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.As if Trump is going to accept the ruling of some low-level district court activist judge.
lolIs that why the Democrats cancelled democracy and coronated Kamala? Cause they has to fight the monarchies?
...and if it were to want one, surely we can do better for a royal family then the Trumps. Though when I look out at the landscape of oligarchs, celebrities, and political elite I can't say that we do.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.
You mean like claiming deals that haven't been ratified are "done"?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.
That satisfies the law. The law allows this if the federal government cannot execute law. Nothing in LA is preventing the US government from executing law.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.
-quoted for truth.It’s difficult to defend the indefensible.
The felon loves to poop poo on the Constitution and MAGAs are cheering.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.As if Trump is going to accept the ruling of some low-level district court activist judge.
bookmarked for later.This aged well.
Schwarzenegger....and if it were to want one, surely we can do better for a royal family then the Trumps. Though when I look out at the landscape of oligarchs, celebrities, and political elite I can't say that we do.
projection.It’s never over for you folks cause you just don’t know when to quit.
"I'll be back".Schwarzenegger.
lol
Ask the people operating businesses looted in the riot zone or the Waymo owners if local law enforcement can execute the laws.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."
Not only does his majesty presume to second guess the duly elected POTUS, he redefines the term rebellion to conform to ludicrous Democrat talking point excuses such as overwhelmingly peaceful and the requirement to have an announced goal of overthrowing the US government."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."
We folks that support our Constitution don’t quit.It’s never over for you folks cause you just don’t know when to quit.
Late in posting this ^.FYI
Poor Gavin will have to stop with the victory dancing until then.
Ouch, that has to sting. Can you hear all the air coming out of this thread?FYI
Poor Gavin will have to stop with the victory dancing until then.
whooooshOuch, that has to sting. Can you hear all the air coming out of this thread?
It just keeps getting worse for Liberals. Yet they still keep getting their marching orders and they continue to follow like good little Nazi sheep.
They also said the pause is just so they can have a hearingSkyChief:
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.
Yes and the court said it wasn’t a rebellionObviously 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.
Ask the people operating businesses looted in the riot zone or the Waymo owners if local law enforcement can execute the laws.
According to Websters "rebellion" means
a
: open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government
b
: an instance of such defiance or resistance
The Leftist thugs trying to create a lawless LA Chop zone have armed themselves with rocks, pieces of cinder block and cement, commercial fireworks, and Molotov cocktails to engage the police. Their rebellion has opened the door to looting, arson and assault.
Not only does his majesty presume to second guess the duly elected POTUS, he redefines the term rebellion to conform to ludicrous Democrat talking point excuses such as overwhelmingly peaceful and the requirement to have an announced goal of overthrowing the US government.
No wonder the appeals court overturned the judge's imperial decree.
Black’s Law is a much better reference for legal definitions.According to Websters "rebellion" means
a
: open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government
b
: an instance of such defiance or resistance
The Leftist thugs trying to create a lawless LA Chop zone have armed themselves with rocks, pieces of cinder block and cement, commercial fireworks, and Molotov cocktails to engage the police. Their rebellion has opened the door to looting, arson and assault.
Not only does his majesty presume to second guess the duly elected POTUS, he redefines the term rebellion to conform to ludicrous Democrat talking point excuses such as overwhelmingly peaceful and the requirement to have an announced goal of overthrowing the US government.
No wonder the appeals court overturned the judge's imperial decree.
The District court judge granted the plaintiffs request to second guess the President’s decision to deploy the National Guard in the face of uncontrolled anarchy. The judge claimed there was no evidence to support the President’s decision despite the violence, looting, and organized illegal actions.The Appeals Court issued a Stay until they can get more information. That doesn’t mean it’s over. The Plaintiff and Defendant will submit information to support their individual positions including any applicable Precedent cases.
The law gives the President the authority to issue a finding of rebellion as just cause for deploying the National Guard. You don't understand that, do you? The judge decided to ignore the mountain of evidence supporting the President’s legal finding in favor of parroting the Democrats "mostly peaceful" propaganda.But you seem to decry the Courts second guessing people in charge. You don’t really understand Courts at all do you? That is what they do.
Let's observe that your analogy is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand.Let’s say for the sake of argument I’m charged with Shooting a Trump Supporter. I claim Self Defense. The Case will second guess my actions to determine if it was self defense or murder. They will do so based upon the written law, and the cases that defined what the law means and how it can be applied.
Indeed, the referee/umpire/legal expert isn't empowered to insert his or her personal opinion of the Bad Orange Man as a substitute for the law.The Judge is part Referee, part Umpire, and part Expert in applied law. That is their job.
Wildly irrelevant. A violation of discovery rules has nothing to do with a District court judge second guessing a Presidential declaration.Take the Alec Baldwin trial. The Judge determined that the Prosecution made a fatal error. They hid evidence from the Defense. That is illegal. So the Judge determined that the case had passed the point of salvage and ordered the Case Dismissed with Prejudice.
Except that is not what happened here. There was no lofty legal analysis involved. The judge ignored the evidence to side with the Orange Man Bad lynch mob.Like a Referee the Judge hears the arguments and decides who is right. Like an Umpire calling pitches at Home Plate, the Judge decides what is legal and what isn’t. And the laws and precedents guide those decisions.
There is no evidence of "uncontrolled anarchy"in the face of uncontrolled anarchy. The judge claimed there was no evidence to support the President’s decision
But there must be evidence of "rebellion"The law gives the President the authority to issue a finding of rebellion as just cause for deploying the National Guard.
No the judge found there is no ebodence to support the presidents position.You don't understand that, do you? The judge decided to ignore the mountain of evidence supporting the President’s legal finding in
They don't seem to understand that the national guard is national in the answer to the Commander in Chief for those courts seeking deploy it that's his job.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?