Supremes Push Back
The Market Ticker - Commentary on The Capital Markets
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
Full-Text Search & Archives

Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.

NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.

The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

2020-01-28 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 225 references Ignore this thread
Supremes Push Back
[Comments enabled]

Now could Ruthie take a nap please so we can have a nice Catholic lady in her former seat?

The Supreme Court will allow the Trump administration to enforce, for now, its "public charge" immigration restriction, lifting a pair of preliminary injunctions issued by federal judges.

The Monday order followed a 5-4 split vote that divided the court’s conservatives and liberals.

If you remember this was yet another "national injunction" that is blatantly unlawful as no court has "reach" beyond its jurisdiction.  The Supremes are getting very tired of it, and now you're seeing purely-ideological votes along that line.

The public charge constraint has been in Immigration Law for decades.  What is a "public charge"?  Someone reliant on public assistance.  The Statutes do not define what this is but they don't have to; if you're not self-reliant and able to earn your own living in its entirety, and cannot prove sponsorship so the taxpayer is not required to pick up the cost of maintaining you then under said long-standing law you're inadmissible.

The Demonscats, of course, hate this.  Never mind the fact that treating this circumstance any other way is exactly identical to armed robbery, in that US Citizens are forced to pay these bills.  Armed robbery is a felony, and further, it justifies the use of whatever force is necessary to halt it.

The Supremes are exactly right both on the merits and on stomping on this trend.

Let me be clear: So-called "national injunctions" are void for lack of jurisdiction and to the extent anyone tries to enforce one it should be met with a second Declaration of Independence.  Period.

View with responses (opens new window)