• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    5911 months ago

    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.

    • @meco03211
      link
      3111 months ago

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

      • @Evilcoleslaw
        link
        811 months ago

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

    • Nougat
      link
      fedilink
      1211 months ago

      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.”

    • @PeleSpirit
      link
      English
      11
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      deleted by creator

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1511 months ago

        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
        link
        111 months ago

        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
          link
          English
          2
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          deleted by creator

          • @Evilcoleslaw
            link
            3
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            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
              link
              English
              3
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              deleted by creator

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        011 months ago

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