HurlingDurling,

Wait, you are telling me that trampling over people’s free will to legally travel between states can’t be stopped with some law? Well, who would have known that?

/s

RizzRustbolt,

No shit?

Laughbone,

I wish Texas dems would block flights to Vegas using the same logic and really piss off the old repubs who love to gamble.

Dagwood222,

Tax payer supported theatrics. GOP passes a law they know is unconstitutional, but know that the people who oppose it will have to raise money to fight it. That’s money that’s not being donated to Dem candidates. Meanwhile, the government has unlimited funds to defend the law.

Nougat,

Meanwhile, the government has unlimited taxpayer funds to defend the law.

They're getting it at both ends. We call this the "Texas Spit-Roast."

meco03211,

And they can enforce the blatantly unconstitutional law until it is challenged.

Evilcoleslaw,

A lot of them get stayed until the cases are over.

PeleSpirit,

Serious question, can the DOJ go after laws like this or is there another watchdog type, federal agency that could?

mateomaui,

Seems like an easy DOJ target with all the unconstitutional restriction of moving within and across borders for reasons that are none of anyone’s damn business.

Evilcoleslaw,

If this were just about something the state itself controls and the civil rights of the citizens, then I’m not sure. However, I’m sure Texas takes a bunch of money from the federal government to maintain its highways, so that’s a clearer way.

PeleSpirit,

the civil rights of the citizens

I think pregnant women are citizens and have civil rights. Maybe I’m not understanding what you mean.

Evilcoleslaw, (edited )

I’m saying if it’s just an injury to the citizens and their civil rights, I’m not sure if the DoJ has cause to bring it, but that it may wind up falling on a private citizen to file suit.

Since it’s a civil rights violation they can likely bring it in federal court under 42 U.S. Code § 1983. But I don’t really remember a situation where the DoJ stepped in directly, only in enforcing things after the fact when there’s further obstruction.

PeleSpirit,

Which kind of makes sense, they’ll let the state play it out first. But when it’s this egregious and we don’t have a clown in office, I was hoping they would crack down.

Dagwood222,

Not a lawyer, but I think not. Never heard of it happening.

ryathal,

With current standing laws, not really. The court could decide to ignore the requirement, but they historically haven’t.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • politics@lemmy.world
  • PowerRangers
  • DreamBathrooms
  • ngwrru68w68
  • magazineikmin
  • thenastyranch
  • InstantRegret
  • Youngstown
  • mdbf
  • slotface
  • rosin
  • GTA5RPClips
  • khanakhh
  • kavyap
  • Durango
  • provamag3
  • modclub
  • ethstaker
  • cubers
  • vwfavf
  • everett
  • cisconetworking
  • tacticalgear
  • tester
  • normalnudes
  • osvaldo12
  • anitta
  • Leos
  • megavids
  • All magazines