SCOTUS allows TX to deport illegals
| orange 180 parlour | 03/19/24 | | Transparent contagious milk juggernaut | 03/19/24 | | Garnet chest-beating school toilet seat | 03/19/24 | | orange 180 parlour | 03/19/24 | | citrine beady-eyed voyeur bbw | 03/19/24 | | orange 180 parlour | 03/19/24 | | citrine beady-eyed voyeur bbw | 03/19/24 | | orange 180 parlour | 03/19/24 | | Demanding Lake Halford | 03/19/24 | | orange 180 parlour | 03/19/24 | | Demanding Lake Halford | 03/19/24 | | orange 180 parlour | 03/19/24 | | Demanding Lake Halford | 03/19/24 | | Cracking gunner | 03/19/24 | | Obsidian bawdyhouse cuckoldry | 03/19/24 | | Demanding Lake Halford | 03/19/24 | | Obsidian bawdyhouse cuckoldry | 03/19/24 | | Marvelous naked goal in life | 03/19/24 | | Obsidian bawdyhouse cuckoldry | 03/19/24 | | Sapphire Range Roast Beef | 03/25/24 | | Bisexual indian lodge | 03/19/24 | | orange 180 parlour | 03/19/24 | | Obsidian bawdyhouse cuckoldry | 03/19/24 | | sable turdskin | 03/19/24 | | Transparent contagious milk juggernaut | 03/19/24 | | sable turdskin | 03/19/24 | | citrine beady-eyed voyeur bbw | 03/19/24 | | Transparent contagious milk juggernaut | 03/19/24 | | sable turdskin | 03/19/24 | | citrine beady-eyed voyeur bbw | 03/19/24 | | sable turdskin | 03/19/24 | | rebellious goyim | 03/19/24 | | Bisexual indian lodge | 03/19/24 | | sable turdskin | 03/19/24 | | avocado floppy useless brakes | 03/19/24 | | sable turdskin | 03/19/24 | | avocado floppy useless brakes | 03/19/24 | | sable turdskin | 03/19/24 | | avocado floppy useless brakes | 03/19/24 | | sable turdskin | 03/19/24 | | avocado floppy useless brakes | 03/19/24 | | Bisexual indian lodge | 03/19/24 | | avocado floppy useless brakes | 03/19/24 | | sable turdskin | 03/19/24 | | Bisexual indian lodge | 03/19/24 | | sable turdskin | 03/19/24 | | Bisexual indian lodge | 03/19/24 | | sable turdskin | 03/19/24 | | Bisexual indian lodge | 03/19/24 | | sable turdskin | 03/19/24 | | Transparent contagious milk juggernaut | 03/19/24 | | sable turdskin | 03/19/24 | | Transparent contagious milk juggernaut | 03/19/24 | | sable turdskin | 03/19/24 | | bat shit crazy rambunctious senate | 03/19/24 | | purple doobsian hairy legs death wish | 03/19/24 | | Transparent contagious milk juggernaut | 03/19/24 | | aqua buck-toothed liquid oxygen | 03/19/24 | | aqua buck-toothed liquid oxygen | 03/19/24 | | sable turdskin | 03/19/24 | | big-titted marketing idea | 03/19/24 | | vivacious coldplay fan | 03/19/24 | | vibrant tan lay keepsake machete | 03/19/24 | | Garnet chest-beating school toilet seat | 03/19/24 | | bat shit crazy rambunctious senate | 03/19/24 | | ruby chapel | 03/19/24 | | Demanding Lake Halford | 03/19/24 | | ruby chapel | 03/19/24 | | Plum gaped pisswyrm legend | 03/19/24 | | bat shit crazy rambunctious senate | 03/19/24 | | Big rehab dingle berry | 03/19/24 | | Hairraiser copper heaven selfie | 03/19/24 | | green vigorous pocket flask | 03/19/24 | | razzmatazz gold spot | 03/19/24 | | umber stimulating plaza | 03/19/24 | | mauve wonderful coffee pot | 03/19/24 | | racy abode | 03/19/24 | | Pearl set legal warrant | 03/19/24 | | Turquoise Titillating Incel | 03/19/24 | | razzmatazz gold spot | 03/19/24 | | mauve wonderful coffee pot | 03/19/24 | | sable turdskin | 03/19/24 | | Demanding Lake Halford | 03/19/24 | | sable turdskin | 03/19/24 | | Demanding Lake Halford | 03/19/24 | | Cracking gunner | 03/19/24 | | Amethyst Elite Sneaky Criminal | 03/19/24 | | zombie-like home athletic conference | 03/19/24 | | brass meetinghouse jap | 03/19/24 | | ruby chapel | 03/19/24 | | Adulterous bull headed mad cow disease | 03/19/24 | | brass meetinghouse jap | 03/19/24 | | umber stimulating plaza | 03/19/24 | | brass meetinghouse jap | 03/20/24 | | aqua buck-toothed liquid oxygen | 03/20/24 | | Lavender low-t yarmulke | 03/19/24 | | aqua buck-toothed liquid oxygen | 03/20/24 | | Abusive Primrose Locale Personal Credit Line | 03/19/24 | | razzle orchestra pit dysfunction | 03/19/24 | | Plum gaped pisswyrm legend | 03/19/24 | | sable turdskin | 03/20/24 | | Lavender low-t yarmulke | 03/20/24 |
Poast new message in this thread
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 3:41 PM Author: Demanding Lake Halford
i'm just concerned about getting my HIV under control. my t cells are way low rn.
actually, i dunno. if that were to happen i'd just leave law and get some bullshit job.
i'm 45 and my wife and i have around 2m in retirement accounts, $200k and growing in crypto, house is largely paid off, college for our two kids is mostly funded through 529s, etc. so i guess i don't NEED to keep making 400-500k a year and i kinda want to get out of this in the next 10 years anyway. following the rule of thumb that index funds tend to double every 10 years, then by the time we're 65, we should have around 8 mil even if we don't save another dime toward retirement.
ideas for a job where i can make like 120-150k and kind of chill out?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47507813) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 4:01 PM Author: sable turdskin
i sympathize with texas enforcing lawful immigration policy but this is tcr. just like we can't have 50 states deciding ballot access rules, we can't have 50 states deciding immigration policy. if texas can enforce immigration law and deport people, what stops a hawaii judge from deciding that a migrant is here legally and texas needing to give full faith and credit to that decision?
(btw libs, this is called not being a retard creating an unworkable system to get to a single outcome i'd prefer. i would absolutely love for texas to send illegals back across the rio grande via canon)
although i do hope that scotus allows texas to continuing to deport illegals to other states. which is 180 as fuck. i love to see shitlib state officials talk about how immigration is our strength and *immediately* reverse course once they are bearing the cost of their policies.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47507869) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 4:33 PM Author: sable turdskin
new poaster, first day? not aware of the hawaii judge meme? this has nothing actually to do with hawaii, only that the would allow rogue partisan judges and states to reek havoc. i seem to recall california sharing a border with mexico btw.
you sound ***EXACTLY*** like shitlibs saying the colorado ballot thing was ok because ***INSURRECTION*** was self-executing. it's mind blowing.
this isn't about illegals crossing into texas borders. it's about them already here and going through the federal procedures. a state can't unilaterally determine they are being invaded and they nullify federal law. this is not a serious conlaw law argument. it's even easier argument to debunk than the insurrection shit because you can just point to the supremacy clause.
immigration law is wholly federal law. regardless of whether you think immigration law is shitty and poorly enforced (i agree) and as much as you sympathize with texas wanting to expel migrants because of that (i agree) you can't have 50 states deciding whether an invasion is happening and using that as a hook to nullify federal law.
but i am glad when shit like this happens because it serves as a nice reminder that my fellows cons can be just as unprincipled, retarded, and outcome-determinative as shitlibs.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47508005) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 4:45 PM Author: sable turdskin
before i engage with you i need you to answer these threshold questions regarding the invasion clause. this is what the invasion clause states:
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion..."
1) if a state determines it is being invaded, can it deport invaders regardless of whether the invader is currently being adjudicated by the federal system?
2) being that immigration law is federal law and enforced by the federal government, are states able to unilaterally determine that the federal law and enforcement is insufficient, an invasion has occurred, and because an invasion has occurred nullify federal law and enforcement with it's own policy?
3) if federal law is created that holds an invasion has not occurred, and being that federal law is supreme according to the supremacy cause, does the invasion clause permit states to supersede the supremacy clause by unilaterally holding an invasion is occurring?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47508044) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 4:55 PM Author: avocado floppy useless brakes
I agree with most of what you're saying that is probably the most accurate argument. However, just consider hypothetically that a roaming gang of foreign barbarians are wreaking havoc in Texas and the federal government declines to call it an invasion. Let's say they're on tanks and knocking down buildings and terrorizing citizens. Still, no response from Washington.
Does the supremacy clause kick in and the state just has to shrug and go, well, our hands are tied because Washington has made the call? I don't think this was in the vein of what the Framers intended. Surely, states have *some* right to defend themselves. Obviously states can arrest illegals for state crimes without federal authority. An illegal who shoots someone can still get arrested for murder. So, why can't they get arrested for being here illegally? Maybe if they have some sort of federal documentation saying they have the right to be in the United States. But if there's no record of it, they're violating state law as they would any other state law.
I believe the supremacy clause only kicks in if an immigrant has federal documentation stating that they have the right to be in the United States. Less this, states should be free to arrest them for breaking state laws. The Constitution doesn't say anywhere that people can come into the country illegally and are not subject to state law.
If they come here, they are violating federal law, period. They are in violation whether or not the federal government apprehends and deports them. At that point they are fugitive aliens who don't have any right to be here, again, irrespective of Washington's actions.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47508071) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 5:04 PM Author: sable turdskin
i see you edited that stuff in but it doesn't directly answer the threshold questions. but if you choose to answer i'd like to point out that:
>If they come here, they are violating federal law, period. They are in violation whether or not the federal government apprehends and deports them. At that point they are fugitive aliens who don't have any right to be here, again, irrespective of Washington's actions.
is absolutely circular reasoning. you're saying "they are breaking federal law regardless of what the federal law says."
if federal law and enforcement (washington) holds they aren't breaking federal law... they aren't breaking federal law. federal law isn't just what you wish it to be.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47508101) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 5:34 PM Author: Bisexual indian lodge
1) I don't know what it means to "adjudicate" an invader. What is the question being adjudicated?
2) (a) the president/administrative state act unlawfully when they violate the take care clause and they cannot decline to enforce the laws congress passes, which is the root cause of this issue. ample caselaw on all of this that you clearly haven't read; (b) the state law is not "nullifying" federal law, it is interfering with an illegal decision *not* to enforce federal law. what federal law is the administration being prevented from enforcing?
3) Maybe you should try reading the part of the supremacy clause where it says that the CONSTITUTION is supreme. also might want to read the 10th amendment, champ. federal laws passed by congress do not trump rights directly enumerated to the states by the constitution
I do not think your arguments are good, and what you describe as the "invasion" clause is incomplete. Article I Section 10 is also important. There are textual arguments stemming from the vague and limited wording of these clauses that are much stronger than where you are heading. Article I Section 8 in particular calls into question the scope of whatever power those other clauses intended to grant the states: "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions"
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47508177) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 5:58 PM Author: sable turdskin
1) whether the "invader" is legally permitted to be in the united states.
2 & 3) absolute non-answers.
and i get why you've done that because there is no way to answer my questions plainly while both a) getting to the answer you want and b) interpreting the constitution reasonably.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47508216) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 6:57 PM Author: sable turdskin
you don't have to answer "yes or no." you can qualify your answer. but you won't, because there is no way to do this with a rational interpretation of the law while getting to the result you'd like.
http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506342&mc=1&forum_id=2
just put your money where your mouth is.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47508348) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 3:54 PM Author: sable turdskin
it's just vacating a stay. we'll see what happens with the circuit court and inevitable appeal. kagan mentioned it "shouldn't matter whether it's an admin stay or stay pending appeal." it seems to me like this all might be about procedure.
knowing roberts et al i doubt this scotus is going to sign up for a state removing people from the country. i wouldn't jump to conclusions about a conservative roe until scotus reaches the merits.
also, there should be some sort of appeal to scotus where they just decide the merits right away in cases that are almost surely going to reach them anyway. all of this procedure is retarded, a waste of time, and leaves things in limbo for far too long.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47507848) |
Date: March 19th, 2024 2:53 PM Author: ruby chapel
“sow chaos”
===
lol. kinsey gaffe?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47507672) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 3:41 PM Author: sable turdskin
you were literally arguing that the fani willis stuff was bad for trump. libs are the kings of "heads we win, tails you lose" thinking. although cons aren't immune to it. but you seem to be pointing to one "side" instead of individuals.
quote someone here saying scotus ruling for texas would be a bad thing? even if it is bad for trumps election chances (it's not) most of us would still want this to happen. it's like when you fags were screeching about what a massive self-pwn overturning roe was because of the mid-terms. you guys don't get it -- we actually want this shit to happen. we want illegals out and aren't going to worry about how that might affect the future of elections. the purpose of politics is the affect policy, not to elect certain people (who, i guess, would do nothing?)
you guys don't seem to get that, which is why you never fucking do anything. which, in the grandest of ironies, is a big reason why biden is going to lose. turns out doing nothing is worse than doing something even if there are consequences for that.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47507814) |
Date: March 19th, 2024 9:45 PM Author: Lavender low-t yarmulke
Isn't this fake news?
The Supreme Court seems to be doing what it always does - hiding behind procedure and saying they're not going to rule on it until every single court below them rules on it and does their homework for them.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47508850)
|
|
Date: March 20th, 2024 7:58 PM Author: Lavender low-t yarmulke
Dumb post.
I don't think a single person did any analysis on this.
Libs who were like "omg the supreme court is so corrupt" are the ones who were owned..
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506234&forum_id=2#47511653) |
|
|