"States' rights" is dead. Republicans can never use THAT one again.

RoryN

You're screwed.
Joined
Apr 8, 2003
Posts
60,356
If they bring it up, bring up what's happening in California, which they voted for. End of discussion.

It, of course, was never about the rights of all states. They lied. Pretend to be shocked.

Discussions re: causes for the Civil War just got a lot more awkward for them. Looks like it was about slavery all along.

Now, let's talk abortion...

šŸ¤”šŸ˜Ž
 
This is a fucked bugaboo for me. The hypocrisy chaps my ass.

Are Canada and Greenland part of this discussion?
 
They are fucking scumbag hypocrites who use whatever club is available to bludgeon their opponents with. We need to respond in kind. Of course Democrats are worthless candy ass pansies.
 
They are fucking scumbag hypocrites who use whatever club is available to bludgeon their opponents with. We need to respond in kind. Of course Democrats are worthless candy ass pansies.
So much hate. :)
 
Newsom is saying the fight will go on; what does that actually mean as next steps and is it likely to make its way up to SCOTUS?
 
They are fucking scumbag hypocrites who use whatever club is available to bludgeon their opponents with. We need to respond in kind. Of course Democrats are worthless candy ass pansies.
You talk a big game, but mass non-violent protest and acts of resistance continue to be the most effective method to remove violent regimes.
 
the complexities!

The 9th Circuit Rejects Trump's Audacious Claim That He Can Use the National Guard However He Likes

a longish article explaining an awful lot of aspects. I am still not much the wiser :(

Last week, a federal judge in San Francisco issued a temporary restraining order against President Donald Trump's unilateral deployment of the California National Guard, saying that decision was illegal and unconstitutional. That same day, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit imposed an administrative stay on U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer's order, and on Thursday the court decided the stay should continue while the case is pending.

That ruling represents both a victory and a defeat for the Trump administration. The three-judge panel unanimously concluded that the president probably complied with the statute he cited to justify the deployment. But it also unanimously rejected Trump's bold argument that it had no business addressing that issue because his decision was "unreviewable."

The 9th Circuit did not address Trump's contention that the L.A. protests constituted a "rebellion," which Breyer also rejected. For the purpose of deciding whether to issue a stay pending appeal, the court said, it was enough to conclude that, given the "highly deferential standard of review" applied in Martin, Trump was likely to prevail in his claim that he was "unable" to enforce federal laws "with the regular forces."
At the same time, the 9th Circuit unambiguously rejected the government's claim that Trump's compliance with Section 12406 is a "political question" beyond the purview of federal courts. "Because the political question doctrine is grounded in the constitutional separation of powers, it has traditionally been limited to constitutional cases," the court noted. "It has not been available in statutory cases. Applying it in statutory cases would 'systematically favor' the President over Congress by ignoring the limitations that the latter placed on the former's authority, threatening the very separation of powers that the doctrine is meant to protect." And since this case involves statutory interpretation, the 9th Circuit said, the political question doctrine does not apply.
 
They are fucking scumbag hypocrites who use whatever club is available to bludgeon their opponents with. We need to respond in kind. Of course Democrats are worthless candy ass pansies.
Easy to say behind a computer screen.

Just because we don't be sucking trumps dick...
 
and more complexities:
'I'm actually interested in what authority I have': Judge in National Guard case gives Newsom new ways to challenge Trump's authority

TRO converted into preliminary injunction, which effectively strips Breyer of jurisdiction over most, but not all of the case, opening new pathways and considerations.

The district judge overseeing California's lawsuit to remove the National Guard from the streets of Los Angeles is not done with the case — but is not in a hurry to rule on the remaining issues.

During an unexpectedly brief hearing on Friday, U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer, a Bill Clinton appointee — and brother of former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer — told the two opposing teams of government lawyers that additional briefing was necessary before moving forward in the tug-of-war over presidential power.

"They didn't say anything about the Posse Comitatus Act," Breyer laughingly explained. "You didn't appeal it and they didn't address it. Now the question is: what do I do about the Posse Comitatus Act and your claims in respect to it."

and about the duration of trump's control over the troops:

DOJ attorney Eric Hamilton said "60 days, or at the discretion of the secretary of defense," which surprised the judge who
suggested this was effectively a claim of indefinite control over the troops in question. In turn, he told both parties to address that issue in their briefs as well


šŸ§šŸ¤”šŸ˜¶šŸ˜µā€šŸ’«
 
Back
Top