Don't bother reading the mindless drivel filed by the State of Texas, tonight -- as it is. . . in the main, silly. But if you really want to have "seen it all", here is AG Paxson's specious 11 page argument against their intervention. In any sane world, Paxson would lose.
But we are in Judge Tipton's courtroom, so who knows? From RAICES, then:
. . .Proposed Intervenors are two organizations whose members and clients include vulnerable noncitizens at risk of deportation and other serious adverse consequences if Texas is successful. To protect their interests, provide the Court with the organizations’ expertise regarding the immigration system, and share the perspective of directly impacted communities, Proposed Intervenors move to intervene in this action. “Federal courts should allow intervention where no one would be hurt and the greater justice could be attained.” Texas v. United States, 805 F.3d 653, 657 (5th Cir. 2015). Fundamentally, the “purpose of intervention is to allow interested parties to air their views so that a court may consider them before making potentially adverse decisions.” Brumfield v. Dodd, 749 F.3d 339, 344–45 (5th Cir. 2014). . . .
[Moreover, as Texas AG Paxson himself admits:] . . .To be sure, the Fifth Circuit has held that a proposed intervenor’s burden to show inadequate representation is “minimal.” Edwards, 78 F.3d at 1005. . . .
To be certain, Tipton needs their cogent, experienced view -- since he lacks. . . one of his own. Will he be smart enough to follow the prior case law in this arena, and welcome their help?
Again, I am scratching my head. . . 'til my lil' puzzler is. . . sore.
We shall see. Onward, to the next filings, due on the Fifth of February, here. . . .
नमस्ते
No comments:
Post a Comment