You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
5

[–] xExekut3x 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

But the Supreme Court, in a decision written by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, has said state and local officials are not obliged to carry out federal enforcement. That state’s rights doctrine appears to have prevailed.

I actually agree with this. But this should also mean the federal government doesn't have to give that state any federal tax dollars, for anything, until they comply.

0
1

[–] NACHTJAGD 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Correct.

Also it does not set precedent because refusal to hear does not mean that in the future if it is ever brought up again or if 2A sanctuary city/county/state is ever brought before the SC. You can bet if left wins after 2024-2032 time frame they'll be attacking and trying to get 2A sanctuary abolished by getting a ruling against it by the SC.