Justice Alito says SCOTUS “Hostile to TX” in Open Borders Case
America is being conquered and you will be shot dead if you try and stop it.
They stole the 2020 election bigger than Dallas, and we are seeing that the government’s plans for what comes next go far beyond your standard “10% for the big guy” corruption.
America is being conquered, and you will be shot dead if you try to stop it.
The Supreme Court, in an 8-1 ruling on Friday, revived the Biden administration’s immigration guidelines that prioritize which noncitizens to deport, dismissing a challenge from two Republican state attorneys general who argued the policies conflicted with immigration law.
The court said the states, Texas and Louisiana, did not have the “standing,” or the legal right, to sue in the first place in a decision that will further clarify when a state can challenge a federal policy in court going forward.
This is simply incredible. Just like challenging the 2020 election, Texas is said to have “no standing” when it comes to the future of our country.
Justice Alito was the lone dissenter in the case. In his opinion, Alito writes that in 2007 SCOTUS ruled that Massachusetts had standing in Massachusetts v. EPA, which was another case dealing with a state petitioning the federal government over the non-enforcement of the laws passed by Congress. The difference was that instead of dangerous foreign criminals, the subject of the lawsuit was carbon dioxide, also known as “the gas of life,” with the state demanding the feds crack down on things that emit this gas.
Massachusetts argued that the EPA was failing to limit the air plants breathe, which was going to inevitably warm the planet and put the state under water. The court said Massachusetts had standing under this doomsday cult logic, and the impending “loss of territory” from climate change (that’s a quote) gave them standing as being injured by the fed’s inaction.
I’m not joking.
In light of this cynical standard, Alito says the court is hostile to Texas, which is like, VERY obviously true.
The reasoning in that case applies with at least equal force in the case at hand. In Massachusetts v. EPA, the Court suggested that allowing Massachusetts to protect its sovereign interests through litigation compensated for its inability to protect those interests by the means that would have been available had it not entered the Union. In the present case, Texas’s entry into the Union stripped it of the power that it undoubtedly enjoyed as a sovereign nation to police its borders and regulate the entry of aliens. The Constitution and federal immigration laws have taken away most of that power, but the statutory provisions at issue in this case afford the State at least some protection—in particular by preventing the State and its residents from bearing the costs, financial and non-financial, inflicted by the release of certain dangerous criminal aliens. Our law on standing should not deprive the State of even that modest protection. We should not treat Texas less favorably than Massachusetts. And even if we do not view Texas’s standing argument with any “special solicitude,” we should at least refrain from treating it with special hostility by failing to apply our standard test for Article III standing.
There was also a mention of another case where it was proven that Texas spends “hundreds of millions of dollars annually” on healthcare for illegal aliens. This is a ridiculous understatement of the total cost to Texas, as educating the children of the surge costs many billions of dollars annually, on top of everything else.
This issue of standing in theoretical climate change vs. open borders shows the goal of Washington is not justice; the goal is to harm us, and Texas being harmed by laws not being followed is said to be a “major victory” for Brandon.
The ruling is a major victory for President Joe Biden and the White House, who have consistently argued the need to prioritize who they detain and deport given limited resources. By ruling against the states, the court tightened the rules concerning when states may challenge federal policies with which they disagree.
Sorry boys, the courts are closed for you. Thankfully, SCOTUS told us how we could rectify the situation. Alito’s dissent includes the following guidance:
At argument, the Solicitor General was asked whether it is the position of the United States that the Constitution does not allow any party to challenge a President’s decision not to enforce laws he does not like. What would happen, the Solicitor General was asked, if a President chose not to enforce the environmental laws or the labor laws? Would the Constitution bar an injured party from bringing suit? She responded:
“That’s correct under this Court’s precedent, but the framers intended political checks in that circumstance. You know, if—if an administration did something that extreme and said we’re just not going to enforce the law at all, then the President would be held to account by the voters, and Congress has tools at its disposal as well.”
Ah, yes. Elections. You’re just going to have to vote the bums out in America’s very secure elections — elections which are run at the county level and are a hybrid of computer-based voting and anonymous mail-in ballots.
But wait, has anyone considered that open borders are what the people want?
Back in 2020, candidate Joe Biden put out the call on national television that when he was inevitably installed as President, foreigners would be instructed to “surge the border.” He even gave instructions on how people could stay by uttering the secret password, “asylum.”
Calling on foreigners to surge the border, along with lying to young people about how he would forgive their student loans, were the core messages of Brandon’s campaign. We are told that these issues, along with zero campaigning and empty rallies, led to Joe Biden receiving the most votes of any man in world history, 12 million more than Barack Obama - all while miraculously only winning in 16% of US counties. It was truly heroic and real, and now the people have the policies they voted for. Well, except for the student loan thing.
There is good news, though: we don’t have to wait for a glitch in the computers to win an election to stop the invasion. The SCOTUS majority said that it may be possible in the future that if the federal government’s dereliction of duty in securing the border gets so extreme, Texas might have standing.
Wow, so kind of our masters to offer such comforting words.
- standing for climate change-yes, standing for ongoing invasion-no
- must vote in elections for change
- also no standing to challenge elections
What is even the plan here?
The Supreme Court of the United States is corrupt, their precedents are corrupt, and the appointments are now apparently some kind of humiliation ritual where they say it’s all going to be black women from now on.
The issue of immigration is so frustrating because we have already passed the laws for immigration control. Electing representatives to pass laws is supposed to be the people’s mechanism for correcting their government. We have already done this, so what else is there to do?
We have two cases here, the 2020 election and this immigration case, that serve as data points of irrefutable proof that we are abused subjects in an evil empire actively seeking to harm us while cynically denying us redress only because the work of one man has made it so clear, Attorney General Ken Paxton.
It’s true. Who can deny this? Who filed these lawsuits???
So now that you know about the terrible state of affairs, what are you going to do about it? What are we going to do about it? That’s what we talk about on this website every day. Hoaxes like racism, sexism, climate change, the latest Republican trick, or just what sort of trouble the trannies are up to today—Current Revolt is the Texas Newspaper of Record.
You should vote, sure. But it’s more than that. You need an underdog mindset. You do what you can and pray to God for deliverance. We have all the greatest forces of the world lined up against us in our struggle for liberty and human freedom here in Texas, and I wouldn’t have it any other way.
What comes next? I don’t know. The hour is late, and the gains conservatives have made in education are being met with total war from a hostile government on the east coast. We are all going to have some choices to make.
Current Revolt is a reader-supported publication. To support are work, subscribe below.