Originally published at: Judge Blocks Federalization of California National Guard, Saying It’s Become ‘National Police Force’
A federal judge enjoined the Trump administration’s federalization of the California National Guard Wednesday, writing that it has “sent California Guardsmen into other states, effectively creating a national police force made up of state troops.” Judge Charles Breyer, a Clinon appointee, wrote that there is no feasible reason to justify the continued use of the…
Judge Blocks Federalization of California National Guard, Saying It’s Become ‘National Police Force’
3 Likes
I guess the regimes argument that the Rose Parade’s flowers are a cover for yet to be made Pinatas failed to move Judge Breyer.
So unfair.
13 Likes
While the Supreme Court dallies over an appeal
You can’t expect SCOTUS to come up with yet more twisted reasoning – pretzel logic – to justify a perpetual police state overnight. There are many political masters, not to mention a bevy of marionettist oligarchs, yet to be heard from and accommodated. Crafting decisions from whole cloth is very time consuming.
17 Likes
Doesn’t mean it will stop. And SCOTUS will certainly overrule this and allow any guard or quasi-military to do the First Felon’s bidding.
6 Likes
I think these Federal judges need to add to each ruling a specific line item addressing SCROTUS directly to you know, “prove me wrong”. But less meme and more legalese.
8 Likes
I dunno, man. Trump’s had an emergency stay application on file with SCOTUS since mid-October seeking to let the National Guard fuck up Chicago’s shit, and they haven’t taken any action on it so far. Deploying the NG to do law enforcement activities may be a bridge too far.
11 Likes
Why is the Supreme Court dithering over an opinion on the Trump regime attempt to deploy the Illinois & Texas national guards in Chicago? Could it be the Court’s MAGA 6, for once, are in disagreement over this?
7 Likes
They appear to be hung up on some statutory language, on which the ordered additional briefing from the parties.
5 Likes
Thank you for a quick response. It’s my understanding the briefs were filed a month ago, so perhaps a decision is imminent.
2 Likes
Is there a book on the protocols of the SCOTUS on their decision making process, or is it mysterious and/or guided by the then sitting Chief Justice? One wonders if they ever sit around at lunch or over drinks and “discuss.” Or, do the communicate via their clerks? Recommendations, please!
4 Likes
There was a book from decades ago called “The Brethren” that provided some insight into the Court’s interactions, but nothing recent that I’m aware of.
5 Likes
The administration’s attempts to identify incidents in California requiring the ongoing presence of the Guard were weak. They strung together a few small protests, misbehavior by lone actors and even incidents from other states.
And even incidents from other countries.
5 Likes
5 Likes
It varies from justice to justice and court to court. They hold regular in-person conferences to discuss and vote on cases and, following oral arguments, to assign responsibility for writing opinions. The justices informally communicate with each other in person and through law clerks, and of course there are memos and drafts that get circulated as well (I believe delivery is via the clerk’s office). There is a cafeteria with a dining room, and they frequently eat lunch together there, although case business is supposed to be off limits. (They pay for their own meals, incidentally.)
I’m not exactly sure how it works when the justices are scattered and a decision needs to be made quickly, but they’ve got phones and videoconferencing just like the rest of us.
7 Likes
“That is shocking.” “It is profoundly un-American.”
Nice to hear from someone with no marbles in their mouth.
6 Likes
Every time I use this phrase in re the Supreme Court, I end up regretting it.
4 Likes