• 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

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...

You just knew Gavin Newsom would be quick to prematurely take a victory lap though. What a clown. 🤡

This is all political posturing for Gavin '28. Did he tell you how he lost his lawsuit to Trump on June 3rd regarding CA. and tariffs? Probably not. LOL

Hopefully a higher court is able to put a stop to this ridiculous ruling. ICE raids will continue in CA. without asking him.
 
SayMyName said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's noteworthy that both were Democratic presidents.
Like always the Democrats want their cake and to eat it too.
This "temporary" ruling by a low level in the tank for the Democrats lower court judge will be overruled very shortly by the Supreme Court.
 
trixare4kids said:
You just knew Gavin Newsom would be quick to prematurely take a victory lap though. What a clown. 🤡
Click to expand...
How many times has TACO gloated over one his many EO’s only to be blocked/overturned by a federal court?

10 times?

20 times?

40 times?
trixare4kids said:
Hopefully a higher court is able to put a stop to this ridiculous ruling. ICE raids will continue in CA. without asking him.
Click to expand...
The 9th Circuit Court did not give any indication either way on how they will rule.
 
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...

That's not what the Judge 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.

Read what the Judge said:

"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."
 
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.
Click to expand...

SCOTUS will not rule in favor of Trump because the logic of the law does not allow the President to make-believe there is a rebellion when no such rebellion exists.
 
trixare4kids said:
It's noteworthy that both were Democratic presidents.
Click to expand...
That both Presidents were Dems is not “noteworthy”.

Why the two federalized NG troops is what’s “noteworthy..

Any decent President, regardless of party affiliation, would have done the same.
trixare4kids said:
Like always the Democrats want their cake and to eat it too.
Click to expand...
Very few things are “always”. This ^ isn’t one of them. Nowhere near.
trixare4kids said:
This "temporary" ruling by a low level in the tank for the Democrats lower court judge will be overruled very shortly by the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...
Hope in one hand. 🙄
 
trixare4kids said:
It's noteworthy that both were Democratic presidents.
Like always the Democrats want their cake and to eat it too.
This "temporary" ruling by a low level in the tank for the Democrats lower court judge will be overruled very shortly by the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

Read the ruling. The statute does not empower the President to declare a rebellion when no rebellion exists. It's not up to the President to make the decision. He does not get to pretend, he does not get to make-believe.
 
W_Heisenberg said:
Read the ruling. The statute does not empower the President to declare a rebellion when no rebellion exists. It's not up to the President to make the decision. He does not get to pretend, he does not get to make-believe.
Click to expand...

This is a "temporary" ruling. Tell us why you know it will stand.
 
Breaking:

Oh gee, looks like a lot of us were correct on the matter. Newsom acted a bit prematurely when declaring victory, bragging about his win over on "X".

Late on June 12, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an administrative stay, temporarily blocking Breyer’s TRO pending further review. The appeals court, scheduled a hearing for June 17, 2025, to consider whether to extend the stay or allow Breyer’s ruling to take effect. This means the National Guard remains under federal control for now. This means President Trump surrenders NO national guard to Newsom today at 12 PM. IMHO, this is a good thing, considering we are a day before a weekend when this thing could very well flare up again making it impossible for ICE raids to continue.

apnews.com

Appeals court temporarily blocks judge's ruling to return control of National Guard to California

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has temporarily blocked a federal judge’s order that directed President Donald Trump to return control of National Guard troops to California after he deployed them there following protests in Los Angeles over immigration raids.
apnews.com apnews.com
 
Last edited:
W_Heisenberg said:
That's not what the Judge 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.

Read what the Judge said:

"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...
They don't read.
 
W_Heisenberg said:
SCOTUS will not rule in favor of Trump because the logic of the law does not allow the President to make-believe there is a rebellion when no such rebellion exists.
Click to expand...
Of course they will. A president deciding to deploy the National Guard to quell mob uprisings has been done in the past.

President George H.W.Bush called the National Guard in 1992 in response to the Rodney King riots.

Activist District Judge Breyer is incompetent and is deliberately ignorant of precedent cases.
 
Last edited:
SkyChief said:
BREAKING NEWS

Activist District Judge Charles Breyer's ruling has been paused by an appeals court last night, so Trumps Administration may continue deploying the National Guard on the streets of L.A. to quell violence.

On Tuesday (June 17th), the 9th Circuit court will review the case.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/...-in-los-angeles/ar-AA1GC8SU?ocid=BingNewsSerp
Click to expand...
Already posted.
RaleBulgarian

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

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...
 
SkyChief said:
Of course they will. Using the National Guard to quell mob uprisings has been done many times in the past.

1967: Detroit's 12th Street Riot
1967: Newark Riots
1968: Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. riots
1992: Los Angeles Rodney King Riots

None of these National Guard deployments were challenged by activist judges. Activist District Judge Breyer is incompetent and is deliberately ignorant of precedent cases.
Click to expand...

The statute Trump invoked is conditional, not a blank check. It turns on objectively verifiable facts. The president can’t create those facts by proclamation. That's not how our government works. Trump can't just make shit up and force other people to believe it. Whether or not a rebellion exists must either be true or false, and if it's false, he cannot invoke the statute. The statute says "whenever" a rebellion exists, not "if the President decides a rebellion exists." Read the statue. Read the ruling. Stop repeating right-wing talking points, because the right-wing talking points are outright lies.

Modern precedent shows us that courts may review whether the factual predicate for such a statute exists. Breyer simply followed that rule.

The court defined rebellion as an armed, organized attempt to overthrow or resist U.S. authority. What happened in Los Angeles, according to the judge, was not an armed, organized attempt to overthrow or resist U.S. authority.

Prior Guard deployments you list were either made under the Insurrection Act after clear large‑scale violence or uncontested because the factual trigger was obvious. Breyer’s ruling does not say the Guard can never be used. His ruling only says this use failed the statute’s factual test.

Because the statutory trigger never occurred, Trump’s 1 June 2020 order to federalize the California Guard exceeded his authority, end of story.
 
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...
Law and ****ing order, amirite?
 
Ikari said:
When it comes to the proper actions of restraints of the government, people should never quit. You might want a king, but the US isn't to have one.
Click to expand...
Is that why the Democrats cancelled democracy and coronated Kamala? Cause they has to fight the monarchies?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom