ok but that is practically a religious conviction at this point not a legal argument. when they say "lawful orders" they mean according to the supreme court not us
were you ever in the military? there is a specific meaning to "lawful orders". the governor of texas could hypothetically give unlawful orders, which his troops would be duty-bound to not follow. the brigs are full of people with incorrect theories as to what constitutes a lawful order
Who determines if it unlawful or not? Theoretically scotus does, but they have a habit of running counter to the constitution, which renders any such rulings moot. Per the Constitution.
well i know but i'm just saying. you have to depend on the conscience of the indiviidual in that case. and if border patrol was full of guys who care about what'a constitutional, they would have refused orders to cut the wire themselves. no need to call out the national guard and then have them refuse
The Supreme Court cannot allow something blatantly unconstitutional without dire consequences, and at this point this feels like an exercise to point us towards the Supreme Court and reveal what it really is:
A branch that is disproportionately putting itself over that of the other branches instead of serving as a check against them, with no recourse for blatantly defying the Constitution.
At least with Congress and the Presidency, there are checks in place and things that the population can do.
Not so with SCOTUS. Clearly this is to demonstrate that they are not the monolith they are expected to be.
or, here's a better idea: the supreme court could have made the correct ruling. why demonstrate how corrupt the court is if you are already in control of it and can make them decide whatever you want? "lets make the court make dumb rulings so everybody questions them" is only a good idea if the point is to replace all the justices or the court system entirely. getting people to doubt a system you intend to preserve is not smart
ok but that is practically a religious conviction at this point not a legal argument. when they say "lawful orders" they mean according to the supreme court not us
Supreme court does not make laws. The orders by the governor of texas to the national guard of texas are lawful orders.
were you ever in the military? there is a specific meaning to "lawful orders". the governor of texas could hypothetically give unlawful orders, which his troops would be duty-bound to not follow. the brigs are full of people with incorrect theories as to what constitutes a lawful order
Who determines if it unlawful or not? Theoretically scotus does, but they have a habit of running counter to the constitution, which renders any such rulings moot. Per the Constitution.
well i know but i'm just saying. you have to depend on the conscience of the indiviidual in that case. and if border patrol was full of guys who care about what'a constitutional, they would have refused orders to cut the wire themselves. no need to call out the national guard and then have them refuse
Legislative branch makes laws, not Judicial.
The Supreme Court cannot allow something blatantly unconstitutional without dire consequences, and at this point this feels like an exercise to point us towards the Supreme Court and reveal what it really is:
A branch that is disproportionately putting itself over that of the other branches instead of serving as a check against them, with no recourse for blatantly defying the Constitution.
At least with Congress and the Presidency, there are checks in place and things that the population can do.
Not so with SCOTUS. Clearly this is to demonstrate that they are not the monolith they are expected to be.
or, here's a better idea: the supreme court could have made the correct ruling. why demonstrate how corrupt the court is if you are already in control of it and can make them decide whatever you want? "lets make the court make dumb rulings so everybody questions them" is only a good idea if the point is to replace all the justices or the court system entirely. getting people to doubt a system you intend to preserve is not smart
Oh I agree completely, I am still pissed.
But SCOTUS is disproportionately powerful over the other branches and it wasn't supposed to be.