Judge says Trump illegally deployed National Guard to help with LA protests

H

Hume

Verified User
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order Thursday directing President Donald Trump to return control of the National Guard to California.

The order, which takes effect at noon Friday, said the deployment of the Guard was illegal and both violated the Tenth Amendment and exceeded Trump’s statutory authority.
 

Newsom says use of national guard for Ice raids ‘ends tomorrow at noon’​

Speaking to reporters after a federal judge in San Francisco ruled on Friday that Donald Trump acted illegally, by ordering the National Guard to Los Angeles, and the troops must be returned to state control, California’s governor Gavin Newsom said that the use of the guard to support immigration raids “end tomorrow at noon”.

The senior district judge, Charles Breyer, wrote in his order that he was granting a preliminary injunction.


www.theguardian.com

Newsom says use of national guard for Ice raids ‘ends tomorrow at noon’ – as it happened

Judge temporarily bars president from deploying troops to LA, an order president has already appealed. This blog is now closed.
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
Hume said:
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order Thursday directing President Donald Trump to return control of the National Guard to California.

The order, which takes effect at noon Friday, said the deployment of the Guard was illegal and both violated the Tenth Amendment and exceeded Trump’s statutory authority.
Click to expand...

Thank goodness. From your article:
**

Newsom says use of National Guard for Ice raids 'ends tomorrow at noon'​

Speaking to reporters after a federal judge in San Francisco ruled on Friday that Donald Trump acted illegally, by ordering the National Guard to Los Angeles, and the troops must be returned to state control, California’s governor Gavin Newsom said that the use of the guard to support immigration raids “end tomorrow at noon”.

The senior district judge, Charles Breyer, wrote in his order that he was granting a preliminary injunction.

“At this early stage of the proceedings, the Court must determine whether the President followed the congressionally mandated procedure for his actions” the judge wrote in his 36-page order. “He did not. His actions were illegal—both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. He must therefore return control of the California National Guard to the Governor of the State of California forthwith.”
**

Full article:
www.theguardian.com

Newsom says use of national guard for Ice raids ‘ends tomorrow at noon’ – as it happened

Judge temporarily bars president from deploying troops to LA, an order president has already appealed. This blog is now closed.
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Cypress said:
It's extraordinary how frequently Trump violates the US Constitution.
Click to expand...
It's more extraordinary how many judges do that...
Click to expand...

I highly doubt that. Judges look closely at not just the U.S. Constitution, but all the precedents in law that have colored its interpretation. From what I've seen, the Trump Administration seems intent on seeing what it can get away with. I suspect that Hitler did much the same thing in Germany before he became the Fuhrer. I remember a certain Canadian leader actually talking to Canada's Supreme Court -before- trying to institute a controversial policy, to avoid having the same court strike said policy down after it was enacted. Never heard Trump do anything like that.
 
Great ruling by the judge. Now all Trump has to do is wash his hands of the CA riots and watch Newscum and Bass handle the rioters. They did such a nice job with the LA fires, this ought to be a hoot.
 
Scott said:
I highly doubt that. Judges look closely at not just the U.S. Constitution, but all the precedents in law that have colored its interpretation. From what I've seen, the Trump Administration seems intent on seeing what it can get away with. I suspect that Hitler did much the same thing in Germany before he became the Fuhrer. I remember a certain Canadian leader actually talking to Canada's Supreme Court -before- trying to institute a controversial policy, to avoid having the same court strike said policy down after it was enacted. Never heard Trump do anything like that.
Click to expand...
Then why are the district court judges making these rulings being overturned at the appellate and Supreme court levels more often than not?
 
Cypress said:
No, it means either Trump does not have competent lawyers given how frequently they lose in court, or TrumpCo. is intentional pushing the boundaries of what is legal to see what they can get away with.
Click to expand...
Wrong. It means that Trump's insane, hysterical, opposition is shopping judges and getting the ones they know will rule against him to do so in hopes they can run the clock out. That is, they get some district judge that will ignore the law, rule against Trump on flimsy, often made up, reasoning and know that will slow the administration down. They recognize that Trump has just four years then maybe they can get somebody like Biden back in that will rubber stamp a radical Leftist agenda.
 
Sailor said:

Court sides with Trump over control of National Guard in California: Live updates​


https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ts-immigration-news-live-updates/84176164007/

Democrats got bitch slapped again.
Click to expand...

For those like myself that aren't "democrat" or "republican" (or even American), I'd say it's more that judges are somewhat divided as to how the constitution should be interpreted. I also think it's worth noting that the appeals court hasn't made a final decision. From your article:
**

What have courts said about federalization of the National Guard?​

In its order temporarily allowing Trump to maintain his control over the National Guard, the appeals court did not issue a final ruling but delivered what's called an "administrative stay." It gave the appeals judges time to consider Trump's request to block Breyer's order. The appeals court was made up of a panel of three judges, two of which were appointed by Trump and one by former President Joe Biden.

A hearing was scheduled for the appeals court on Tuesday, June 17 at noon.

Breyer, the federal judge who ruled Trump's deployment of the Guard was unlawful, issued just hours before the appeals court ruling a 36-page decision in which he said the president's actions were illegal and a violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. Breyer was appointed in 1997 by former Democratic President Bill Clinton and is the brother of retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer.

Breyer wrote he was "troubled by the implication inherent in Defendants’ argument that protest against the federal government, a core civil liberty protected by the First Amendment, can justify a finding of rebellion," responding to the Trump administration's justification for sending in the National Guard.

"(T)here can be no debate that most protesters demonstrated peacefully," the judge said.
**

Source:
www.usatoday.com

LA protests live: Marines in LA; detainees missing from migrant facility in NJ

California Gov. Gavin Newsom had a brief victory in his lawsuit against President Trump, but an appeals court quickly blocked a federal judge's order.
www.usatoday.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top