29 January—This morning’s editorial in the Republican-American tries to convince readers that criminals are heroes. (And, considering most of the Waterbury rag’s readers, there isn’t much convincing needed. In this instance, anyway.)

Last Monday, five justices of the United States Supreme Court—Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson, Barrett, Roberts—ruled, in Dept. of Homeland Security, et al. v. Texas, that the federal government has the right to remove the razor-wire fencing Texas’s villainous Republican governor had his lackeys put up to deter illegal immigrants from crossing the Rio Grande River from Mexico into the United States. And maim and kill the poor illegals in the bargain.

Four justices—Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh—dissented. No surprise there. But that’s irrelevant.

So in response to the Supreme Court’s order, lowlife Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (with the connivance of his equally reprehensible attorney general, Ken Paxton, who survived impeachment only thanks to his good ole boy cronies in the state senate) has ordered his lackeys to put up even more razor-wire fencing. And he has the support of all but one of the nations Republican governors. No surprise there either, given that they’re also villainous lowlifes or gutless parasites. Or both. And it’s reported that some have sent National Guardsmen to lend Abbott’s minions a hand.

The lone Republican governor who hasn’t crawled on the Abbott standoff wagon is Phil Scott of Vermont. No surprise there, of course, as socially liberal, pro-choice Scott is what lots of Republicans would call a RINO; he sees Donald Trump for the criminal that he is and boasts that he voted for Joe Biden.

On the subject of Trump, he and Abbott are as thick as thieves. And that accounts for more than we want to consider.

Oh yes, Abbott is also having his state lackeys block federal Border Patrol agents from getting anywhere near the razor-wire fencing they’re supposed to remove.

Abbott and Paxton rationalize the asinine standoff ego trip and power grab by brazenly invoking Alexander Hamilton and James Madison on a “lawless president” and by citing a state’s constitutional responsibility to defend itself against invasion. No doubt about it, according to Article I, Section 10, Clause 3, a state does indeed have that responsibility, which may implicitly even extend to peaceful invaders:

“No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.” (Think about the ramifications of that with the current state of the union.)

But the Supreme Court is the nation’s ultimate constitutional authority and it decided that—in this instance, at least, and for better or for worse—the authority of the federal government trumps the authority of the Texas state government.

So what’s the President of the United States going to do about it? Well, Texas Democrats, among others, want Joe Biden to federalize the National Guard and help the Border Patrol get the razor-wire fencing removed in order to facilitate illegal immigration—and, of course, Democrat votes.

But that’s not going to happen. Yet. First, because what SCOTUS did last Monday was essentially send the case back to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which had given Texas just what it wanted; the case will be heard again on 7 February. Second, because Joe Biden is President.

On the other hand, remember when President John F. Kennedy federalized the Alabama National Guard in 1963 in order to force defiantly bigoted Gov. George Wallace to obey the law and permit Negro students (before they were black) to enroll at the University of Alabama? It worked.

The National Guard has in fact been federalized some 16 times, some of them for extended periods. A 17^th federalization is in order without delay. If the recalcitrant Texas governor is allowed to get away with challenging the authority of the Supreme Court when it suits him and his compadres, it doesn’t take much to figure who the next scumbag to diss the Supreme Court in a big way will be.

What the Republican-American calls “the courage displayed by Gov. Abbott” is in reality no more than unlawful insubordination, passive-aggressive insurrection, just a step away from anarchy. In all events, Abbott must be made to obey the law—not necessarily because the law is right, but simply because the law is the law; and neither Abbott nor anyone else can be permitted to pick and choose which facets of the law to observe . . .