This (below) is a "hole" of the Governor's own making. A lawless, and barbarous one.
He is lacerating children and their parents -- asylum seekers, almost to a person. What sort of monster thinks that is lawful -- let alone. . . a moral approach, to the problems he claims to face?
The law of the United States, and a 1848 Treaty between our nation, and the nation of Mexico. . . prevent this cruel course of action, by anyone -- and certainly not by the governor of a rogue state (who had sworn an oath to "support the United States").
Here's the latest -- on why Abbott and Texas will lose in the Fifth Circuit, from the able AUSAs' appellate offices, overnight (and a bit of it).
. . .The circumstances of this case aptly demonstrate why a district court is free to proceed to the merits while a preliminary injunction appeal is pending. After the district court entered the preliminary injunction, the United States filed an amended complaint that pleads two claims. Only the first claim, alleging that Texas violated Section 10 of the RHA, is the subject of the preliminary injunction and this Court’s review in Texas’s appeal. The second claim in the amended complaint alleges that Texas’s installation of the barrier in the Rio Grande is contrary to Article VII of the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which prohibits “construct[ing] any work that may impede or interrupt, in whole or in part,” the “free and common” “navigation” of the Rio Grande. See generally ECF 60 ¶¶ 17-21, 42-45 (First Amended Complaint); ECF 63 at 10-20 (United States’ opposition to Texas’s motion to dismiss). That distinct claim was not at issue in the preliminary injunction proceedings either in the district court or on appeal. . . .
Even if this Court’s review of the preliminary injunction appeal were to resolve any purely legal issues as to the RHA claim (which it would not for the reasons discussed in the next paragraph), the resolution of the RHA claim will by no means resolve the treaty claim. The treaty precludes either country from impeding the free navigation of any part of the river without the other country’s consent. ECF 63 at 10. See id. at 17 (noting Article VII protects right of navigation across the river). Furthermore, the treaty claim does not require finding that any segment of the Rio Grande is commercially navigable, as “navigation” under the treaty’s terms includes any navigation and is not limited to just commercial navigation. Id. at 17-18.
Notably, Texas has not disputed that the treaty’s definition of “navigation” is broader than the RHA’s. See ECF 65 at 1-6 (Texas’s reply in support of motion to dismiss). Thus, although the treaty claim arises from the same factual occurrence -- Texas’s unilateral and unauthorized placement of the barrier in the Rio Grande -- the treaty claim is legally distinct from the RHA claim, and its success does not depend on the RHA claim. . . .
Who are these feckless would-be dotards? And do they really think they can run out the clock -- and bank on a Tangerine win in November, presumably to pardon them (from charges of crimes against humanity, among others. . . and as of Wednesday, now likely including inciting insurrection by ignoring a final US S.Ct. order)?
[The graphic I've set at top (equating it to a news file photo from the Librabry of Congress, of Geo. Wallace in 1963) -- was made and officially posted by Ken Paxton, the sitting AG of the State of Texas, last night on X-itter. The man -- and his boss, Gov. Abbott. . . are now. . . courting insurrection, from armed Texans -- by invoking the Alamo. Damn.]
Wow. Out.
नमस्ते
No comments:
Post a Comment