One particular passage stands out for me.
The courts have to consider every argument raised in self-defense in a court case. Including Texas’ assertion that it was protecting itself “against an invasion.”
‘Here, Texas’s self-defense argument does not preclude the issuance of a preliminary injunction. First, the district court adequately considered Texas’s arguments. Further, the district court, mindful of the sensitive nature of the parties’ interests in this case, sought to expeditiously seek a determination on the merits.
Finally, the gravity of Texas’s argument—
particularly the constitutional implications of a single state’s ability to declare it is invaded and select its own means of waging war—suggests it would be best considered on a fully developed record.’
“…the constitutional implications of a single state’s ability to declare it is invaded and select its own means of waging war…”
Think about what Abbott and his pet AG Paxton are saying…that they have been invaded and they can choose the means with which to wage war.
Think about how bad the Fifth and SCOTUS have become for a state to believe that it, not the US government, can declare an invasion and wage a war. This is tantamount to Texas declaring itself independent of the US.
And as the two (liberal-appointed) circuit judges noted:
The barrier didn’t work, anyway.
