Jeez, another reasonable decision:
States can’t use the federal courts to try to force the federal government to arrest and deport more people who are in the country illegally, the Supreme Court ruled Friday.
The 8-1 decision could cut down on a flood of lawsuits recent administrations have faced from state attorneys general and governors who disagree with Washington on immigration and crime policy.
This is a decision based on standing, but it sure seems to address the merits of the case too:
The States essentially want the Federal Judiciary to order the Executive Branch to alter its arrest policy so as to make more arrests....[But] the Executive Branch—not the Judiciary—makes arrests and prosecutes offenses on behalf of the United States....That principle of enforcement discretion over arrests and prosecutions extends to the immigration context.
....The Executive Branch must prioritize its enforcement efforts. That is because the Executive Branch (i) invariably lacks the resources to arrest and prosecute every violator of every law and (ii) must constantly react and adjust to the ever-shifting public-safety and public-welfare needs of the American people....That reality is not an anomaly—it is a constant.
....If the Court green-lighted this suit, we could anticipate complaints in future years about alleged Executive Branch under-enforcement of any similarly worded laws—whether they be drug laws, gun laws, obstruction of justice laws, or the like. We decline to start the Federal Judiciary down that uncharted path.
That's clear enough. The decision was satisfyingly 8-1, with (of course) a red-faced Sam Alito offering the only dissent. "It renders States already laboring under the effects of massive illegal immigration even more helpless," he howls—before pivoting out of nowhere into a disquisition on "regal authority" and the overthrow of James II. That's our Sam.
I suppose this is the flip side of the federal government not being allowed to require states/counties/cities to assist in immigration enforcement.
Seems like public pressure and disapproval not to mention electoral consequences forced the Republicans to rein it in.
Samito is so cute when he's hissing and spitting.
Wait until he's in his 80s and whatever is left of his filter goes to dementia. That'll be lit.
That may have been a perfectly good legal position. It probably was if Justice Thomas was for it (please don't hate on Thomas or me for bringing him up, I know how you feel about Clarence Thomas).
But it remains that illegal immigration is hurting many American cities.
Well then, Senators and Congressmen will have no problem increasing the budget of the CBP to arrest and deport illegal immigrants. Oh wait, they have voted to cut the budget, as part of the Spending Limit compromise.
Perhaps it is all performance art?
Maybe they are bad at spending the money.
Senators and Congressmen don't spend the money. If CBP is "bad at spending the money," Congress can perform some oversight. However, cutting the budget is not going to improve intervention and detention.
Oh - and I am not dismissing your performance art idea.
The SCOTUS seems to jealously protect the prerogatives of the judiciary, don't it?
Bingo.
If they are indeed the prerogatives of the judiciary, I would hope so. Just as the other two branches should theirs.
All I'm sayin' is putting too much thought into how this court wags is a mug's game.
OT:
I find this really confusing:
“ Dramatic body camera video released as grand jury refuses to indict officer who killed mass shooter at Texas mall”
https://www.yahoo.com/gma/dramatic-body-camera-video-released-215100287.html
Why would they need a grand jury for this? Is that something they always do in Texas? It all seems pretty heroic to me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POcayDF2U7s
One of the things the decision sort of alludes to but doesn't explicitly say is that the relief the states are seeking is relief that only Congress can provide, and Congress wasn't a party to the suit. In any case, it is one of Congress's core functions to set spending priorities when appropriating federal funds. I don't believe that even this court is going to arrogate that power to itself by ordering Congress to appropriate more money for certain specified executive functions. If Congress doesn't give the executive branch enough money to arrest all the people Congress wants arrested, the executive branch is going to set priorities that can be carried out within the budgetary limits Congress imposes. If the state governments want the feds to arrest more people, they can take the necessary appropriation questions up with their Congressional delegation, not with the courts.
It’s too bad this reasoning doesn’t seem to extend to the debt limit. It would seem that if congress appropriated spending that exceeds tax revenue and then fails to raise the debt limit, the executive branch should also be able then to prioritize which programs and debts get paid first. But alas, we’re all told that that would be a gross violation of Precious Norms, and not allow the Republicans to extract any pounds of flesh in hostage negotiations.
The more common argument, and one I think has considerable merit, is that if Congress authorizes or requires expenditures in excess of the government's income, that necessarily implies authorization to borrow enough to make up the difference. In addition to being the sole spending authority, Congress is also the sole taxing authority, so they can get the government more revenue any time they want.
“regal authority”?
Pretty sure we dealt away with that 240 years ago
The current Republican Party is made up of two factions, Royalists who think the “President” is anointed by God (Trump), and neo-Confederates (DeSantis).
More true than you might realize, possibly. Albion's Seed and its assorted helpmeets are my goto on this one.
I have never heard Ron DeSantis defending the actions of the Confederate States of America during the civil war as a good thing.
DeSantis wants to restore the name of "Fort Bragg". If he he didn't think that what the Confederate general Bragg was doing was good, why would he be promising this?
Again, the big-money/employer wing of the Republican party favors immigration because it provides cheap labor. Aside from that it is a valued issue to keep the base stirred up and distracted from more important economic issues.
The Federalist Society is primarily a defender of capitalism, not racism.
Alito probably needs to have regular mental health screenings.