Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67630985/united-states-v-abbott/
Judge pretty much says Abbott isn't offering a defense that is valid (which frankly will allow for a summary judgement) so that's why they put out such a harsh order. Abbott has already appealed.
they should throw abbot in and see if they're designed to drown people.
Lets do it.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
A federal judge ordered Texas to remove floating barriers in the Rio Grande and barred the state from building new or placing additional buoys in the river, according to a Wednesday court filing, marking a victory for the Biden administration.
In July, the Justice Department sued the state of Texas over its use of floating barriers in the Rio Grande, which Gov.
Judge David Alan Ezra wrote that Abbott needed permission to install the barriers, as dictated by law.
“Governor Abbott announced that he was not ‘asking for permission’ for Operation Lone Star, the anti-immigration program under which Texas constructed the floating barrier.
Unfortunately for Texas, permission is exactly what federal law requires before installing obstructions in the nation’s navigable waters,” the judge wrote in his ruling.
“This argument fails because (1) the RHA has already balanced policy interests and determined that the nation’s interest in free navigation of its waterways is supreme to unauthorized state action, and (2) whether Texas’s claim of ‘invasion’ is legitimate is a non-justiciable political question demonstrably committed to the federal political branches,” he wrote.
The original article contains 314 words, the summary contains 180 words. Saved 43%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Bets on Texas refusing to abide by the ruling and leaving them out?
From a related article: “ Last month, two bodies were found near the barriers, with one stuck in the razor buoys. Their identities and cause of death are under investigation.”