• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge Hands Gavin Newsom Control of National Guard in Blow to Trump

RaleBulgarian

RaleBulgarian

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2018
Messages
53,607
Reaction score
40,909
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
“In an order following an afternoon hearing, Breyer concluded that "Defendants are temporarily ENJOINED from deploying members of the California National Guard in Los Angeles. Defendants are DIRECTED to return control of the California National Guard to Governor Newsom."

In the case, Trump is the defendant and Newsom is the plaintiff.”

“Newsom wrote on X on Thursday:"BREAKING: The court just confirmed what we all know — the military belongs on the battlefield, not on our city streets. This win is not just for California, but the nation. It's a check on a man whose authoritarian tendencies are increasing by the day. End the illegal militarization of Los Angeles now, @realDonaldTrump. History is watching."
www.newsweek.com

Judge hands Gavin Newsom control of National Guard in blow to Trump

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ordered that control of the National Guard be handed back to Gavin Newsom.
www.newsweek.com www.newsweek.com

🤣
 
This is bad news for Trump.


Dems are finally taking control. . . . I'm kidding, of course. 🤣

"Donald Trump will be relieved of his command at noon tomorrow." - Gavin Newsom

Yeah - right. :LOL: As if Trump is going to accept the ruling of some low-level district court activist judge.
 
Over the past few days many Trump supporters on this forum have made the ridiculous claim that Trump's mere declaration of a rebellion is sufficient to justify the invocation of 12406.

The Judge does not agree with those Trump supporters:

"Defendants misconstrue the plain language of § 12406, however. The statute permits the President to federalize the National Guard “[w]henever” one of the three enumerated conditions are met, not whenever he determines that one of them is met."

"But their argument puts the cart before the horse. For the President to exercise his discretion (as to how many National Guard members or units to federalize), there must first be an invasion, rebellion, or inability to execute the laws."

"The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of “rebellion.” Defendants refer repeatedly to 'violent rioters,' and 'mobs,' see, e.g., Opp. at 1, and so the Court pauses to state that there can be no debate that most protesters demonstrated peacefully."

"While Defendants have pointed to several instances of violence, they have not identified a violent, armed, organized, open and avowed uprising against the government as a whole. The definition of rebellion is unmet."

"With that in mind, Defendants have still not established a factual basis—again, even assuming their factual assertions to be correct—from which this Court can conclude that there is a danger of an organized, violent, armed uprising with the goal of overthrowing the lawful government of the United States. Accordingly, Defendants do not satisfy the 'rebellion' condition."

 
Last edited:
SkyChief said:
This is bad news for Trump.


Dems are finally taking control. . . . I'm kidding, of course. 🤣

"Donald Trump will be relieved of his command at noon tomorrow." - Gavin Newsom

Yeah - right. :LOL: As if Trump is going to accept the ruling of some low-level district court activist judge.
Click to expand...
Clearly, you are either ignorant of how our legal system works, or support the illegal actions of the fat orange shit stain.
 
SkyChief said:
This is bad news for Trump.


Dems are finally taking control. . . . I'm kidding, of course. 🤣

"Donald Trump will be relieved of his command at noon tomorrow." - Gavin Newsom

Yeah - right. :LOL: As if Trump is going to accept the ruling of some low-level district court activist judge.
Click to expand...
He won’t have a choice. The NG is required to follow court orders
 
SkyChief said:
This is bad news for Trump.


Dems are finally taking control. . . . I'm kidding, of course. 🤣

"Donald Trump will be relieved of his command at noon tomorrow." - Gavin Newsom

Yeah - right. :LOL: As if Trump is going to accept the ruling of some low-level district court activist judge.
Click to expand...
SkyChief:

So do you support the President and the Administration defying court orders and by extension the rule of law?

Even though higher 9the Circuit Court has just paused the earlier self-paused decision, defining the courts is a first step into extra-constitutional authoritarian.

Be well and be safe.
Evilroddy.
 
Looks like Traitor Trump got a temporary reprieve.
IMG_9340.webp

Appeals court temporarily lifts judge’s block on Trump’s National Guard deployment​

A federal appeals court panel late Thursday temporarily lifted a judge’s order ruling President Trump’s deployment of the National Guard illegal, enabling the troops to remain assisting with immigration raids in Los Angeles, for now.

Their one-page order contained little explanation but suggests it is not a decision on the merits of the case in any way.

The 9th Circuit issued its ruling before Newsom responded. His opposition was filed six minutes after the order.

“An administrative stay is unnecessary and unwarranted in light of the district court’s extensive reasoning— in particular, its findings of irreparable harm to the State in the absence of injunctive relief. There are also serious questions regarding the appellate jurisdiction of this Court,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s (D) office wrote.
thehill.com

Appeals court temporarily lifts judge’s block on Trump’s National Guard deployment

A federal appeals court panel late Thursday temporarily lifted a judge’s order ruling President Trump’s deployment of the National Guard illegal, enabling the troops to remain assisting with i…
thehill.com

We’ll see what happens on the 17th.
 
W_Heisenberg said:
Over the past few days many Trump supporters on this forum have made the ridiculous claim that Trump's mere declaration of a rebellion is sufficient to justify the invocation of 12406.

The Judge does not agree with those Trump supporters:

"Defendants misconstrue the plain language of § 12406, however. The statute permits the President to federalize the National Guard “[w]henever” one of the three enumerated conditions are met, not whenever he determines that one of them is met."

"But their argument puts the cart before the horse. For the President to exercise his discretion (as to how many National Guard members or units to federalize), there must first be an invasion, rebellion, or inability to execute the laws."

"The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of “rebellion.” Defendants refer repeatedly to 'violent rioters,' and 'mobs,' see, e.g., Opp. at 1, and so the Court pauses to state that there can be no debate that most protesters demonstrated peacefully."

"While Defendants have pointed to several instances of violence, they have not identified a violent, armed, organized, open and avowed uprising against the government as a whole. The definition of rebellion is unmet."

"With that in mind, Defendants have still not established a factual basis—again, even assuming their factual assertions to be correct—from which this Court can conclude that there is a danger of an organized, violent, armed uprising with the goal of overthrowing the lawful government of the United States. Accordingly, Defendants do not satisfy the 'rebellion' condition."

Click to expand...

Well yeah, if the standard is that the President has to establish factual basis for his claims then he's going to lose every case.
 
SkyChief said:
Yeah - right. :LOL: As if Trump is going to accept the ruling of some low-level district court activist judge.
Click to expand...
He doesn't have to. The commander of the National Guard is the one who will decide whether or not to accept the court's ruling.
 
Hamish Howl said:
He doesn't have to. The commander of the National Guard is the one who will decide whether or not to accept the court's ruling.
Click to expand...
Obviously the baseless ruling by the pissant activist judge will be overturned. SCOTUS will have the last word in the matter, and they are compelled to rule in favor of Trump.

There is only one Commander-In-Chief of the armed forces.

The statute that SCOTUS must consider is this:

§12406. National Guard in Federal service: call​

Whenever-

(1) the United States, or any of the Commonwealths or possessions, is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation;

(2) there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States; or

(3) the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States;


the President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws. Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States or, in the case of the District of Columbia, through the commanding general of the National Guard of the District of Columbia.

The rioters were/are attempting to hinder federal (ICE) agents from conducting their official duties, so article 2 would apply.
 
Last edited:
SkyChief said:
Obviously the baseless ruling by the pissant activist judge will be overturned. SCOTUS will have the last word in the matter, and they are compelled to rule in favor of Trump.

There is only one Commander-In-Chief of the armed forces.
Click to expand...

Yes. There is but one commander in chief. But there are limits to what he can order.
 
Newsome doesn't need the NG to remove healthcare for immigrants or kick down on transgender people or have police shoot reporters with rubber bullets. He's doing that already.

Hopefully he doesn't use the guard to push these issues further.
 
SkyChief said:
This is bad news for Trump.


Dems are finally taking control. . . . I'm kidding, of course. 🤣

"Donald Trump will be relieved of his command at noon tomorrow." - Gavin Newsom

Yeah - right. :LOL: As if Trump is going to accept the ruling of some low-level district court activist judge.
Click to expand...
Of course not.

First off, the ruling will be appealed and likely put on hold, as that's how these things go. But most of all, Trump doesn't believe there are checks on his power, and MAGA agrees there are no checks on Trump's power. Whatever Dear Leader wants, Dear Leader should get. That's how commies roll.
 
SkyChief said:
Obviously the baseless ruling by the pissant activist judge will be overturned. SCOTUS will have the last word in the matter, and they are compelled to rule in favor of Trump.

There is only one Commander-In-Chief of the armed forces.

The statute that SCOTUS must consider is this:

§12406. National Guard in Federal service: call​

Whenever-

(1) the United States, or any of the Commonwealths or possessions, is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation;

(2) there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States; or

(3) the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States;


the President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws. Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States or, in the case of the District of Columbia, through the commanding general of the National Guard of the District of Columbia.

The rioters were/are attempting to hinder federal (ICE) agents from conducting their official duties, so article 2 would apply.
Click to expand...
True. And the regulations are clear, and the precedent set, by actions of prior administrations. Kennedy and Johnson federalized the National Guard in Alabama, and threatened to federalize it in other states, in order to integrate schools where the governors of those states stood opposed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom