It's "mad vibes" judges v. legal conservatives in a sign of just how far right the federal appeals court has gone that covers Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas.
Thanks for your work Chris. I am a former journalist and covered courts for several years. I love this stuff! I appreciate your insight and in-depth discussion.
Thanks for taking this on. When I first wrote on this, I literally did not see Oldham's dissent at the end. I had a hell of a time trying to figure out who wrote what.
I had the most difficult time with Ho's writing. The absurdity that because some governors and some Congressional members and some former FBI agents agreed with Texas and therefore it had some legitimate right? And then the entire 'weaponized' migration based on what's happening with Russia...
So what will this be, then. Ultimately, the US had a treaty that states nothing can be built in the river without permission from all parties. That's all she wrote, party over. That should be that. But here you have Ho, and others in the court, setting it up that Texas can operate to defend itself via Article 1 Section 10 because this migration is an 'invasion'.
Sad thing is Judge Ezra trying to demonstrate some conservative cred and no bias against Texas during the status hearing. Solely because of the crap the Fifth keeps dumping on him, because he's actually doing his job, and doing it well.
Basically, if I'm understanding right, if someone gets a ruling from the "mad vibes" judges, they should always appeal en banc. Even though the outcome might be the same, the ruling would likely be a bit more sensible.
Thanks for your work Chris. I am a former journalist and covered courts for several years. I love this stuff! I appreciate your insight and in-depth discussion.
Thanks for taking this on. When I first wrote on this, I literally did not see Oldham's dissent at the end. I had a hell of a time trying to figure out who wrote what.
I had the most difficult time with Ho's writing. The absurdity that because some governors and some Congressional members and some former FBI agents agreed with Texas and therefore it had some legitimate right? And then the entire 'weaponized' migration based on what's happening with Russia...
So what will this be, then. Ultimately, the US had a treaty that states nothing can be built in the river without permission from all parties. That's all she wrote, party over. That should be that. But here you have Ho, and others in the court, setting it up that Texas can operate to defend itself via Article 1 Section 10 because this migration is an 'invasion'.
Sad thing is Judge Ezra trying to demonstrate some conservative cred and no bias against Texas during the status hearing. Solely because of the crap the Fifth keeps dumping on him, because he's actually doing his job, and doing it well.
Basically, if I'm understanding right, if someone gets a ruling from the "mad vibes" judges, they should always appeal en banc. Even though the outcome might be the same, the ruling would likely be a bit more sensible.
Update:
Judge Ezra has rescheduled the bench trial on the merits until August. August. Evidently, Texas gets whatever it wants, whenever it wants.