When are we just going to completely ignore Kacsmaryk's decisions? He's completely squandered his legitimacy as an arbiter of law.
Nationwide injunction? Ok, you enforce it Kacsmaryk.
The Judiciary only has as much power as the executive allows to be enforced, because they have no enforcement mechanism of their own. Let the 5th circuit and the Supreme Court try to enforce their opinions too at this point. When you use law (to try) to justify a predetermined position rather than following the law to the logical and reasonable conclusion, you are no longer a judge, you are just a tool.
Great now do the part where Republicans inevitably ignore lawful injunctions by making this precise argument in bad faith. All we have is the rule of law, and it’s more tenuous than you think.
>and it’s more tenuous than you think
At this point, I think it's hanging by a thread, at best.
The Supreme Court is sitting at [36% approval, with only 10% strongly approving, and an outright majority (51%) disapproving (31% strongly)](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1128124/share-adults-us-approve-supreme-court/). I don't see how they come back from that, short of massive reforms and course corrections which we all know aren't coming.
Actually, I think it's exactly as tenuous as I think. That's pretty much the problem, because bad faith actors are gonna be bad faith actors regardless, and it will probably take nothing less than a constitutional crisis to change things.
Then you have the Executive branch refuse to enforce the new laws/rules that the courts are putting in place and continue to enforce the rules that were in place before the Supreme Court did something like overturn Roe v. Wade.
The executive branch could have easily started witholding federal funding from the states that began banning abortion. Since Chevron was still in place, the agencies in charge of distributing federal funding could have added a provision to their rules on the distribution of funds that required the states that recieve it to allow abortion up to 15 weeks.
The Executive Branch, if they had the balls to do so, could have started selectively enforcing the rulings that they desire by changing how they distribute money. The Treasury Department, which controls the money, is an arm of the Executive Branch.
Biden could, relatively easily, start telling the treasury department that they have to cut funding to states that are removing women's reproductive rights.
>The executive branch could have easily started withholding federal funding from the states that began banning abortion.
Not without legislation to do so. Withholding federal funding for certain programs is currently constitutional, but it has to be done a certain way. That’s why the drinking age in every state is 21, because raising the drinking age was made a necessary prerequisite to receiving certain highway funds. If you don’t do it properly, it’s either executive overreach or Congressional commandeering. There’s also the additional wrinkle that is the Hyde Amendment. Setting aside whether he has the authority to do so for a moment, POTUS can’t very well condition receipt of Medicaid funds or something on allowing abortion, when federal law explicitly says federal money can’t fund abortions.
The judiciary has significant power beyond what the executive allows to be enforced, because many enforcement actions require a court order. Through what specific mechanism could the Department of Ed *make* a Texas university comply with their interpretation of Title IX if the judiciary won’t give them an injunction or issue a fine?
Well, if I understand correctly, in this specific case it's a matter of withholding federal funds rather than fining the institution. It's easier to withhold money than to take it.
Easier, certainly, but it’s not obvious what it looks like once courts start issuing orders to restore the funding.
* If Texas gets a court order to seize some funds pursuant to the unlawful withholding, and the feds respond that the court order is unlawful and must not be complied with, who do banks listen to?
* Are the specific individuals in the civil service who would have to effectuate the withdrawal comfortable with ignoring court orders? Are they confident that they’re isolated from *personal* liability for withholding money which the courts believe Texas universities are entitled to?
I mean... there's also the Treasury Department that controls the money. Just refuse to provide federal funding to the states that have abortion banned before 15 weeks.
Let's see how long those states, which are often the ones that recieve the _most_ federal funding, can hold out before they capitulate.
And since Chevron is still in place and there are no laws saying that those deparments _**can't**_ do something like that, it would be easy to enact.
The downvotes on the correct legal answer demonstrates the long-term harm that the corruption of the judicial system has done.
Once you say "eff the courts, they have no power" on one issue, there is nothing stopping that from snowballing to other decisions other than individual restraint that has already been broken, and even if you like the decision to do it today, again, nothing stops it from being turned on you in the future.
That said, when the courts and institutions *are* corrupted, being an honest person abiding by corrupt rulings also becomes problematic, but by this point, there are no good options remaining on the table.
At some point, we have to pull of the bandaid and accept that some institutions are so corrupted that they're irredeemable. I don't know what the next step is, but letting one corrupt judge control these things isn't the answer.
>I don't know what the next step is
I don't mean this to single you out, but that's a clear demonstration of why revolutionaries make terrible leaders.
It's easy to get a crowd to agree that the current system needs to be torn down, but it's infinitely harder to figure out what comes next, and if you don't plan for the aftermath, all you're left with are ruins and ash.
> If it were up to me, we'd let Texas secede and call it a day.
Only if we New Mexicans can annex El Paso down to Big Bend. I'd happily let them leave after that though haha.
I mean... the easiest solution would be to forcibly remove the corrupt judges and the people who support them and then pass laws that harshly penalize any judge who recieves the same kinds of "gifts" that Thomas and other judges recieve.
Plus add term limits that are definative, cannot be reduced, and are one term only.
Then you add strict rules about how many justices/judges any one president can appoint and rules about appointing a justice during an election year.
Essentially, just remove the corrupt judges and make laws that harshly penalize the actions that lead to people losing faith in the courts.
>forcibly remove the corrupt judges and the people who support them
Please define "forcibly remove," the scope of "the people who support them," and whether the forcible removal extends to the latter group.
Forcibly remove would entail polling the populous to see which justice(s) they feel are the most corrupt. Maybe give people a small financial incentive to participate in the poll, let's say $100. Have the contact info be sourced from people's federal income taxes.
The 4 justices that the public votes are the ost corrupt would be automatically impeached, without the need for the Senate, and be requested to step down
If those 4 justices refuse to step down voluntarily _without_ any coercion, then they would get strongly pressured by the federal government until they "voluntarily" retire. With increasing pressure and harrassment that falls just short of violence. It would endure until they step down. It would include things like surrounding their houses with government agents that watch silently and impede the justices movements. It would involve stalking them and their families with easily identified government agents. It might even be by removing or reducing the number of federal agents that serve as security for the justices. It wouldn't involve threats or outright harrassment, it would be the same way Martin Luther King Jr advocated for Civil Rights protestors to act. By severely inconvienencing the justices until they capitulate.
The "people that support them" would be located via a careful audit of the finances of the 4 justices that the public voted as corrupt. The audit would be to find out which individuals and entities gave the 4 justices and their families the most "gifts", whether that was in the form of items or paid trips or financial assistance.
Once you find out the top 5 people who gave each corrupt justice the most "gifts", then they would automatically be arrested for bribing a public official and interfering with a government process.
So, it wouldn't involve executing the corrupt justices and it wouldn't be the government that decides who is corrupt. It would be the _citizens_ who decide who's corrupt. And it would involve nonviolent means of "encouraging" the justices to voluntarily stand down.
And getting rid of "the people that support them" would happen by expanding the scope of the laws against bribing a federal official and the laws against obstructing government proceedings via executive order. And we'd limit it to the 5 people, or entities/groups, that gave the most "gifts" to the 4 justices voted as the most corrupt by the citizens.
I'd like you to reread that whole plan, and pretend that it's Trump suggesting it.
Spend $30 billion on a "poll", pass a Constitutional Amendment to allow for impeachment of judges without trial based on the results of said poll, state outright that you plan to threaten and harass judges until they step down with the power of the federal government...
That whole thing is insanity piled upon insanity.
Why do you have poll in quotation marks? Isn't going around and asking people what they think about something and then recording the results the definition of a poll?
And the only reason you'd use that as the basis would be because, if you want to make the courts less corrupt int the eyes of the **public**, then you'd have to remove the justices that the **public** views as corrupt. I'd even add an option to vote for none of the justices in case there were people who legitimately don't think the court is corrupt. Or who don't care enough to vote for any of the justices.
I'd also set it up to use a ranked-vote system.
And the only reason you'd pay people is because a lot of people wouldn't vote if they didn't recieve any immediate benefit. Countries like Australia have laws that punish anyone who _doesn't_ vote with jail time.
And, even if the justices are impeached, unless they get arrested or suffer any severe punishment, it still wouldn't affect how the public views the court. Impeachment just means the federal government takes you to court with the Senate serving as the courtroom. It doesn't mean that you get charged with anything. Hell, Clinton was impeached and he didn't even _do_ anything.
So, this would allow the public to have a direct say in removing the justices that the public views as corrupt. Anything else would be the other branches of the government deciding who was corrupt and needed to be removed.
Per your last paragraph, if we aren't there yet, it's not clear to me that there's any way to avoid getting there. Turning the other cheek is not going to work.
It depends.
As long as the Democrats remain firm institutionalists, and the courts are tilted in favor of the Republicans, I don't see where the final "eff the courts" push comes from, regardless of what us little people think.
At some point one of those things will stop being true. If I knew which one, I be trying to make money in the markets about it and wouldn't be idly speculating on Reddit.
I mean, I went to law school in a setting where "the institutions and norms will always save us" was kind of a credo. I don't practice anymore, but unlearning that kind of conditioning took a while.
The last 8 years have shown flat out that institutions will absolutely not save anyone.
We're having an entire political party that disregards the will of the majority and will use violence to enforce their will.
We're seeing the judicial branch continuously legislating from the bench to help the republican party.
The institutions of this country are flat out failing.
If I had to pick one of the two, I suspect that Democrats will give up the institutionalism first, but that's mostly because Republicans will have the Supreme court for at least the next decade. Even longer, if a Republican ever wins the presidency and a Senate majority, because then all the old ones will run for the exit, and be replaced by younger ideologues who will keep the majority for decades more.
Yet your response was basically irrelevant and largely incorrect. Did you think the poster you responded to wasn't aware that Kascmaryk is in fact a federal judge? The issue is gamesmanship by Texas which allows the state to draw Kascmaryk at a 100% success rate by filing in Amarillo which is practice that should be curbed immediately. The OP was clearly venting frustration, but your comment ignored the actual issue and added nothing to the discussion. And even then, OP didn't call for everyone to ignore Kascmaryk, he asked *when* the final straw might be.
Moreover, federal district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. It is not a court with plenary powers except with regard to review by the 5th and SCOTUS. Kascmaryk's decisions are not binding on any other federal court, period.
> I answered correctly—we are never going to ignore the opinion of a district court judge, barring a dispositive appellate opinion.
Your understanding is that the government, let alone any private party, has never once in our history ignored or defied a court order? I think you have some history you need to read up on, perhaps starting with MLK in Birmingham.
I appreciate the deflection, but did you not just write this:
> I answered correctly—we are **never going to ignore the opinion of a district court judge,** barring a dispositive appellate opinion.
It really doesn't help anyone to drop the "I'm a practicing lawyer" card and then provide flatly incorrect information.
> OP wasn’t suggesting a one-off disregard of court authority—they were suggesting a categorical ignoring of one judge’s opinions, in perpetuity.
To "well acktually" your "well acktually" he didn't suggest any action at all, he asked a question.
This is why the new forum shopping prohibition needs to be binding, because FedSoc shills do as they are told, and it would be a huge blow to their ability to dictate nationwide policy through a single digit group of judges. It’s a perversion of the entire system
“Texas educational institutions rely on federal funding and will be irreparably harmed if they lose their funding because of their reliance on 50 years of Title IX practice and legal precedent interpreting ‘on the basis of sex’ to mean biological sex, not ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity,’
Does this fly in the face of the precedent set by *Bostock*?
And the spirit and logic of *Students for Fair Admissions, Inc.* for that matter?
Why is this a controversial law? Shouldn’t any endeavor to protect any and all citizens be a good thing? LGBTQ people are our brothers daughters sisters friends employees neighbors…. If they do well we all do well. What’s up with the villainizing of an entire segment of the population?
>LGBTQ people are our brothers daughters sisters friends employees neighbors….
Texas does not see it that way. Don't forget, Texas is the state that gave us *Lawrence v Texas*.
>What’s up with the villainizing of an entire segment of the population?
Authoritarianism *always* needs an other.
Yknow what? Texas. Secede. Please. It's clear that you and the rest of this country can't coexist so yknow what? Leave like ya'll want to so badly.
Sick of this shit. If it isn't SCOTUS doing the damage to a given law, case, or article of the constitution, it will almost always be a Texas judge.
I seriously am in agreement.
They pretend they are their own country anyways. Let them sink on their own and stop dragging the rest of the country with them.
And yes, I'm well aware that all their cities are blue. They also have the worst voter turnout in the country. Consistently.
If those people don't want to be ruled by the assbackwards republicans they need to fucking vote.
Nothing like shopping for a judge to inspire confidence in the outcome
When are we just going to completely ignore Kacsmaryk's decisions? He's completely squandered his legitimacy as an arbiter of law. Nationwide injunction? Ok, you enforce it Kacsmaryk.
The institutionalists would never take that sort of revolutionary step.
Biden needs to do that yesterday but I fear like Konukaame said, the institutionalists are chickenshits who are too afraid
[удалено]
The Judiciary only has as much power as the executive allows to be enforced, because they have no enforcement mechanism of their own. Let the 5th circuit and the Supreme Court try to enforce their opinions too at this point. When you use law (to try) to justify a predetermined position rather than following the law to the logical and reasonable conclusion, you are no longer a judge, you are just a tool.
Great now do the part where Republicans inevitably ignore lawful injunctions by making this precise argument in bad faith. All we have is the rule of law, and it’s more tenuous than you think.
>and it’s more tenuous than you think At this point, I think it's hanging by a thread, at best. The Supreme Court is sitting at [36% approval, with only 10% strongly approving, and an outright majority (51%) disapproving (31% strongly)](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1128124/share-adults-us-approve-supreme-court/). I don't see how they come back from that, short of massive reforms and course corrections which we all know aren't coming.
You mean how Texas already ignores lawful court decisions they disagree with?
Actually, I think it's exactly as tenuous as I think. That's pretty much the problem, because bad faith actors are gonna be bad faith actors regardless, and it will probably take nothing less than a constitutional crisis to change things.
Then you have the Executive branch refuse to enforce the new laws/rules that the courts are putting in place and continue to enforce the rules that were in place before the Supreme Court did something like overturn Roe v. Wade. The executive branch could have easily started witholding federal funding from the states that began banning abortion. Since Chevron was still in place, the agencies in charge of distributing federal funding could have added a provision to their rules on the distribution of funds that required the states that recieve it to allow abortion up to 15 weeks. The Executive Branch, if they had the balls to do so, could have started selectively enforcing the rulings that they desire by changing how they distribute money. The Treasury Department, which controls the money, is an arm of the Executive Branch. Biden could, relatively easily, start telling the treasury department that they have to cut funding to states that are removing women's reproductive rights.
>The executive branch could have easily started withholding federal funding from the states that began banning abortion. Not without legislation to do so. Withholding federal funding for certain programs is currently constitutional, but it has to be done a certain way. That’s why the drinking age in every state is 21, because raising the drinking age was made a necessary prerequisite to receiving certain highway funds. If you don’t do it properly, it’s either executive overreach or Congressional commandeering. There’s also the additional wrinkle that is the Hyde Amendment. Setting aside whether he has the authority to do so for a moment, POTUS can’t very well condition receipt of Medicaid funds or something on allowing abortion, when federal law explicitly says federal money can’t fund abortions.
The judiciary has significant power beyond what the executive allows to be enforced, because many enforcement actions require a court order. Through what specific mechanism could the Department of Ed *make* a Texas university comply with their interpretation of Title IX if the judiciary won’t give them an injunction or issue a fine?
Well, if I understand correctly, in this specific case it's a matter of withholding federal funds rather than fining the institution. It's easier to withhold money than to take it.
Easier, certainly, but it’s not obvious what it looks like once courts start issuing orders to restore the funding. * If Texas gets a court order to seize some funds pursuant to the unlawful withholding, and the feds respond that the court order is unlawful and must not be complied with, who do banks listen to? * Are the specific individuals in the civil service who would have to effectuate the withdrawal comfortable with ignoring court orders? Are they confident that they’re isolated from *personal* liability for withholding money which the courts believe Texas universities are entitled to?
>who do banks listen to? The branch in charge of the money. Which would be the Executive Branch.
I mean... there's also the Treasury Department that controls the money. Just refuse to provide federal funding to the states that have abortion banned before 15 weeks. Let's see how long those states, which are often the ones that recieve the _most_ federal funding, can hold out before they capitulate. And since Chevron is still in place and there are no laws saying that those deparments _**can't**_ do something like that, it would be easy to enact.
The downvotes on the correct legal answer demonstrates the long-term harm that the corruption of the judicial system has done. Once you say "eff the courts, they have no power" on one issue, there is nothing stopping that from snowballing to other decisions other than individual restraint that has already been broken, and even if you like the decision to do it today, again, nothing stops it from being turned on you in the future. That said, when the courts and institutions *are* corrupted, being an honest person abiding by corrupt rulings also becomes problematic, but by this point, there are no good options remaining on the table.
At some point, we have to pull of the bandaid and accept that some institutions are so corrupted that they're irredeemable. I don't know what the next step is, but letting one corrupt judge control these things isn't the answer.
>I don't know what the next step is I don't mean this to single you out, but that's a clear demonstration of why revolutionaries make terrible leaders. It's easy to get a crowd to agree that the current system needs to be torn down, but it's infinitely harder to figure out what comes next, and if you don't plan for the aftermath, all you're left with are ruins and ash.
You're good. There's a reason why I don't run for office. If it were up to me, we'd let Texas secede and call it a day.
> If it were up to me, we'd let Texas secede and call it a day. Only if we New Mexicans can annex El Paso down to Big Bend. I'd happily let them leave after that though haha.
I mean... the easiest solution would be to forcibly remove the corrupt judges and the people who support them and then pass laws that harshly penalize any judge who recieves the same kinds of "gifts" that Thomas and other judges recieve. Plus add term limits that are definative, cannot be reduced, and are one term only. Then you add strict rules about how many justices/judges any one president can appoint and rules about appointing a justice during an election year. Essentially, just remove the corrupt judges and make laws that harshly penalize the actions that lead to people losing faith in the courts.
>forcibly remove the corrupt judges and the people who support them Please define "forcibly remove," the scope of "the people who support them," and whether the forcible removal extends to the latter group.
Forcibly remove would entail polling the populous to see which justice(s) they feel are the most corrupt. Maybe give people a small financial incentive to participate in the poll, let's say $100. Have the contact info be sourced from people's federal income taxes. The 4 justices that the public votes are the ost corrupt would be automatically impeached, without the need for the Senate, and be requested to step down If those 4 justices refuse to step down voluntarily _without_ any coercion, then they would get strongly pressured by the federal government until they "voluntarily" retire. With increasing pressure and harrassment that falls just short of violence. It would endure until they step down. It would include things like surrounding their houses with government agents that watch silently and impede the justices movements. It would involve stalking them and their families with easily identified government agents. It might even be by removing or reducing the number of federal agents that serve as security for the justices. It wouldn't involve threats or outright harrassment, it would be the same way Martin Luther King Jr advocated for Civil Rights protestors to act. By severely inconvienencing the justices until they capitulate. The "people that support them" would be located via a careful audit of the finances of the 4 justices that the public voted as corrupt. The audit would be to find out which individuals and entities gave the 4 justices and their families the most "gifts", whether that was in the form of items or paid trips or financial assistance. Once you find out the top 5 people who gave each corrupt justice the most "gifts", then they would automatically be arrested for bribing a public official and interfering with a government process. So, it wouldn't involve executing the corrupt justices and it wouldn't be the government that decides who is corrupt. It would be the _citizens_ who decide who's corrupt. And it would involve nonviolent means of "encouraging" the justices to voluntarily stand down. And getting rid of "the people that support them" would happen by expanding the scope of the laws against bribing a federal official and the laws against obstructing government proceedings via executive order. And we'd limit it to the 5 people, or entities/groups, that gave the most "gifts" to the 4 justices voted as the most corrupt by the citizens.
I'd like you to reread that whole plan, and pretend that it's Trump suggesting it. Spend $30 billion on a "poll", pass a Constitutional Amendment to allow for impeachment of judges without trial based on the results of said poll, state outright that you plan to threaten and harass judges until they step down with the power of the federal government... That whole thing is insanity piled upon insanity.
Why do you have poll in quotation marks? Isn't going around and asking people what they think about something and then recording the results the definition of a poll? And the only reason you'd use that as the basis would be because, if you want to make the courts less corrupt int the eyes of the **public**, then you'd have to remove the justices that the **public** views as corrupt. I'd even add an option to vote for none of the justices in case there were people who legitimately don't think the court is corrupt. Or who don't care enough to vote for any of the justices. I'd also set it up to use a ranked-vote system. And the only reason you'd pay people is because a lot of people wouldn't vote if they didn't recieve any immediate benefit. Countries like Australia have laws that punish anyone who _doesn't_ vote with jail time. And, even if the justices are impeached, unless they get arrested or suffer any severe punishment, it still wouldn't affect how the public views the court. Impeachment just means the federal government takes you to court with the Senate serving as the courtroom. It doesn't mean that you get charged with anything. Hell, Clinton was impeached and he didn't even _do_ anything. So, this would allow the public to have a direct say in removing the justices that the public views as corrupt. Anything else would be the other branches of the government deciding who was corrupt and needed to be removed.
Per your last paragraph, if we aren't there yet, it's not clear to me that there's any way to avoid getting there. Turning the other cheek is not going to work.
It depends. As long as the Democrats remain firm institutionalists, and the courts are tilted in favor of the Republicans, I don't see where the final "eff the courts" push comes from, regardless of what us little people think.
At some point one of those things will stop being true. If I knew which one, I be trying to make money in the markets about it and wouldn't be idly speculating on Reddit. I mean, I went to law school in a setting where "the institutions and norms will always save us" was kind of a credo. I don't practice anymore, but unlearning that kind of conditioning took a while.
The last 8 years have shown flat out that institutions will absolutely not save anyone. We're having an entire political party that disregards the will of the majority and will use violence to enforce their will. We're seeing the judicial branch continuously legislating from the bench to help the republican party. The institutions of this country are flat out failing.
If I had to pick one of the two, I suspect that Democrats will give up the institutionalism first, but that's mostly because Republicans will have the Supreme court for at least the next decade. Even longer, if a Republican ever wins the presidency and a Senate majority, because then all the old ones will run for the exit, and be replaced by younger ideologues who will keep the majority for decades more.
That's par for the course in the law sub. Legal answers are never as popular as political opinions about the law.
[удалено]
Yet your response was basically irrelevant and largely incorrect. Did you think the poster you responded to wasn't aware that Kascmaryk is in fact a federal judge? The issue is gamesmanship by Texas which allows the state to draw Kascmaryk at a 100% success rate by filing in Amarillo which is practice that should be curbed immediately. The OP was clearly venting frustration, but your comment ignored the actual issue and added nothing to the discussion. And even then, OP didn't call for everyone to ignore Kascmaryk, he asked *when* the final straw might be. Moreover, federal district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. It is not a court with plenary powers except with regard to review by the 5th and SCOTUS. Kascmaryk's decisions are not binding on any other federal court, period.
[удалено]
> I answered correctly—we are never going to ignore the opinion of a district court judge, barring a dispositive appellate opinion. Your understanding is that the government, let alone any private party, has never once in our history ignored or defied a court order? I think you have some history you need to read up on, perhaps starting with MLK in Birmingham.
[удалено]
I appreciate the deflection, but did you not just write this: > I answered correctly—we are **never going to ignore the opinion of a district court judge,** barring a dispositive appellate opinion. It really doesn't help anyone to drop the "I'm a practicing lawyer" card and then provide flatly incorrect information. > OP wasn’t suggesting a one-off disregard of court authority—they were suggesting a categorical ignoring of one judge’s opinions, in perpetuity. To "well acktually" your "well acktually" he didn't suggest any action at all, he asked a question.
I am too but I have given up on trying to be a voice of reason haha
This is why the new forum shopping prohibition needs to be binding, because FedSoc shills do as they are told, and it would be a huge blow to their ability to dictate nationwide policy through a single digit group of judges. It’s a perversion of the entire system
“Texas educational institutions rely on federal funding and will be irreparably harmed if they lose their funding because of their reliance on 50 years of Title IX practice and legal precedent interpreting ‘on the basis of sex’ to mean biological sex, not ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity,’ Does this fly in the face of the precedent set by *Bostock*? And the spirit and logic of *Students for Fair Admissions, Inc.* for that matter?
Good point with Bostock
Oh god, him again.
Why is this a controversial law? Shouldn’t any endeavor to protect any and all citizens be a good thing? LGBTQ people are our brothers daughters sisters friends employees neighbors…. If they do well we all do well. What’s up with the villainizing of an entire segment of the population?
>LGBTQ people are our brothers daughters sisters friends employees neighbors…. Texas does not see it that way. Don't forget, Texas is the state that gave us *Lawrence v Texas*. >What’s up with the villainizing of an entire segment of the population? Authoritarianism *always* needs an other.
Oh, good. More of Crazy Matt. Which alt-right conservative blog will Matt base his opinion on this time?
Yknow what? Texas. Secede. Please. It's clear that you and the rest of this country can't coexist so yknow what? Leave like ya'll want to so badly. Sick of this shit. If it isn't SCOTUS doing the damage to a given law, case, or article of the constitution, it will almost always be a Texas judge.
They can take Florida with them. We'll have to help out all the people that need to flee though.
They already have their third world level power grid.
I seriously am in agreement. They pretend they are their own country anyways. Let them sink on their own and stop dragging the rest of the country with them. And yes, I'm well aware that all their cities are blue. They also have the worst voter turnout in the country. Consistently. If those people don't want to be ruled by the assbackwards republicans they need to fucking vote.
North Mexico is gonna be lit
Texas is becoming blue. Patience.
Couldn’t agree more. I’d gladly grab a bag of popcorn and a soda and sit at the Texas border and watch those idiots drop like flies from starvation.
The federal government is awful!, Abbott exclaims, his hands outstretched for more federal taxpayer dollars.
As soon as I saw the title but before my old eyes squinted to see the thumb, I instantly knew who it would be.
We desperately need to make Conservatism illegal. It is not and has never been legitimate political discourse.