how a law change can fix anything.

Asylum by it's very nature is open to subjective interpretation. If you have government actors unwilling to engage from a fundamental truth there is no amount of law changes that will fix this problem

You are engaging in political campaign speak. all talk, no action.

 

[530RL]

Incorrect. The crossing is still illegal. The person who crossed is entitled to a hearing to determine if they are entitled to asylum before removal.

LOL

Once again, why do you MAGA folks approve of such a law and why do you want to keep it as opposed to changing it.

Seems to me like a solution to the problem may take away something you can run on. It is about MAGA party members personal gain of power, as opposed the the greater good of America.

That's very clear.

 

[4Waters]

Incorrect. The crossing is still illegal. The person who crossed is entitled to a hearing to determine if they are entitled to asylum before removal.

Yeah, I'm sure they will show up for that hearing, it's already in the calendar on their obama phones

 

[rcmike]

Your lies are silly. I don't know of any MAGA person who thinks this asylum law as it exists is a good idea. You seem to think it somehow makes illegal entry legal. Again, that's false.

I believe that almost all asylum claims should be handled at the border with a simple no.

but your claim that asylum entitles someone to decades in the country without a hearing and then no removal after asylum is denied is absurd, and wrong. It is another example of you deciding that the Biden administration's wilful disregard for federal law is actual law. It is much like DACA. Fully illegal, made up out of thin air by a president who knew it was illegal, and yet somehow celebrated by an executive country club class who wanted cheap labor for their fast food chains..

 

[530RL]

Your lies are silly. I don't know of any MAGA person who thinks this asylum law as it exists is a good idea. You seem to think it somehow makes illegal entry legal. Again, that's false.

I believe that almost all asylum claims should be handled at the border with a simple no.

but your claim that asylum entitles someone to decades in the country without a hearing and then no removal after asylum is denied is absurd, and wrong. It is another example of you deciding that the Biden administration's wilful disregard for federal law is actual law. It is much like DACA. Fully illegal, made up out of thin air by a president who knew it was illegal, and yet somehow celebrated by an executive country club class who wanted cheap labor for their fast food chains..

That’s not my claim. But if that is what you have to believe in order to deal with the millions coming across the border so be it.

You’re just hurting yourself and America with your refusal to read the law and address the flaws in it.

 

[SNiC Jet]

Common sense for most.....everything else is simply Liberal noise ​

​

Musk hits out at Biden’s call for border deal: ‘No laws need to be passed’​

'All that is needed is an executive order to require proof before granting an asylum hearing, that is how it used to be,' Musk wrote

You don't need new funding or laws. You enforce the ones that are already on the books.

 

[4Waters]

Common sense for most.....everything else is simply Liberal noise ​

​

Musk hits out at Biden’s call for border deal: ‘No laws need to be passed’​

'All that is needed is an executive order to require proof before granting an asylum hearing, that is how it used to be,' Musk wrote

You don't need new funding or laws. You enforce the ones that are already on the books.

More laws and new laws while existing laws aren't enforced and bigger government is what the democrats and our only "conservative" 530 support

 

[Wedgy]

More laws and new laws while existing laws aren't enforced and bigger government is what the democrats and our only "conservative" 530 support

That and taking on big black cocks just as far as he can gooble and spread. They call him Boy Double Bubbles...