Texas considers challenging 1982 SCOTUS decision forcing states to educate illegal immigrant children

By chance, of course, Gov. Greg Abbott announced Wednesday that Texas would consider challenging the 1982 Supreme Court decision requiring states to educate illegal immigrant children within its jurisdiction. Why not? Certainly, just like abortion, there is no too extreme anti-immigration stance for MAGAs. And, usefully, SCOTUS just let everyone know that all previous decisions are back in play.

“Stare Decisis” is a leftover from the days when lawyers protected their place in the legal world by using Latin as a means of saying “the thing is decided”. Stare decisis, or simply “previous”, was and remains a necessary brake on SCOTUS or SCOTUS decisions becomes simply another political institution, an extension of Congress with a slightly different job description, reversing itself every five or six years. The Constitution becomes as malleable as the next control vote and dependent constitutional rights do not really exist.

And so Texas could try, according to Austin statesman:

gov. Greg Abbott said Wednesday that Texas would consider challenging a 1982 United States Supreme Court decision requiring states to offer free public education to all children, including those of undocumented immigrants.

“Texas long ago sued the federal government for bearing the costs of the education program, in a case called Plyler v. Doe.Abbott said, speaking during an appearance on Joe Pags’ program, a conservative radio talk show.

“And the Supreme Court ruled against us on the matter. I think we will resurrect that case and challenge this problem again, because the expenses are extraordinary and the times are different compared to when Plyler versus Doe was issued many decades ago.

Times are different. Yes Greg, times are always different and a similar argument can be made on almost any case. It is not that the “times are different” to act as a stimulus for this push. It’s that the court itself is different, more willing to serve the people who put them in their place.

The great Earl Warren, a giant among the chiefs of justice, was appointed to the court after serving as the governor of California. He was named because people believed he had good judgment, he was a good person, qualified and cared about the American people. Nobody knew his views on constitutional rights. How different it is today, when the judges know why they are on the pitch and how they vote best. As the court becomes more political, even that “nomination for life” thing may start to become less guaranteed. Unless this country changes course, it will only get worse.