• @Dagwood222@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    601 year 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.

    • Nougat
      link
      fedilink
      131 year 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@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      121 year ago

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

      • @mateomaui@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        171 year 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@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        21 year 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@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          31 year ago

          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@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            3
            edit-2
            1 year 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@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              31 year ago

              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.

      • @ryathal@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago

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