Confirming the reliability of Megatron, Zerohedge has republished an article just now that links to Fox reporting that the US Border Patrol has no plans to either arrest TX National Guard personnel or to attempt to remove razor wire from along the TX/US/Mexico border.
At last, some major pushback against the Deep State. Let's hope Texas stays strong and more and more States support them. The DS won't be defeated by elections, but by being starved of its power and isolated into oblivion.
Looking back at what I wrote I can see why several sharp commenters got the impression that I was saying that there had been a ruling on the merits of the case. There hasn't been--although the lower courts were signaling that they would side with TX while the SCOTUS, in my belief, was signaling the opposite. Those commenters were right to challenge the loose lingo. I think we all agree that the SCOTUS ruling opened up a constitutional can of worms that they would have done better to avoid.
There is normally leeway or prudential discretion in the enforcement of laws--every traffic stop, to take a low level example, doesn't result in a ticket. The difference here is that what's happening goes well beyond legit discretion to a policy that amounts in practice to thwarting the obvious intent of the laws--certainly in the practical application of regime policies. The policies in effect may conform to the letter of the law but are cleverly interpreted or applied to circumvent the intent of the law. So Zhou evades the charge of a direct order to ignore the laws, while in effect doing so. The remedies for this are all political, as a practical matter. Impeachment for failure to enforce the laws, throw the bums out through elections, pressure of public opinion to force enforcement. But nothing is happening.
Zhou himself defies rulings from the SCOTUS he and his Marxist friends disagree with. Examples include the student borrowing decision as well as the various work around implemented to undermine the Dobb’s decision.
I guess I don't understand how the SCOTUS decision affects any of this directly. SCOTUS did not say that Texas could not erect barriers, and did not order Texas to do anything. As I understand it it simply says -- effectively, by vacating the lower court injunction that said the feds could not remove the barriers -- that the feds could remove the barriers if they so desired. SCOTUS did not rule on the merits. Here is a direct quote from the text of the decision: "The December 19, 2023 order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, case No. 23-50869, is vacated." So how is Texas defying the Supreme Court and telling them "to pound sand" by continuing to erect and maintain barriers?
One article from The Texas Tribune actually said "The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ordered Texas to allow federal border agents access to the state's border with Mexico". Nowhere in the brief Supreme Court ruling does it say that. So that statement appears to me to be flat out false.
If Texas is defying anything it is not the Supreme Court, but the Executive Branch of the Federal Government. But until the lower courts and possibly SCOTUS rule on the merits then even that defiance seems to me to be justified. In any case it would be up to the Executive Branch, not the Supreme Court, if it so wished to attempt to forcibly go into the border areas where they are and take down the barriers. And even the Feds did that, the SCOTUS ruling does not prohibit Texas from re-erecting the barriers whenever and wherever they wish, until if and when the lower courts rule that Texas cannot do that.
If my reasoning is wrong on this, please explain how.
Thanks for the comment, Al. I won't attempt to contradict you, exactly, however ...
I would argue that by ruling that "the feds could remove the barriers if they so desired" (your words) the SCOTUS *is* in effect ordering TX to allow the CBP access to the border--I believe the Texas Tribune is correct as to the meaning and effect of the ruling. If TX prevented such access the CBP would, following the SCOTUS ruling, be authorized to arrest those preventing their access. Therefore TX *is* defying the SCOTUS by stating that it will not allow the feds to remove the barriers (and TX has in the recent past prevented CBP from approaching certain areas of the border). OTOH, it's true that the SCOTUS ruling doesn't order the CBP to take action--that is discretionary with the Executive Branch. And for now the Executive Branch is standing down.
You're right--it's complicated. The restraining order told the federal government that they could not take action against measures that TX put in place against illegal entry while the case was going through the courts. Restraining orders of that sort normally signal that the courts, preliminarily, believe that they will be ruling in favor of the side that asked for the order--here, TX. The SCOTUS ruling that vacated that order told TX that they were supposed to allow the feds to remove barriers that had been put in place by TX.
Now, the feds could have reconsidered. They don't have to take any action. But Abbott preemptively announced that TX would not allow the barriers to be removed. The word was that the Zhou regime tried to tell CPB to remove them--gave TX a 24 hour ultimatum to back down from their stand. In the meantime, it sounds like CPB management warned the regime: Don't try to do this; we can't guarantee it will succeed; our agents could mutiny, call in sick, something like that. Remember, firing unionized guys isn't so easy in such circs. Also, the growing support cross country was a warning shot. Even in Blue states or some other states that may not have come out in support (KY, NC, MI, etc) support for TX is probably very high.
So you're right. This is a way out for the SCOTUS. They say nothing further, and the Zhou regime doesn't order CBP to act. As long as that holds the case can go forward in the district court. Presumably the district court will rule for TX and lots of time will be eaten up. Here's the one problem. What happens if other states decide to institute their own measures similar to what TX has done? Or, for example, what if FL or other states institute their own screening at airports, which are run by the feds? Don't ask how that would work, just a hypothetical. Or seaports. The ill considered ruling by the SCOTUS has potentially opened up a can of worms, by instigating TX's open defiance. By the same token as above, as long as no CBP takes no action, Abbott has violated no federal law--but his public defiance stands. Roberts and Justice Amy have compromised the SCOTUS' authority, which is a very bad thing to do in a divided country.
Roberts doesn't seem to get that there are real people leading real lives out there in America. Their lives have been thrown up for grabs and they're upset.
While it has been noted that the legal and political aspects of this are complicated, the optics of this situation clearly favor Texas and not the Biden Administration or the Robert’s court. As Rush used to say “perception is reality” and the reality in this situation has Abbot smelling like a rose, SCOTUS and POTUS otoh don’t smell quite as nice. ;-)
I don’t know about anyone else, but I’m enjoying this immensely. Oh, and this childish “if I don’t talk about it, it doesn’t exist” path that the NYT and WSJ have taken is just pathetic.
Many great questions here. Perhaps we can take this as the final proof that the media is just a partisan instrument owned and controlled by the same political movement that is creating the migration. Perhaps this overlaps with those who, per Molly Ball, ‘fortified’ the 2020 election. ‘Fortifying’ elections is what the current migration is all about. Carlos Slim, a very wealthy Mexican, owns part of the NYT aka Pravda on the Hudson. How does this affect NYT/PotH reporting on millions of people moving through Carlos Slim’s country on their way to the US? Many questions that need answering. There are very few journalists left who ask and attempt to get these types of questions answered. I can think of another: just who in the hell do the people doing the ‘fortifying,’ facilitating migrant invasion, and allowing hundreds of thousands of our people to be killed by drugs manufactured from Chinese precursors in Mexico think they are? They accept hundreds of thousands of dead American citizens as a cost of doing business because the same infrastructure and open border they use to import their political revolution vis mass invasion also manufactures and distributes the drugs. Who do we think they are? What do we think of people who do this to their fellow citizens? Who are we as a people, who allow this?
You're right that my presentation was a bit off--but I'm not clear what you're saying here. I never suggested that the SCOTUS ruling "touched the underlying facts of the case". My understanding is that stays of this sort are regularly issued before final decisions when harm would be done to the party requesting the stay. I'm open to correction (and attempted to clarify in another comment--check it out).
I do believe that the SCOTUS ruling was an indication of where they would come down on the matter when the case reached them. Therefore I fully agree with what you say: "CJ Roberts is wandering into Dred Scott territory here, with 26 states already opposing the Biden Executive Order directly contradicting the actual Law!" This reaction is what makes CJ Roberts action so foolish. Justice Amy appears to be extremely prone to follow his "not the right time" arguments.
As I explain in the other comment (upon correction), the SCOTUS ruling doesn't order the CBP to take action. That means the cases can proceed without confrontation--as long as the Zhou regime stands down.
I admit it wasn't my best form, but to be clear: 1. The SCOTUS was tipping its hand; 2. Abbott really did tell them to pound sand with his public statements and his written position. Clearly Abbott took his action with the intention of putting the SCOTUS in a tough position, which he did. Again, this is really a political matter. The SCOTUS doesn't have the ability to enforce its views one way or another, except by its moral authority. They're losing that fight because they made the wrong choice in not just letting it play out in the lower courts, and that's a bad position for the court to be in with a lawless regime. Yes, the 5th circuit will hopefully save the day.
At last, some major pushback against the Deep State. Let's hope Texas stays strong and more and more States support them. The DS won't be defeated by elections, but by being starved of its power and isolated into oblivion.
Looking back at what I wrote I can see why several sharp commenters got the impression that I was saying that there had been a ruling on the merits of the case. There hasn't been--although the lower courts were signaling that they would side with TX while the SCOTUS, in my belief, was signaling the opposite. Those commenters were right to challenge the loose lingo. I think we all agree that the SCOTUS ruling opened up a constitutional can of worms that they would have done better to avoid.
Not sure I can ask this artfully: is it a lawful order for Biden to direct the CBP to ignore laws around enforcing the border?
There is normally leeway or prudential discretion in the enforcement of laws--every traffic stop, to take a low level example, doesn't result in a ticket. The difference here is that what's happening goes well beyond legit discretion to a policy that amounts in practice to thwarting the obvious intent of the laws--certainly in the practical application of regime policies. The policies in effect may conform to the letter of the law but are cleverly interpreted or applied to circumvent the intent of the law. So Zhou evades the charge of a direct order to ignore the laws, while in effect doing so. The remedies for this are all political, as a practical matter. Impeachment for failure to enforce the laws, throw the bums out through elections, pressure of public opinion to force enforcement. But nothing is happening.
Jeff Childers noted there was no front page coverage of this issue by the NYT, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post.
https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/romance-on-the-high-seas-saturday
His theory is immigration is a loser issue for Biden, so the msm is ignoring it.
more “out of sight, out of mind”skullduggery ?
That's like saying Dolly Parton doesn't want people to look at her boobs.
Zhou himself defies rulings from the SCOTUS he and his Marxist friends disagree with. Examples include the student borrowing decision as well as the various work around implemented to undermine the Dobb’s decision.
I guess I don't understand how the SCOTUS decision affects any of this directly. SCOTUS did not say that Texas could not erect barriers, and did not order Texas to do anything. As I understand it it simply says -- effectively, by vacating the lower court injunction that said the feds could not remove the barriers -- that the feds could remove the barriers if they so desired. SCOTUS did not rule on the merits. Here is a direct quote from the text of the decision: "The December 19, 2023 order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, case No. 23-50869, is vacated." So how is Texas defying the Supreme Court and telling them "to pound sand" by continuing to erect and maintain barriers?
One article from The Texas Tribune actually said "The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ordered Texas to allow federal border agents access to the state's border with Mexico". Nowhere in the brief Supreme Court ruling does it say that. So that statement appears to me to be flat out false.
If Texas is defying anything it is not the Supreme Court, but the Executive Branch of the Federal Government. But until the lower courts and possibly SCOTUS rule on the merits then even that defiance seems to me to be justified. In any case it would be up to the Executive Branch, not the Supreme Court, if it so wished to attempt to forcibly go into the border areas where they are and take down the barriers. And even the Feds did that, the SCOTUS ruling does not prohibit Texas from re-erecting the barriers whenever and wherever they wish, until if and when the lower courts rule that Texas cannot do that.
If my reasoning is wrong on this, please explain how.
Thanks for the comment, Al. I won't attempt to contradict you, exactly, however ...
I would argue that by ruling that "the feds could remove the barriers if they so desired" (your words) the SCOTUS *is* in effect ordering TX to allow the CBP access to the border--I believe the Texas Tribune is correct as to the meaning and effect of the ruling. If TX prevented such access the CBP would, following the SCOTUS ruling, be authorized to arrest those preventing their access. Therefore TX *is* defying the SCOTUS by stating that it will not allow the feds to remove the barriers (and TX has in the recent past prevented CBP from approaching certain areas of the border). OTOH, it's true that the SCOTUS ruling doesn't order the CBP to take action--that is discretionary with the Executive Branch. And for now the Executive Branch is standing down.
Again, thanks for the comment.
TX just told the SCOTUS to pound sand. How will the District and Appellate courts—which sided with TX—deal with that?
Does removing the restraining order mean CPB must remove the wire, or just that they can do so?
You're right--it's complicated. The restraining order told the federal government that they could not take action against measures that TX put in place against illegal entry while the case was going through the courts. Restraining orders of that sort normally signal that the courts, preliminarily, believe that they will be ruling in favor of the side that asked for the order--here, TX. The SCOTUS ruling that vacated that order told TX that they were supposed to allow the feds to remove barriers that had been put in place by TX.
Now, the feds could have reconsidered. They don't have to take any action. But Abbott preemptively announced that TX would not allow the barriers to be removed. The word was that the Zhou regime tried to tell CPB to remove them--gave TX a 24 hour ultimatum to back down from their stand. In the meantime, it sounds like CPB management warned the regime: Don't try to do this; we can't guarantee it will succeed; our agents could mutiny, call in sick, something like that. Remember, firing unionized guys isn't so easy in such circs. Also, the growing support cross country was a warning shot. Even in Blue states or some other states that may not have come out in support (KY, NC, MI, etc) support for TX is probably very high.
So you're right. This is a way out for the SCOTUS. They say nothing further, and the Zhou regime doesn't order CBP to act. As long as that holds the case can go forward in the district court. Presumably the district court will rule for TX and lots of time will be eaten up. Here's the one problem. What happens if other states decide to institute their own measures similar to what TX has done? Or, for example, what if FL or other states institute their own screening at airports, which are run by the feds? Don't ask how that would work, just a hypothetical. Or seaports. The ill considered ruling by the SCOTUS has potentially opened up a can of worms, by instigating TX's open defiance. By the same token as above, as long as no CBP takes no action, Abbott has violated no federal law--but his public defiance stands. Roberts and Justice Amy have compromised the SCOTUS' authority, which is a very bad thing to do in a divided country.
Thanks for bringing this up.
The legal bickering doesn't matter. Texas is being invaded and has reacted accordingly and lawfully.
Roberts doesn't seem to get that there are real people leading real lives out there in America. Their lives have been thrown up for grabs and they're upset.
While it has been noted that the legal and political aspects of this are complicated, the optics of this situation clearly favor Texas and not the Biden Administration or the Robert’s court. As Rush used to say “perception is reality” and the reality in this situation has Abbot smelling like a rose, SCOTUS and POTUS otoh don’t smell quite as nice. ;-)
I don’t know about anyone else, but I’m enjoying this immensely. Oh, and this childish “if I don’t talk about it, it doesn’t exist” path that the NYT and WSJ have taken is just pathetic.
Many great questions here. Perhaps we can take this as the final proof that the media is just a partisan instrument owned and controlled by the same political movement that is creating the migration. Perhaps this overlaps with those who, per Molly Ball, ‘fortified’ the 2020 election. ‘Fortifying’ elections is what the current migration is all about. Carlos Slim, a very wealthy Mexican, owns part of the NYT aka Pravda on the Hudson. How does this affect NYT/PotH reporting on millions of people moving through Carlos Slim’s country on their way to the US? Many questions that need answering. There are very few journalists left who ask and attempt to get these types of questions answered. I can think of another: just who in the hell do the people doing the ‘fortifying,’ facilitating migrant invasion, and allowing hundreds of thousands of our people to be killed by drugs manufactured from Chinese precursors in Mexico think they are? They accept hundreds of thousands of dead American citizens as a cost of doing business because the same infrastructure and open border they use to import their political revolution vis mass invasion also manufactures and distributes the drugs. Who do we think they are? What do we think of people who do this to their fellow citizens? Who are we as a people, who allow this?
Boss Hogg would have defended the border
You're right that my presentation was a bit off--but I'm not clear what you're saying here. I never suggested that the SCOTUS ruling "touched the underlying facts of the case". My understanding is that stays of this sort are regularly issued before final decisions when harm would be done to the party requesting the stay. I'm open to correction (and attempted to clarify in another comment--check it out).
I do believe that the SCOTUS ruling was an indication of where they would come down on the matter when the case reached them. Therefore I fully agree with what you say: "CJ Roberts is wandering into Dred Scott territory here, with 26 states already opposing the Biden Executive Order directly contradicting the actual Law!" This reaction is what makes CJ Roberts action so foolish. Justice Amy appears to be extremely prone to follow his "not the right time" arguments.
As I explain in the other comment (upon correction), the SCOTUS ruling doesn't order the CBP to take action. That means the cases can proceed without confrontation--as long as the Zhou regime stands down.
I admit it wasn't my best form, but to be clear: 1. The SCOTUS was tipping its hand; 2. Abbott really did tell them to pound sand with his public statements and his written position. Clearly Abbott took his action with the intention of putting the SCOTUS in a tough position, which he did. Again, this is really a political matter. The SCOTUS doesn't have the ability to enforce its views one way or another, except by its moral authority. They're losing that fight because they made the wrong choice in not just letting it play out in the lower courts, and that's a bad position for the court to be in with a lawless regime. Yes, the 5th circuit will hopefully save the day.