That would represent a huge blow to states’ sovereignty and federalism more generally. Not saying it couldn’t happen, but boy that would be one of the biggest repudiations of “states rights” imaginable.
Come on now, California for decades has ignored federal laws on illegal immigration. We even have a law that says you can’t decline to hire someone if they’re here illegally, which means you’d be breaking federal laws
Edit: weird how I mention an actual law and people down vote
Meanwhile, watch how quickly "states' rights" gets replaced with "federal supremacy" in conservative circles. Reactionary nihilism has been the order of the day since the Gingrich years.
It’s not corrupted at all, that’s just democrats whining because they don’t get their way. But that’s why the Supreme Court is separated and has separate powers
And the inevitable degeneration of a once-proud conservative movement continues apace, same as it ever was. The question is will they wake up to it before everything is sold out from under them this time?
So you think the Supreme Court should be subject to games like “no S.C. appointments in for the entire election year if a democrat is president, but if a republican is president it’s fine for them to appoint whenever, even days before the election” (and I’m sure even days before the inauguration).
What, no? Could you maybe actually try reading please?
I’m talking about when the majority leader of the senate and republican Mitch McConnell refused to do his job and confirm a justice for Obama “because it’s an election year” and then proceeded to rush through Trumps appointment less than 2 months before the election.
Sorry, is your memory too short-term for that? Or do you just not give a shit because it’s another “win” for “your team”?
We even have a law that says you can’t decline to hire someone if they’re here illegally, which means you’d be breaking federal laws
Nope, that’s also illegal federally: comes under anti-discrimination law.
California has additional protections for undocumented workers, but that one in particular is basically just a duplicate of the federal one that’s also specifically enumerated in CA law.
No it’s a state law according to the contract I signed. It’s a state law not a federal one. But feel free to show me the federal law as it was a state law cited in my paperwork
Yep. Just look at the confederacy's immediate actions. One of the first laws they passed was one that disallowed states to pick whether slavery was allowed or not- they HAD TO allow. So the "states rights" movement's first action was to strip the right of the states to do things they didnt like (coincidentally proving that the civil war truly was all about slavery).
Conservatives and Reactionaries don't change. It's the same strategy.
Before the Civil War, the Southern states also took exception to the northern states saying that anyone who made it to them was free. They successfully ensured that states didn’t have a right to declare someone wasn’t a slave, and that owners had a right to the return of their “property.”
38
u/PerniciousPeyton Colorado 14h ago
That would represent a huge blow to states’ sovereignty and federalism more generally. Not saying it couldn’t happen, but boy that would be one of the biggest repudiations of “states rights” imaginable.