236
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 25 Jan 2024
236 points (92.4% liked)
politics
19144 readers
1306 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Abbott is already ignoring SCOTUS; what makes you think he'd listen to a court's definition of "invasion"?
The point is if Abbott is really going to stick this whole path.
Abbott is going to do what he's going to do. He's just digging a hole deeper and deeper for himself and for his State.
Abbott's statement indicates that the President is violating (insert a lot of stuff) but Abbott has not made that argument successfully in court. The courts have not sided with him on this point. Which is why he's trying to do this unilateral stuff and mentioning "compact" and what have you. None of it has legal standing and he knows it.
Good example in his citation of Arizona v. United States, Abbott is not quoting the majority opinion. He is quoting the dissenting opinion, you know the one that the Court as a whole DID NOT go with. And he's using Scalia's conceptualization of Art. I § 10 C. 3 which no one else on the Court agreed with. Abbott is using legal arguments that are not legal arguments, they are the opinion of a single justice. That's how incredibly shoddy the ground is on which he is placing his argument. The Governor of Texas is just randomly selecting opinions from Justices, and ones that were not the majority opinion, to make his case.
Even more so, Ted Cruz is in the Senate trying to get a bill passed that will legitimize some of what Abbott is doing. Abbott's current argument would be like him pointing to that bill and saying "Well Congress purposed it! It didn't pass and become law, but they purposed it, so I'm allowed to do (insert whatever)." Like he talks a lot of law in his statement, but none of it is actual legal arguments. That really the thing I think a lot of people are forgetting here. Abbott for lack of a better term, it quite literally just yanking shit form his ass and calling it law of the land.
The United States is fully aware that Texas has no leg to stand on, so the US is more than willing to give Texas as much rope as they feel they need to hang themselves with. The litigation costs are already skyrocketing for Texas and I guess Abbott and Texas as a whole is feeling okay to spend another billion losing in court.
So Abbott can continue to play this game if he feels so inclined, but it's all losses and litigation bills up ahead. He doesn't have a legal argument and the fact that Senator Cruz is trying so hard to "help him out" is evidence that Abbott has nothing.
14th amendment. He can obey the court, or he can be declared an insurrectionist, and unqualified to hold any public office.
Jokes on you. He's already unqualified to hold any public office.
Yes, but not yet legally so. If we're lucky, on the other hand...
Yeah, people aren’t real keen on having that happen