Has Abbott's resistance of federal government, including the Supreme Court, gotten they news coverage it deserves?
https://www.chron.com/news/article/abbott-eagle-pass-immigration-18649419.php
#Journalism #SCOTUS @Chron @texastribune
It's not a question of whether it has gotten too little or too much news coverage, but the big issue is that the news coverage it has gotten has been so often flat out factually wrong or at least misleading.
Just for example, there has been so much misreporting about what the Supreme Court actually ordered.
And so there has been way too much coverage that accuses Abbott of resisting Supreme Court orders that don't actually exist.
@volkris @MAD_democracy @Chron @texastribune
Amen. Much as I dislike SCOTUS, they have (generally) been terse and limited in their instructions.
@amgine Well you might be fully aware of this, but for anyone else coming across it, a lot of people don't realize just how limited the judicial branch is, by design.
By design they are a branch with limited authority, limited jurisdiction in the US system of government.
A lot of people get frustrated by what the courts do or don't do without realizing that the courts lack authority or jurisdiction to go farther.
All part of the checks and balances in the US system.
@volkris @MAD_democracy @Chron @texastribune
I am quite aware of it, as a US Citizen living abroad.
I am also aware that enforcement is in the hands of the Executive branch, which includes the DOHS. Mr Abbott is believed to have given orders to the TX National Guard to refuse to follow orders from DOHS 23 Jan to remove obstructions and turn over the park by 26 Jan, in compliance with the SCOTUS ruling.
We should push back on hyperbole. But we should not ignore crime.
@amgine No, I'm simply pointing to the Supreme Court order and what it did and did not say.
I'm not arguing anything else here.
@volkris @MAD_democracy @Chron @texastribune
But all four of those conditions apply regardless of the SCOTUS order. The SCOTUS order allows the US Border Patrol to do what it was doing prior to the lower court ruling: removing the razor wire.
Now TX appears to be obstructing that, in order to defy the SCOTUS order.
@amgine again, that's not what the order did.
TX cannot be defying an order that didn't cover whatever it is they are doing.
@volkris @MAD_democracy @Chron @texastribune
Previous SCOTUS decisions have found attempts to obstruct the implementation of a court decision to be in violation of the decision. This is also standard in all US court systems I am aware of. (This is not necessarily the case in some Canadian jurisdictions, which do not have the same system of precedence.)
@amgine in general the Court doesn't and can't issue orders that would be subject to such obstruction.
The order is either followed or it's not. Any matter of obstruction would be a different case.
With the checks and balances in the US system, Courts generally don't have the authority to order things broadly as a legislature would have, and so the obstruction would generally be coming from someone not a party to the case, and thus not subject to the decision in the first place.
@volkris @MAD_democracy @Chron @texastribune
It seems you are arguing TX can deny a landowner access to their property?
It seems you are also arguing the DOHS does not have the authority to access the national border?
It may be possible you are arguing the supremacy clause of the US Constitution does not apply in this case somehow?
And, possibly, you missed the portion of 2012 Arizona vs. United States which found “states have no power to enforce the immigration laws themselves.” ?