Yet Another Defeat Of The Inhumane Trumpists

The state of Texas tried to enforce Trumpist treatment of citizens and others by cities refusing to enforce federal rules about immigration. The cities rebelled at a proposed new law and sued. They won an injunction preventing enforcement tomorrow.

The legal arguments were diverse from punishment for free speech to division of powers. The court agreed with many arguments of the plaintiffs.

“Plaintiffs assert, inter alia, that SB 4, on its face and as applied, is preempted by federal law and violates the Supremacy Clause, the First Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the Ninth Amendment, and the Tenth Amendment. They also assert that SB 4 violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the Texas Constitution’s separation of powers, due course of law, freedom of speech, and home rule provisions. Because SB 4 does not take effect until September 1, 2017, the Court has limited its analysis to those claims that may be construed as facial challenges. There are numerous claims that the Court does not address, either because it is unnecessary to reach them or because they are “as applied” challenges. The Court’s findings herein are preliminary, based on the “likelihood of success” standard, and may be revised at the merits stage of the litigation.
 

 
Thus, the Court finds merit in Plaintiffs’ argument that States should not be able to exempt themselves from the exacting requirements of 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g) by creating State regulation that circumvents such requirements. The Court further finds, after examining the federal statute as a whole and identifying its purpose and intended effects, that Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood that the federal interest in the field of immigration enforcement is so dominant that it may preclude enforcement of state laws on this subject and Tex. Gov’t Code § 752.053(b)(3) is likely to be field preempted.
 

 
The best interests of the public will be served by preserving the status quo and enjoining, prior to September 1, the implementation and enforcement of those portions of SB 4 that, on their face, are preempted by federal law and violate the United States Constitution.
 
On February 2, 2017, when SB 4 was being considered in the Senate, eight witnesses showed up to support SB 4 and over 1,600 witnesses showed up to oppose it. Docket no. 77, exhibit 1 -D. The named plaintiffs in this lawsuit include five of the six largest cities in the State of Texas Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, Austin, and El Paso and their cumulative population exceeds six million people. This is representative of the public opposition to SB 4 and the overwhelming public concern about its detrimental effect. The public interest in protecting constitutional rights, maintaining trust in local law enforcement, and avoiding the heavy burdens that SB 4 imposes on local entities will be served by enjoining those portions of SB 4 that the Court has preliminarily determined are preempted or are constitutionally invalid on their face.”

See CITY OF EL CENIZO, et. al. v State of Texas decision

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.

This entry was posted in politics and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to Yet Another Defeat Of The Inhumane Trumpists

  1. oiaohm says:

    Deaf Spy
    Btw, Trump donated 1 million USD to help the Hurricane victims. Hilary Clinton, Obamas and a bunch of illustrious dems and anti-trumpists donated exactly nothing. Zero.
    Go away do some research. Both Obamas and Hillary Clinton have documented donations with major Hurricanes. Not in the same value as Trump but claim zero is you being a idiot.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/07/us/hurricane-harvey-fund-presidents.html?mcubz=3
    Yes and doing fund raising to get more.

    So Deaf Spy you just made another complete out and out lie.

  2. Deaf Spy says:

    Btw, Trump donated 1 million USD to help the Hurricane victims. Hilary Clinton, Obamas and a bunch of illustrious dems and anti-trumpists donated exactly nothing. Zero.

    Common people happen to remember such things. Stilettoes they forget.

  3. oiaohm says:

    http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic-letter/2015/december/effects-of-minimum-wage-on-employment/
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/factcheck/2015-03-12/minimum-wage/6290482
    See how increasing minimum wages leads to reducing working hours and laying off people.
    Deaf Spy that is not in fact backed by studies as for sure to happen. If the minimum wage is too low people cannot afford food and health properly resulting in worst productivity at work. So if you are attempting to keep minimum wage low government funded schools and heath-care is a good idea. The study conclusion is that minimum wage has to be reasonable if minimum wage is too high or too low it causes employment problems. Think about it too low of minimum wage increase days off due to illness and need to train more staff to cope with this problem now all that saving on wages goes out other areas.

    With tax cuts, it becomes much cheaper for companies just to pay the tax than pay accountants for all kinds of (semi)legal tricks to reduce the official profit.
    Wishful thinking problem here is any listed on stock exchange company has to employee accountants to produced reports to keep share holders happy. So its nothing to them to do some tax avoidance as well. Its not a extra cost doing tax avoidance.

    Therefore, businesses are very sensitive to regulations that apply their direct costs.
    This is more complex. If the increase cost of the regulation reduces another cost like employee sick days its all can be fine. So if the regulation just increases cost after it effects are allowed for the result is bad. But a regulation providing a cost may not be bad its like increasing minimum wage.

    I can tell you, lower taxes are a blessing that can definitely make a difference.
    I have also seen this cause nightmare. Where one government of Australia lowered taxes and removed regulation it worked for 2 years before someone died and the regulations had to be put back and the tax had to return to cover the cost of that regulation.

    A correct change is a blessing but if the government does a incorrect change its a curse even at first it might appear like it going to be better. With lower tax is the government removing a service the business needs or is the government letting a service to deregulated so its price spikes higher than the tax saving. There are are may more or combinations. Big picture is required to know if a tax reduction is good or bad.

  4. Deaf Spy says:

    Business tax cuts generally mean a tax hike for someone else…

    Not necessarily, and almost never in fact. Tax cuts usually result in miniscule income to the state budget, due to increased collection of tax income. With tax cuts, it becomes much cheaper for companies just to pay the tax than pay accountants for all kinds of (semi)legal tricks to reduce the official profit.

    NEVER translate to higher wages and better benefits for employees

    I never said they will. I said “open new job positions”, which will benefit other people.

    Businesses have certain level of efficiency, which is slow to increase. Therefore, businesses are very sensitive to regulations that apply their direct costs. See how increasing minimum wages leads to reducing working hours and laying off people. Same logic applies here.

    State is a poor spender. Why? Because it always spends someone else’s money.

    P.S. For the record, I’ve been running a business for the last decade, and I’ve been through several tax reforms. I can tell you, lower taxes are a blessing that can definitely make a difference.

  5. Ivan says:

    Giving a tax rate of 15% to them is wise, very wise.

    Only in theory. Business tax cuts generally mean a tax hike for someone else that probably can’t afford to pay more taxes and NEVER translate to higher wages and better benefits for employees.

  6. Deaf Spy says:

    while giving tax-cuts to the wealthy who don’t need them

    That is not a very smart thing to say, Robert. The largest number of companies in any developed country are small and medium businesses. These are never wealthy, don’t mistake them with large corporations. These are the real drivers of the economy, the most important employers.

    Giving a tax rate of 15% to them is wise, very wise. That will reduce the costs for doing business, allow businesses to make new investments and further improve their efficiency, open new job positions, and lower prices of their products and services.

    All that will break the budget in a big way and wreck the economy

    Only if you believe the biggest driver of economy is the state. Which is simply untrue. Government investments can serve as tiny boosters to economy, but that’s it. This is not my statement, mind you. You may want to read some Milton Friedman for more details.

  7. Deaf Spy wrote, “This is what people will remember, not the non-sense of the Dems and so-called intellectuals about First Lady’s stilettos, and arrests of illegal immigrants.”

    I don’t know. Watching FLOTUS cross the lawn of the White House in those stilettos is seared into my memory. High heels are something I hate. Women don’t need to appear taller. I like them the way they are. High heels are also very hard on women’s feet, lawns and carpets and hardwood floors. They are worse than useless. Why she or anyone else would wear them on the same day they intended to wear sneakers to a hurricane is beyond me…

    I used to work in a profession, teaching, where women dominated elementary schools in numbers. While I worked in many schools and met many women teaching, I only recall one woman who wore high heels in school. TLW does occasionally wear high heels but she is very short, much shorter than the average woman. Still, they are not her first choice while heading outdoors. ISTR she doesn’t wear them driving but does bring them along to change at the destination. Just my observations. I don’t condemn any woman for her choice in fashion, but I do question the practicality/utility of the devilish devices.

  8. Deaf Spy wrote, “lowering the taxes will have a tremendously positive impact on small businesses.”

    Haven’t you heard? Trump wants to build a great wall, invest heavily in arms, pay for ever more severe hurricanes, deport millions, go to war with NK, and stop trading with China and the rest of the world, while giving tax-cuts to the wealthy who don’t need them. All that will break the budget in a big way and wreck the economy. I noticed just now that gold was trading over $1300USD/ounce and the CDN was pushing 81 and the fear and greed index was about the same as election day last week… I’d say, if you believe chaos in government was good for the economy, I have a few bridges I could sell you.

  9. Deaf Spy says:

    At the same time, lowering the taxes will have a tremendously positive impact on small businesses. This is what people will remember, not the non-sense of the Dems and so-called intellectuals about First Lady’s stilettos, and arrests of illegal immigrants.

    Btw, how come no one wants to remember that Obama banned Cuban refugees? Where were you, Robert, to call on the Constitution then?

  10. wizard emiritus says:

    “And I think that is exactly what wizard emiritus thinks of you.”

    Spot on Sir.

    ” You like change other people nym so if he wants to call you dougie live with it.”

    I could care less what name he uses to refer to me or others posting here. I refer to him as Dougie because I believe he is Dougman hiding behind a new nym.

  11. wizard emiritus says:

    ” You like change other people nym so if he wants to call you dougie live with it.”
    Actually, I’ve referred to him several times as Dougie because I believe that Mr. G. is noneother than the Dougman who was banned from this site by Robert Pogson. If you look through Mr. G’s posts and compare them, you will notice that Mr. G. makes references that are suspiciously like those of the former poster Dougman. At to this the fact that Mr. G . only showed up for the first time after Dougman was banned and you can see where my suspicions lie.

    I’ve tried to get Grece’s attention several times already by referring to him as Dougie (our pet nym for the Dougman) I’ve, even asked him point blank if he was dougman.

    Each time,in the past he had chosen to ignore my posts. Now that I have chosen to contradict his beliefs on states rights vs, federal law, he decides to ask “Who’s Dougman”

    Interesting.

  12. oiaohm says:

    Grece so you cannot complain if someone does not what you use your nym.

    Certainly not I, nor do I care what a peon like yourself says.

    And I think that is exactly what wizard emiritus thinks of you. You like change other people nym so if he wants to call you dougie live with it.

  13. Grece says:

    HamDong, what the hell are you talking about? Who the hell is complaining? Certainly not I, nor do I care what a peon like yourself says.

  14. oiaohm says:

    Grece funny cannot have it both ways either. You had not using someone handle before and when someone does it to you then you complain.

  15. Grece says:

    Why don’t you share with the group? and whom is Dougie??

  16. wizard emiritus says:

    “Which Constitution are you referring too?”

    you know exactly which one I am referring to Dougie.

  17. Grece says:

    Texas is a sovereign state within the sovereign United States. The Texas government is accountable to Texas citizens.

    Which Constitution are you referring too?

  18. wizard emiritus says:

    “Texas has the sovereign authority and responsibility to protect the safety and welfare of its citizens and can pass any law they like.”

    AFIAK Not according to the Constitution it doesn’t.

    ” The temporary hold on SB4 will be appealed and overturned. ”

    Perhaps, then again perhaps not.

  19. Grece says:

    Read the decision, if you don’t believe me. Sheriff Joe was violating the constitution for decades and was convicted for failing to stop.

    Read the decision? Is that the best you can respond with?? And decades Robert?…so no one bothered with Sheriff Joe until just recently, why is that?

    The plaintiff asserted, that SB4 was not Constitutional, there is no solid evidence, only a claim that it was. Texas has the sovereign authority and responsibility to protect the safety and welfare of its citizens and can pass any law they like. The temporary hold on SB4 will be appealed and overturned.

    Again Robert, Constitution is capitalized. Just FYI.

  20. IGnatius T Foobar says:

    It’s so funny to watch Commie Comrade Pogson get all bent out of shape while believing all of the canned talking points of the political left.

    In the end there are only two types of people in the world: those who support President Trump (PBUH) and those who are LITERALLY Hitler.

    Oh, and it’s called “Linux” not “GNU/Linux”. Only ultra left wing idiots like Stallman and Pogson use the latter term.

  21. Grece wrote, “The only people murdering ANYONE, are the illegals coming across the United States border from Mexico.”

    That’s just plain ignorance being demonstrated. Lots of legal residents of USA commit murder.

    “According to analysis of the 2010 census and the American Communities Survey done by the non-profit American Immigration Council, immigrants to the United States are significantly less likely than native-born citizens to be incarcerated. The authors found that 1.6 percent of immigrant males age 18-39 are incarcerated, compared to 3.3 percent of the native-born.”

    See https://www.cbsnews.com/news/illegal-immigrants-and-crime-how-big-a-problem-is-crime-committed-by-immigrants/

  22. Grece wrote, “where in the Constitution Sheriff Joe was wrongful”.

    Read the decision, if you don’t believe me. Sheriff Joe was violating the constitution for decades and was convicted for failing to stop. In particular, he was arresting people just because they were Hispanic and he believed Hispanics were bad people. That’s breaking all kinds of rules, in particular it was unreasonable search and seizure. If he was arresting whites because they were whites, how long would he have been in operation? Not long, but because Hispanics are a minority and some parts of USA treats Hispanics as second class, Joe was allowed to run roughshod over the constitution. That’s stopped now, although justice delayed is justice denied. Joe was smart enough to hide his abuse under the guise of traffic policing but he tried to enforce federal laws which are not in the domain of local police largely. It’s called separation of powers. Canada explicitly lists powers of provinces and the feds but USA does not, so Joe got away with it for a while under a snow job.

    Fourth Amendment: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

    Security of the person means one doesn’t get to be arrested while driving Hispanic. Get the point? Probable cause does not mean driving while Hispanic. Joe had a hit squad which watched Hispanics assemble and he had officers stop them when they left the assembly under the guise of controlling traffic. One doesn’t create probable cause in an automobile. Joe’s probable cause was being Hispanic but he could not put that on court-documents so he pretended it was a matter of traffic and once he had people in custody he sent lots of Hispanics, USAians or not, to ICE. ICE often refused them but Joe persisted and used Border Patrol as backup, dumping innocent people miles away from their homes and vehicles along the border. It was kidnapping, abuse of power, and just plain wrong. For Trump to hold this guy up as a hero is disgusting. It’s one bully praising another. Sick. Sad.

  23. Grece says:

    Furthermore, oh ignorant one. Being “simply unconstitutional” does not meet the prima facie for such. For such an action, one must be opposing a Constitutional law forthwith. With that said, I ask you, which Constitutional law was Sheriff Joe breaking?

    For example:

    District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008).

    A District of Columbia statute that banned virtually all handguns, and required that any other type of firearm in the home be dissembled or bound by a trigger lock at all times violates the Second Amendment, which the Court held to protect individuals’ right to bear arms.

    So will you share with us, where in the Constitution Sheriff Joe was wrongful? I have studied as a paralegal, as being a former project manager. I had to review business contract’s and legalese, so your explanation would be most enjoyable albeit laughable.

  24. Grece says:

    The constitution is about limiting the power of government and protecting the rights of people, not just citizens.

    The word “consitutuion” should be capitalized. When you’re using “constitution” descriptively, it’s lowercase:

    The chess club needed a new constitution.

    In the U.S., when you’re referring to the specific founding document we refer to as the Constitution, it is capitalized:

    George Washington’s name is the first signature on the Constitution.

    You may not murder a person simply because they are not citizens.

    Who is murdering whom Robert? The only people murdering ANYONE, are the illegals coming across the United States border from Mexico.

    Further, the proposed Texas law would expose even citizens to violation of free speech and illegal search and detention.

    Rolls-eyes Robert, you amaze me with your hyperbole.

    Sherrif Joe was prosecuted for targetting hispanics illegal or not. That’s simply unconstitutional.

    He wasn’t prosecuted nor was he convicted for doing his job. He was convicted for willfully disobeying the law after a court ordered him to stop arresting illegals. Get your facts straight.

  25. Grece wrote, “illegal immigrants are not citizens of the the United States so they are not protected by the Constitution”.

    The constitution is about limiting the power of government and protecting the rights of people, not just citizens. You may not murder a person simply because they are not citizens. Further, the proposed Texas law would expose even citizens to violation of free speech and illegal search and detention. Sherrif Joe was prosecuted for targetting hispanics illegal or not. That’s simply unconstitutional.

  26. Grece says:

    The state of Texas tried to enforce Trumpist treatment of citizens and others by cities refusing to enforce federal rules about immigration. The cities rebelled at a proposed new law and sued. They won an injunction preventing enforcement tomorrow.

    They can rebel all they want Robert, and to further note, illegal immigrants are not citizens of the the United States so they are not protected by the Constitution.

    The judge however did not block the law’s controversial “show me your papers” provision, which critics have said will lead to racial profiling. That measure will force law enforcement leaders to allow cops to ask about immigration status during routine detentions, for anything from speeding to jaywalking.

    In 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court preserved the “show us your papers” provision of the law that required law enforcement to figure out the immigration status of people they detained or stopped, based on suspicion that they were in the U.S. unlawfully.

    Illegal immigrants are just that ILLEGAL, why a nut-job like yourself advocates for lawlessness is beyond me.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *