133
White House criticizes supreme court for allowing ‘harmful’ Texas migrant law
(www.theguardian.com)
Send in the National Gaurd....to the Supreme Court.
this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2024
133 points (97.8% liked)
politics
19563 readers
4431 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Better, federalise the Texas National Guard and order it to surround the Supreme Court building.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The White House press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, said: “We fundamentally disagree with the supreme court’s order allowing Texas’s harmful and unconstitutional law to go into effect.
“Texas passed a law that directly regulates the entry and removal of non-citizens and explicitly instructs its state courts to disregard any ongoing federal immigration proceedings,” said the dissent, written by Sotomayor.
That year, the court struck down parts of an Arizona law that would have allowed police to arrest people for federal immigration violations and was referred to by opponents as a “show me your papers” bill, given the leeway it gave officers to determine who they approached.
This year, on 29 February, a Texas US district judge, David Ezra, preliminarily blocked SB4, saying it “threatens the fundamental notion that the United States must regulate immigration with one voice”.
Gilberto Hinojosa, chair of the Texas Democratic party, countered that SB4 “isn’t about community safety – it’s about enabling [law enforcement] to target neighbourhoods and imprison people for the sake of Fox News headlines.
Sawyer Hackett, an adviser to Julián Castro – a former mayor of San Antonio and candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination – lamented an “incredible” in favour of a “blatantly unconstitutional ‘show me your papers’ law.
The original article contains 1,046 words, the summary contains 206 words. Saved 80%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
I'm a Latino Canadian, looks like I'm gonna avoid those states like the plague. Fuck that nonsense.
Wasn't J'Biden the chair of the judiciary committee for the nomination of a couple of those clowns?