Whiplash

I know, right? I read that Judge Breyer didn't make the decision effective immediately but delayed it until tomorrow so that Trump could appeal. I just don't understand that.

Trump & Co. are plotting a CA Governor recall.

The Appeals Court could have and should have refused to hear the case. Same with the Supreme Court. If this goes on long enough, Trump will just declare the mission was successful and withdraw the soldiers. Then he won’t have to admit he lost on the issue. He’ll probably even do it again sometime.

Actually, OP, most legal analysts I’ve seen or heard weigh in on this think that Trump will ultimately prevail..

Yes, the judge's decision has been stayed by the 9th circuit.

But I think the Supreme Court is going to be more favorable to Trump on this specific national guard issue than people would like to think. 5-4 victory for the orange man is my guess.

Trump is a master at using the courts to delay rulings. No surprise there.

R4 So we do have a king after all?

What ever happened to “states rights”? Ms Noem said that the feds were there to rescue Californians from the leadership of the officials they elected!

Has Gavin said anything about the delay yet? It’s quit a letdown after his big victory speech.

It's so funny, as someone from a country with a king, hearing Americans going on about kings when you don't have one, for the brief period you did have one the role of the king is totally distorted, and the vast majority of kings today are apolitical constitutional monarchs with very few, if any, powers.

Y’all don’t understand the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

I get it—a majority of law students don’t even learn to understand basics of the FRCP…but they do exist.

R4? What argument(s) do they use?

R11 Those Rules are intentionally being used by cynical manipulators to delay & deny justice in too many cases. All you need is money & willing attorneys.

R10 That’s not the kind of King we’re talking about. This country was founded on objections to dictatorial rules imposed by a King.

R10 is whack!

And by "legal analysts," R4 is referring to the Fox and Friends news panel.

Newsom will prevail.

Not before this Supreme Court. 5-4 loss for Newsom. Barrett will go with the three liberal women, but it won't be enough. The Court will go against Trump in some of the other cases, but not this one.

[quote] The Appeals Court could have and should have refused to hear the case. Same with the Supreme Court.

That’s just silly. The decision by Judge Breyer, Justice Breyer’s brother, was a complete given. However, no federal district judge should have the final say on what is or isn’t presidential authority regarding the military. It’s a matter that needs to be weighed by a Court of Appeals and possibly the Supreme Court.

R13 Don’t forget blatantly partisan judges like Eileen Canon & Samuel Alito who are willing to help. Remember the documents case & the insurrection immunity issue? Trump never even had to go to trial thanks to endless obfuscation & delay. All he had to do was get reelected and that was greatly aided by not having trials and convictions on those issues.

R6 Even the Supremes won't be stupid enough to shit on the Constitution like this.

[quote] Trump is a master at using the courts to delay rulings. No surprise there.

Trump is not an attorney and doesn’t write any legal briefs or set any legal strategy. You mean the U.S. Attorneys, the Department of Justice, and/or AG Pam Bonidi.

R18 So it’s all just up to judges’ political party? Wow! Why bother going to court if we all already know the outcome?

R21 is this better? Trump is a master at getting attorneys to use the court system to delay rulings.

[quote] So it’s all just up to judges’ political party? Wow! Why bother going to court if we all already know the outcome?

That question has been my sentiment for a long time. There needs to be judicial reform. It shouldn’t be that the outcome is known as soon as it’s known who the judge is.

Republicans have been putting these horrible partisan judges on benches for decades - it was a long term strategy.

No judges should have lifetime appointments - I don't even know why we ever thought that was a good thing.

The other problem is that it is extremely rare to punish attorneys and judges for wrong doing. They get warnings, at most. They protect their own - like cops and feel above the law.

Court cases that take years to get resolved aren’t really very useful. Life goes on, things change, people suffer in the meantime. There need to be time limits.

[quote] Court cases that take years to get resolved aren’t really very useful. Life goes on, things change, people suffer in the meantime. There need to be time limits.

I agree, but people who don’t like the Supreme Court’s decisions have been criticizing it for acting too fast. It seems to depend on whether or not people like the outcomes.

R20 No—it depends on the level of review and the applicable rules at each level. You’re right to question the process, but under the current rules it’s fairly advantageous to file in a friendly district court (and related Circuit court). It’s more a function of how the Supreme Court deals with all of these claims for TROs and IR.

FYI: Congress, under the Constitution, has statutory authority to change how and when these cases can be filed, heard and appealed.

For R21^

This gave Newsom one of the very few times to have a captive audience and lay out the case against Trump. He prepared talking points that we all can use to argue against Trump. He really nuked him. He reminded me of Bobby Donnell - Dylan McDermott on “The Practice.” His speech will keep going viral and haunt Trump for a long time. THAT is why I think he made the speech so quickly.

R30 Agreed. I’m glad he didn’t wait for the appeal. His speech got lots of coverage before the stay was imposed. He got to make all his points and he did it well.

R28 Now if we only had a functional effective Congress, that would be great.

R30 the comparison to an ancient tv series is not the goal here…fyi

R33 What do you think the goal is?

R25, if everyone were like Trump, some other president would have booted off justices they didn't like before now, "lifetime appointment" or not. I wouldn't put it past him to do it now. Since his whole attitude is, "Try and stop me," what are they gonna do about it?

If SCOTUS gives Trump the ability to nationalize the federal guard in any state, they will be a severe tramples of states rights.

But SCOTUS tends to rubber stamp what Trump wants. If it were a Dem President, SCOTUS would say no.

Newsom fought back with the speech the nation needed to hear, and he looked mighty fine delivering it, too.

Eat your jealous, nonexistent heart out, donald ... or have a TACO.

#37 - Yes - he looked great. It was sort of a “Mr Smith Goes to Washington” moment!

[quote]If SCOTUS gives Trump the ability to nationalize the federal guard in any state, they will be a severe tramples of states rights.

A president already has that right. (See Eisenhower nationalizing the Arkansas National Guard in and deploying the 101st Airborne to protect the "Little Rock Nine" in 1957 as one of many examples.) The question before them would be when could it be curtailed by a court. I think the SC would be unlikely to undermine the underpinning of Eisenhower's use of the National Guard and deploying the U.S. military for a civilian matter in order to block Trump actions in present time.

As did Ike's immediate successors, JFK & LBJ, R39.