We told you this was coming, as we approach trial on the merits in the floating Rio Grande razor wire barrier case in USDC Judge Ezra's courtroom in West Texas. And it arrived, with a vengeance, this very afternoon. Heh -- like a derecho.
Mr. Paxton is shown in this order to be a complete buffoon, when it comes to understanding very simple principles of federal law, and how the same interacts with his state's exceedingly limited rights -- to interfere in matters left exclusively to the US government, under our shared federal Constitution. Do read it all -- the snark almost drips off the page. Flawless:
. . .Texas. . . argues that the United States’ demand for an injunction pursuant to the RHA is akin to an ejection action at common law, transforming a suit in equity to a legal action. . . .
[T]he United States is not trying its title to the Rio Grande River, attempting to recover possession of real property, or bringing a claim as a wrongfully ejected lessee. Nor is Texas positioned as a party claiming ownership of the Rio Grande River. A common law ejectment action bears no resemblance to the current suit, except that the equitable remedy requested would see Texas’s buoy barrier removed from the Rio Grande River, but on entirely different grounds: a Congressional mandate to keep navigable waterways accessible to all, not a right to possession of real property. . . . Finding the current suit is not analogous to common law ejectment, the Court denies Texas’s request for a jury trial.
[Footnote:] Texas would not need to introduce evidence on a question this Court cannot constitutionally answer, making the State’s dual argument that the question of an invasion is non-justiciable, and that the State can overcome prior rulings with evidence of paramilitary invasions. . . [quite perplexingly-] interesting [/snark]. . . .
That is one fine 16-page piece of. . . old school, but high-borne polite-courtly-language. . . wood-shedding. Smile.
नमस्ते
No comments:
Post a Comment