If this sub-par judge in Louisiana (a 2018 Tangerine appointee) is correct, it would mean that no future President might be able to change policy decisions about the southern border, once adopted by Trump. In fact, it should also mean that Trump's "Muslim Ban 3.0" must have been unlawful (but it did survive -- on only its third try, at the Supremes), since it directly contradicted the prior President Obama administration's "more welcoming" stance.
No, this guy is simply moving the goal posts, to say he liked Tangerine's cruelty at the border more than a more humane Biden administration position, there. To be sure, each President must take care to faithfully execute our treaties and Constitutional commands (two bedrock proscriptions as to border policy Tangerine openly flauted) -- but other than that, the people did cashier Trump's policies, at the ballot box in 2020 -- and Mr. Biden got the message.
Arguing now, two years later, that the APA as to border decisions required a quasi- "free expression" analysis (found nowhere in the positive law), and a balancing of the interests of. . . border guards' preferences over those of the Commander-in-Chief. . . is non-sense.
Even the conservative Fifth Circuit will say so. This guy is only marginally brighter than Bruce Drew Tipton, in the southern district of Texas. Which is to say. . . they both are dim bulbs, on the law. And the upper chambers will so hold.
That is all.
Out, into a warm Friday evening, smiling just the same. . . at my own graphic, here. Grin.
नमस्ते
No comments:
Post a Comment