The bill contains many provisions legal experts say are likely unconstitutional, including one that says it can’t be challenged in state court.
lmao the audacity to try and put a “This law can’t be challenged in court” provision in.
That is just the Calvin ball handbook
If only the woke globalist DEImocrats had thought to put “no takebacksies” in the language of roe v wade 🤦♂️
It simply follows the “I am rubber you are glue” act of 1993.
Not to be that guy but
I am rubber you are glue was in ‘92
All for me none for thee was in ‘93
When was fuck you got mine then? I thought that was ‘93?
That was actually codified in '99 but had been part of judicial and legislative norms for years prior
Kinda like a court saying “This ruling is so bad it only applies in this case and can’t be used as precedent in future cases.”
HEYWAITAMINUTE
Like how USA got Bush/Cheney at the helm?
Exactly like how USA got Bush/Cheney at the helm!
We really do elect the dumbest fucks in the bunch.
This law can’t be challenged in court times infinity.
for the most part, TEXAS basically achieved to be like russia, and mostly completed p2025 ahead of miller in that state years ago. florida is following though.
Republicans are all about states rights until they are in power. Then they are all about do what we say or we are coming for you.
This is starts rights, unless I’m misunderstanding.
It’s only state rights in the senses that it’s eroding them.
. . . What exactly do you think “starts rights” means?
Because it refers to the right of states to pass laws for their own inhabitants, and the federal government had no right to interfere except in the specific cases the constitution says that it can. In this case, Texas is trying to pass laws for its own inhabitants, and trying to keep the federal government from interfering because the constitution doesn’t specifically call out this area for federal oversight.
Setting aside for a moment their specific goal, this is exactly in line with their stated value of “starts rights.”
Republicans do plenty of terrible things to criticize them for, and they never miss a good chance to be hypocritical, but it’s odd that you’re calling them out for hypocrisy on one of the very rare cases when they are not.
It’s trying to prevent state judges from challenging that law.
Ah, right. I must have been blinded by how stupid it is to put “can’t challenge this in court” into a law.
I think state rights should mean that a state has the ability the challenge the laws that govern it. This bill specifically has wording to prevent that, it’s the entire reason this article was posted. Please explain to me how stripping a states population of its rights to challenge a bill that governs them is suppose to be for their rights?
So you’re just going to completely misread an article and make an ass of yourself and not even own up to it?
if i can be shown to have done so, I will. So far all I see is you misusing the phrase “states rights.”
How is taking the right to fight it in state court away pro state rights?
I’ve explained it to you twice. I’m going to use small words, this time.
“States rights,” is the right of the state government to pass it’s own laws.
The right to fight a law in the courts belongs to individual persons, not the state government. If the state government disliked a law, they would not go through the courts, they would just change the law.
“States rights” are for the state government, not the people of the state. Nothing the state government does to the people of that state can go against the rights of the state government, because the people do not have states rights, because they are not states.
Just so we are clear, you are not a state, are you? If you happen to be New Jersey, for example, I could understand your confusion.
They want to make it illegal to take a minor across state lines for a legal procedure, for one thing.
I think it’s already illegal to take minors across state lines without parental consent.
Only in very specific cases:
For parents of a child, it is only a crime for these cases:
Noncustodial parents; Fathers whose paternity the government hasn't recognized; Parents in active custody cases; Parents with a court order requiring them to do so;In general, though, you don’t need explicit permission to take your child out of state.
For non-parents, it is only illegal if done for the following purposes:
Transportation With Intent To Engage in Criminal Sexual Activity; Travel With Intent To Engage in Illicit Sexual Conduct; Engaging in Illicit Sexual Conduct in Foreign Places; Illicit Sexual Conduct in Connection With Certain Organizations; Ancillary Offenses (to sexual misconduct);Attempt and Conspiracy (to those acts above);
It’s weird that noncustodial parents are more restricted on taking kids out of state than random non-parental people.
Huh. TIL. I had always thought that I could get in the deep shit for that.
It’s weird that noncustodial parents are more restricted on taking kids out of state than random non-parental people
Presumably it’s because non-custodial parents are more likely to abduct their children than a random stranger is
Watch the supreme court overturn Marbury. Shit’s gonna be wild.
In Texas, you say
