Without Homeland Security money and military base money Texas would be in trouble. Move all the immigrant facilities to New Mexico or Arizona. Bus them there, right thru Abbotts Texas.

The Fifth Circuit's well-documented judicial shenanigans have earned a surprising rebuke from the high court.

Matt Ford
March 21,

Snip

Barrett disagreed, arguing that the high court should not get in the business of reviewing administrative stays. One can almost sympathize with her: given how busy the shadow docket keeps the justices nowadays, adding an entire new layer of orders to potentially review must seem daunting. “So far as I know, this Court has never reviewed the decision of a court of appeals to enter—or not enter—an administrative stay,” she wrote. “I would not get into the business.”

“Texas’s motion for a stay pending appeal was fully briefed in the Fifth Circuit by March 5, almost two weeks ago,” Barrett concluded. “Merits briefing on Texas’s challenge to the district court’s injunction of S. B. 4 is currently underway. If a decision does not issue soon, the applicants may return to this court.”

The Fifth Circuit appears to have gotten the message, at least in this case. Just a few hours after the Supreme Court’s decision, the three-judge panel that oversees the case scheduled oral arguments on the stay pending appeal for Wednesday. Two of the panel’s members also voted to lift the administrative stay, meaning that S.B. 4 is once again blocked from going into effect. They also appear likely to reject the stay pending appeal that Texas seeks based on the questions they asked during oral arguments.

Snip

[link:https://newrepublic.com/article/179999/supreme-court-fifth-circuit-barrett-kavanaugh]


This is interesting on so many levels. Two of Leonard Leo’s justices calling out the Fifth Circuit and threatening them? My my my

Are you suggesting that something at the link contradicts J Barrett's statement, or something else?

Kacsmaryk issued a stay and then the supreme court reviewed it. At least, that is what I understand. But I'm no attorney.

1. Judge Kacsmaryk didn't issue an administrative stay, which is what both J Barrett and J Sotomayor were talking about regarding Texas SB4. The implication is that the 5th Cir. is abusing the use of administrative stays (which are different than, say, stays pending appeal).

2. I don't see where in the article it says that SCOTUS reviewed Judge Kacsmaryk's injunction. Did I miss it?

3. Judge Kacsmaryk is a district court judge, not circuit court, but that's a quibble.

from a fellow non-attorney.

On edit:
You might find this article interesting:

Texas Immigration Spat Puts Spotlight on Fifth Circuit Stays
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/texas-immigration-spat-puts-spotlight-on-fifth-circuit-stays

Per the article, Justice Coney-Barrett called the Fifth Circuit out for issuing an indefinite administrative stay without addressing the underlying issue. Texas asked the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to stay pending appeal. Emphasis mine. A pending appeal would allow the law to immediately go into effect. The Fifth Circuit did not rule on that motion. As I understand from the article, administrative stays are not usually reviewed by a higher court like stays pending appeal. Administrative stays do not require oral arguments or an opinion concerning the underlying legal issues. Soooo the Fifth Circuit did a little side step and issued an indefinite administrative stay.

Justice Barrett basically called the Fifth Circuit out for playing games. I’m not an attorney, just my understanding of the article. Make sense?

This Subversive Court will engage in any distortion of the U.S. Constitution it finds necessary to push its extreme ideology.

Did the supremes just take one small step towards their irrelevance?

Fucking morons

That is all this is and nothing less.