tta.wtf
  • Communities
  • Create Post
  • Create Community
  • heart
    Support Lemmy
  • search
    Search
  • Login
  • Sign Up
SeaJ@lemm.ee to News@lemmy.world · 2 years ago

Supreme Court allows federal agents to cut razor wire Texas installed on US-Mexico border

apnews.com

external-link
message-square
51
link
fedilink
398
external-link

Supreme Court allows federal agents to cut razor wire Texas installed on US-Mexico border

apnews.com

SeaJ@lemm.ee to News@lemmy.world · 2 years ago
message-square
51
link
fedilink
A divided Supreme Court is allowing Border Patrol agents to cut razor wire that Texas installed on the U.S.-Mexico border, while a lawsuit over the wire continues.
alert-triangle
You must log in or # to comment.
  • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    109
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    2 years 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@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      88
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

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

      • Nougat@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        58
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

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

        • 😈MedicPig🐷BabySaver😈@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          32
          ·
          2 years ago

          Dumbass dickheads is the reason.

        • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          32
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          Partisanship. pure and simple.

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

        • TallonMetroid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          30
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          “Fuck brown people”, probably.

        • stoly@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          20
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          You’re expecting conservatives to be consistent in their reasoning?

          • kool_newt@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            28
            ·
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            deleted by creator

        • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 years ago

          Just read the decision form the court below.

          • Nougat@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            2 years ago

            No one provided any explantion for their vote.

            • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              2 years 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@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 years 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.

                • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  2 years ago

                  They are partisan hacks.

        • Coach@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 years ago

          Toxic masculinity?

    • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      2 years ago

      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
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 years ago

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

    • Empricorn@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      2 years ago

      I’m giving you an updoot for that. Don’t spend it all at one place!

      • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 years ago

        dies of cringe

        • Empricorn@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 years ago

          Better that, than a Dootrupcy.

  • reddig33@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    58
    ·
    2 years 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
      arrow-up
      45
      ·
      2 years 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.

      • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        I say bring it. Finish it proper this time.

        • PRUSSIA_x86@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 years ago

          With every party involved being nuclear capable?

          • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            The US is nuclear capable. Rebels would not be. They’re barely capable of wiping their own asses.

            • PRUSSIA_x86@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              2 years ago

              If the rebels in question include several state governments then they may indeed be nuclear capable.

              • elbarto777@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                17 days ago

                deleted by creator

                • PRUSSIA_x86@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  2 years 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.

  • NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 years ago

    We’re almost at the point of nobody cares what the supreme court has to say.

    • stoly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 years 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.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 years ago

        Oh no, one small edit with a huge difference. The people as a whole are the militia. No it doesn’t make any sense. But when you gotta get that gun lobby money for your next private jet Caribbean vacation…

        • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          deleted by creator

      • Shyfer@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 years ago

        A People’s History of the Supreme Court has good info on the terrible track record of the Supreme Court.

        • stoly@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          Sounds interesting, will check it out.

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years 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.

      • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        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.

        • BigWheelPowerBrakeSlider@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 years ago

          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.

    • Sippy Cup@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 years ago

      Almost?

      • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        We still let them decide what is and isn’t legal. I wish anyone cared that much about what I say.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 years 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.

  • sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    2 years ago

    Can we just give Texas to Mexico and redraw the border?

    • lookorex@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      Pretty sure they wouldn’t want it either, at this point

      • Kraven_the_Hunter@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        2 years ago

        Shit, if we threatened to give Texas back, Mexico may just build that wall that Trump promised they would, and pay for it!

      • 𝕱𝖎𝖗𝖊𝖜𝖎𝖙𝖈𝖍@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        2 years ago

        I propose we build a wall around the entirety of Texas and yeet it from the states. Then we can use any federal funds they were receiving to help people move in/out of Texas. They already have their own power grid, I’m sure it’ll be fine.

      • m-p{3}@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 years ago

        They wouldn’t be able to send their illegals to other states as easily if a wall is build around them tho.

    • Grammaton Cleric@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      I live in Texas, and to be honest, I hear more Spanish than English when I walk around town

    • GBU_28@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      What would that fix

      • Kbobabob@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 years ago

        Diversifying the border between 4 states?

        • GBU_28@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          How is that better? The point is people from Mexico are trying to get into the US, and but getting the services they need

          • Kbobabob@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            Man, i got no idea what giving Texas away would solve. I was just pointing out what would happen.

  • LesserAbe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    2 years ago

    “the supreme court of heaven” based on the article thumbnail

    • LesserAbe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 years ago

    • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 years ago

      It’s a dream sequence.

      • hardaysknight@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 years ago

        With this court? More like a nightmare sequence

  • andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    2 years ago

    Supreme court allows federal agents to cut razor wire Texas

    installed on US-Mexico border

    Uninstall.exe

  • Methylchloroisothiazolinone@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 years ago

    deleted by creator

  • theodewere@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    deleted by creator

News@lemmy.world

news@lemmy.world

Subscribe from Remote Instance

Create a post
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !news@lemmy.world

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

Visibility: Public
globe

This community can be federated to other instances and be posted/commented in by their users.

  • 3.36K users / day
  • 7.56K users / week
  • 13.3K users / month
  • 24.7K users / 6 months
  • 2 local subscribers
  • 35.5K subscribers
  • 14.3K Posts
  • 279K Comments
  • Modlog
  • mods:
  • enu@lemmy.world
  • JonsJava@lemmy.world
  • gedaliyah@lemmy.world
  • 🌱 🐄🌱 @lemmy.world
  • jeffw@lemmy.world
  • rjc@lemmy.world
  • Tenthrow@lemmy.world
  • UI: unknown version
  • BE: 0.19.13
  • Modlog
  • Instances
  • Docs
  • Code
  • join-lemmy.org