This is ridiculous. Checks and balances are in the Constitution. A state law can't just exclude itself from judicial review any more than a mayoral edict can.
this post was submitted on 13 May 2025
126 points (98.5% liked)
United States | News & Politics
2897 readers
1003 users here now
Welcome to !usa@midwest.social, where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.
If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.
Rules
Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.
Post anything related to the United States.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The constitution is irrelevant if it’s not enforced
Not actually true. Judicial review is not in the constitution. It has been interpreted as being implied by the constitution, but not as absolute. My understanding is that the US Congress has the right to exclude things from judicial review. I've never heard consideration of doing it at the state legislature level though. It's definitely ballsy.
Okay but who's enforcing it?
Are they in the Texas state constitution specifically? Or just the federal? Because these people don't care about the Feds unless it benefits them to do so. And, how do you plan to challenge it? In the courts?
Unless there's enforcement, courts mean nothing. If the cops want it to be a law, it's a law, no matter how much anyone says otherwise. And if the legislature has the cops on their side, the courts don't matter.
Then democracy is well and truly dead.
Also, the tree is home base, I can call safety any time I want, and when I say I’m invisible you can’t see me.
That provision just makes it easier to overturn the whole bill. It's an unconstitutional legislative violation of the separation of powers. They don't even have to argue the merits of the rest of the bill; they can overturn the whole thing on the basis of that single provision.
Based on what part of the constitution? Congress has the right to define the scope of judicial authority as far as I am aware. That actually is the separation of powers. Congress is elected and judges aren't. Judicial review is not in the US constitution at all. I don't know about the Texas constitution.
Judicial review is not in the US constitution at all.
You're not the first person to say this to me. I don't know where you're getting that idea. Judicial review is a direct conclusion of Article III, Section 2:
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution,
When I take a case to the court, claiming the legislature is violating my constitutional rights, the court has to determine jurisdiction: Whether they are allowed to hear the case. Legislation purports to deny them jurisdiction over such a case; Article III specifically grants them jurisdiction over all cases.
When they conflict, Article III supersedes legislation. Here, that constitutes judicial review.
There's a state/federal argument to be made, but not a separation of powers argument. The Texas constitution has similar language. For this provision of the bill to survive, SCOTUS (Or, more accurately, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals) will have to refuse certain powers they are explicitly granted, in favor of limitations prescribed by another branch.
I don't know where you're getting that idea.
The politicians that are coming up with this shit are getting the idea from where they get all their ideas: that's how they want things to be and so they will declare it is so. Until they have a majority on the court but a minority in congress, when their opinion will shift in the most dramatic fashion and they will pretend to have never heard of any of this.
I don't know who you think "they" is, but the "they" to which I belong is currently out of power in all three branches. I don't change my opinions for convenience. You don't know me so please stfu about things you have no way of knowing.
I apologize, when I said "they" I wasn't referring to you, although I can see now my reply makes it look that way - I was referring to the Texas politicians (and when I looked it up, I discovered that even Federal politicians are entertaining this idea) - "they" are just making shit up because it suits them basically.
Sorry, again, didn't mean anything at all directed at you.
Edit: edited my original post to try and be more clear
Cool. I guess I was a little harsh and assuming there myself. That's my bad.
You should have continued to this part.
In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
This is the basis for Congress to strip jurisdiction and therefore judicial review.
OK. Let's assume that logic for a moment. What are its limitations? Does Congress have the authority to declare everything an "exception", and completely subsume Article III?
Of course not. Section 1 says the judicial power is wielded by SCOTUS and the inferior courts. Congress could try to specify a particular inferior court for specific types of cases, (Such as the FISA court), but they can't declare a type of case to fall completely outside of any court's jurisdiction. That would violate Section 1, as well as most of the bill of rights.
All "cases" are under the purview of the judicial branch. So long as anyone can bring a "case" balancing legislative vs constitutional authority, judicial review arises as a constitutional power.
OK, let's flip that argument. What are the limitations of judicial review? Can justices declare everything Congress passes to be unconstitutional? (You know there are wacky Republican "scholars" who would agree with them).
Of course not. Legislative power is wielded by Congress, not the courts. Many countries, for example the UK or the Netherlands, expressly forbid judicial review of legislation passed by parliament, exactly for this reason. Legislative power should belong to representatives elected by the people.
I don't agree that it is at all clear that "cases" includes challenges to the validity of the law itself. Adding and removing laws is supposed to be a legislative process, and therefore a political one.
Can justices declare everything Congress passes to be unconstitutional?
Theoretically, yes. They don't don't this, but they could argue that Congress does not possess the power to enact the particular law relevant to the case before them. They are constitutionally empowered to answer each plaintiff's petition; they could, theoretically, find in favor of every plaintiff.
The constitutional remedy for such an abuse is for Congress to pack the courts, impeach the justices, or amend their legislation into the constitution.
Legislative power should belong to representatives elected by the people.
Indeed. But we aren't talking about a legislative power. If we are talking about judicial review, we are deciding whether or not the legislature is empowered to create a particular law.
In this case, they are claiming the power to prohibit the courts from answering my petition for redress of grievances. The constitution guarantees me that right; the legislature is not empowered to strip me of that right. They are not empowered to create such a law. The creation of such a law is not a legislative power; overturning that law is not an imposition on the powers of the legislature.
The constitution clearly doesn't guarantee you an answer from the courts to redress every grievance. You might get a hearing to determine whether or not you have a basis to receive a trial, but that trial isn't guaranteed.
Throwing out or modifying laws is absolutely a legislative action. It is formally recognized as such in many countries. That has not lead to the trampling of constitutions.
It's not just Congress that can abuse their power. We have seen multiple judicial rulings in the last decade that are based on fraudulent constitutional interpretation.
The constitutional guarantee is to petition the government for redress of grievances. This bill purports to prohibit such petitions, by prohibiting any state court from hearing them.
Throwing out or modifying laws is absolutely a legislative action.
Not when Congress lacks the power to enact the purported "laws" in the first place. Which is what is alleged in every case of judicial review.
It's not just Congress that can abuse their power.
Agreed. I've never claimed otherwise. In a previous comment, I specifically described an abusive court, as well as some of the constitutional provisions for reigning in such a court.
How would this not end with several totalitarian like states and the federal government having to send military responses to states that didn't fall under federal law?
That's the whole idea. Comply or merely submit, they don't care which.
Because the federal government will be cool with it and use it as a blueprint
texas is already mostly completed p2025 before trump fully deployed it.
Can I just pretend I'm texan and vote illegally 10x next time they vote to secede?
Wouldn't it be going to the fifth circuit and then the supreme court, both of which are controlled by outright christofascists? Why would they even bother?