Overnight, the US border patrol authorities answered Texas's latest nonsense thus -- do go read it all:
. . .Texas’s “invasion” defense, like its counterclaim, seeks to reinject a legal argument into these proceedings that the Court has already considered and squarely rejected twice.
Texas offers no good reason why the Court should reconsider its prior rulings on the meaning of the U.S. Constitution’s State War Clause, U.S. Const. art. I, § 10, cl. 3, or that clause’s effect on the present case. Instead, Texas’s response brief merely confirms that the State intends to consume the Court’s and the parties’ time at trial by presenting evidence addressing whether Texas has been “actually invaded” under the State War Clause. ECF 150 at 9 (arguing “Texas should be permitted to introduce evidence of terrorist incursions and paramilitary forces crossing the border”); see also ECF 125 (discussing fact and expert witnesses Texas has disclosed whose testimony will focus on “invasion” arguments).
The Court should strike this defense and prevent the needless and distracting expenditure of time and resources on this issue at trial. . . .
Every court to consider Gov. Abbott's and AG Paxton's claims that Texas gets "magical, mystical" special rights of some sort, simply by alleging -- but never proving -- that it is being "invaded" by some hostile foreign military force. . . has laughed them out of court. So it will be here, as well. Onward.
नमस्ते
No comments:
Post a Comment