What part of these comments do not conflict? I even minimized the third comment to make sure there wasn’t confusion. Apparently I needed to not include the topic they were responding to because that confused people.
How could they the federal government be cutting the wire and not be allowed in at the same time? Conflict
What the Supreme Court did was vacate the lower court’s injunction against federal officials cutting or removing the wire. SCOTUS said that ruling was incorrect, and therefore the federal officials can proceed.
SCOTUS did not directly order Texas to permit them to do so (federal law and the Supremacy Clause arguably already require that), and it did not directly prohibit Texas from putting up more wire.
Texas is in defiance of the Supreme Court’s ruling that the law permits federal officials to remove the wire, and is actively impeding and interfering with federal authority to an extent we haven’t seen in decades, but as the Supreme Court hasn’t given any direct orders to Texas regarding this issue, Abbott is not in violation of them to risk being arrested under the statue the other commenter referenced.
I must be missing something.
So the law states the federal government can remove the wire, and Texas is obstructing it. How would they not be in violation if they are impeding them from removing it?
They arguably absolutely are in violation of federal law, and are actively interfering with federal authority. What they are not doing is violating a ruling from the Supreme Court requiring them to act or to refrain from acting, so there isn’t clear, cut-and-dry grounds for immediate arrest. Abbott is pushing back against federal authority to see how far he can go, but he’s not outright refusing to abide by a directive from the Supreme Court, because the Court has given no such directive.
Then why could they not arrest them for breaking the federal law…? That existed whether or not the supreme court said anything.
They don’t need to argue about judicial proceedings they are the executive branch, their job is to make the arrests for breaking federal law. Then courts can decide whether they are guilty. That’s why we have the separation. This bologna about asking a judiciary to decide whether someone is guilty of an act before making the arrests clearly just allows more issues to arrise.
Because Abbott is arguing that the Constitution gives him the authority to do what he’s doing, and the case is much less cut-and-dry than if he openly defied an injunction from the Supreme Court. Plus, arresting the sitting governor of a state isn’t something that’s entered into lightly, and federal authorities obviously want to have their ducks in a row before making such a move. Abbott is playing chicken with them and basically daring them to do something to see how much he can get away with.
Obviously I’d be all in favor of throwing that sack of shit to rot in a federal prison right now, but there’s a lot more reluctance to pull the trigger on something like that at the levels of power that matter on decisions like that.
They don’t have to arrest Abbot, they are arresting the U.S. citizen that is hindering their path of performing federal law. If they don’t surrender (obstruction charges) or fight back it is an act of an armed militia fighting against the U.S. For which the charge is treason. That charge would be assigned to the person who ordered or gave permission to fight against the U.S. If Abbot says they are sound to do so it is his charge. If he says to stand down the charge is the individuals who acted against. Opposition would scatter. Life in prison or possible death penalty for doing your job is not something worth it. In fact I’m sure if someone refused to stop them and was fired they would be able to sue the state of Texas for wrongful termination/ordering them to perform an illegal act against the government.
These comments directly conflict each other.
No they don’t conflict in the slightest.
What part of these comments do not conflict? I even minimized the third comment to make sure there wasn’t confusion. Apparently I needed to not include the topic they were responding to because that confused people.
How could they the federal government be cutting the wire and not be allowed in at the same time? Conflict
What the Supreme Court did was vacate the lower court’s injunction against federal officials cutting or removing the wire. SCOTUS said that ruling was incorrect, and therefore the federal officials can proceed.
SCOTUS did not directly order Texas to permit them to do so (federal law and the Supremacy Clause arguably already require that), and it did not directly prohibit Texas from putting up more wire.
Texas is in defiance of the Supreme Court’s ruling that the law permits federal officials to remove the wire, and is actively impeding and interfering with federal authority to an extent we haven’t seen in decades, but as the Supreme Court hasn’t given any direct orders to Texas regarding this issue, Abbott is not in violation of them to risk being arrested under the statue the other commenter referenced.
I must be missing something.
So the law states the federal government can remove the wire, and Texas is obstructing it. How would they not be in violation if they are impeding them from removing it?
They arguably absolutely are in violation of federal law, and are actively interfering with federal authority. What they are not doing is violating a ruling from the Supreme Court requiring them to act or to refrain from acting, so there isn’t clear, cut-and-dry grounds for immediate arrest. Abbott is pushing back against federal authority to see how far he can go, but he’s not outright refusing to abide by a directive from the Supreme Court, because the Court has given no such directive.
Then why could they not arrest them for breaking the federal law…? That existed whether or not the supreme court said anything.
They don’t need to argue about judicial proceedings they are the executive branch, their job is to make the arrests for breaking federal law. Then courts can decide whether they are guilty. That’s why we have the separation. This bologna about asking a judiciary to decide whether someone is guilty of an act before making the arrests clearly just allows more issues to arrise.
Because Abbott is arguing that the Constitution gives him the authority to do what he’s doing, and the case is much less cut-and-dry than if he openly defied an injunction from the Supreme Court. Plus, arresting the sitting governor of a state isn’t something that’s entered into lightly, and federal authorities obviously want to have their ducks in a row before making such a move. Abbott is playing chicken with them and basically daring them to do something to see how much he can get away with.
Obviously I’d be all in favor of throwing that sack of shit to rot in a federal prison right now, but there’s a lot more reluctance to pull the trigger on something like that at the levels of power that matter on decisions like that.
They don’t have to arrest Abbot, they are arresting the U.S. citizen that is hindering their path of performing federal law. If they don’t surrender (obstruction charges) or fight back it is an act of an armed militia fighting against the U.S. For which the charge is treason. That charge would be assigned to the person who ordered or gave permission to fight against the U.S. If Abbot says they are sound to do so it is his charge. If he says to stand down the charge is the individuals who acted against. Opposition would scatter. Life in prison or possible death penalty for doing your job is not something worth it. In fact I’m sure if someone refused to stop them and was fired they would be able to sue the state of Texas for wrongful termination/ordering them to perform an illegal act against the government.
No, they don’t.