Can't Throw them Out Yet - Texas' Right to Defend Border Denied; Dissent Calls for En Banc or Supreme Court Review

Two politically corrupted Fifth Circuit judges made their decision on keeping the injunction against Texas in place, preventing Texas from enforcing immigration laws in Texas.  This was nothing more than a political decision to prolong the raid on our nation in an effort to secure communism.  Judge Andrew Oldham’s dissent starts at page 51 where you can understand the actual law:

United States of America, v. State of Texas; Greg Abbott, in his official capacity as Governor of Texas; Texas Department of Public Safety; Steven C. McCraw, in his official capacity as Director of Texas Department of Public, No. 24-50149, Filed March 26, 2024.

Feel the Panic:

If you search the document for the word “dissent” as I did to arrive at the actual dissent, you are interrupted 20 times before you get there.  This reflects that the majority was psychologically disturbed by their own false position, panicked by the rigorous analysis of the dissent, and screaming on paper much like the squatter that New York now curiously wants to arrest despite his near royal status as an undocumented person of non-white descent:
  The majority’s argument cannot stand on its own.  They know they will be crushed by a higher court; hence they simply attack the dissent like vicious dogs suffering Trump Derangement Syndrome.  Judges Priscilla Richman and Ramirez should be investigated by their state bars for political corruption, ethics failures and related.

Judge Andrew S. Oldham, dissenting the court's decision, calls for intervention by the Fifth Circuit En Banc (Full Panel of the Fifth Circuit) or the US Supreme Court:

Today’s decision means that we’ll likely never know how Texas’s state courts and its state law-enforcement officers would have implemented S.B. 4. The law has not gone into effect because a federal district judge entered a global injunction against it and against all of its hypothetical applications. See Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.”).

Today the majority denies the State’s request to stay that injunction. In a about a week, our same panel will consider the preliminary injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) and presumably affirm it for substantially the same reasons given in the majority opinion above.  Then the district court will presumably have a trial before entering a permanent injunction.

But it’s unclear what there is to try—both because of today’s preemption holding and because then as now there will be zero applications of the state law to anyone. If the case comes back to us for another appeal, it will be controlled by our § 1292(a)(1) decision under the rule of orderliness. So, absent intervention by the en banc court or the Supreme Court, that will be that.   (paragraph breaks and emphasis added).

And so we wait.
Sign in to comment


Powered by StructureCMS™ Comments


Get latest news delivered daily!

We will send you breaking news right to your inbox

Copyright © 2024 Conservative - All Rights Reserved
Powered by