Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

People are complicated. Love is not.

You know it’s bad when the Project 2025 people have to create training videos on “How To Be Normal”.

Optimism opens the door to great things.

Too often we confuse noise with substance. too often we confuse setbacks with defeat.

People really shouldn’t expect the government to help after they watched the GOP drown it in a bathtub.

Fight them, without becoming them!

Let’s not be the monsters we hate.

Is it irresponsible to speculate? It is irresponsible not to.

Speaking of republicans, is there a way for a political party to declare intellectual bankruptcy?

You’re just a puppy masquerading as an old coot.

Every one of the “Roberts Six” lied to get on the court.

Technically true, but collectively nonsense

The low info voters probably won’t even notice or remember by their next lap around the goldfish bowl.

“Can i answer the question? No you can not!”

Republicans in disarray!

Jesus watching the most hateful people claiming to be his followers

Wow, you are pre-disappointed. How surprising.

The rest of the comments were smacking Boebert like she was a piñata.

Radicalized white males who support Trump are pitching a tent in the abyss.

The most dangerous place for a black man in America is in a white man’s imagination.

Roe is not about choice. It is about freedom.

Baby steps, because the Republican Party is full of angry babies.

A snarling mass of vitriolic jackals

“The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.”

You are here: Home / Politics / Activist Judges! / Take This Ban and Shove It

Reader Interactions

180Comments

  7. 7.

    Gin & Tonic

    Unanimous, too. I thought one of the judges was a little squishy during oral argument, but I guess not.

  10. 10.

    Trentrunner

    Was watching CNN’s coverage of this and was tired of GOP Senator’s horseshit.

    Switched MSNBC:

    Greta van Susteren was interviewing George Fucking Will.

    MSNBC.

  12. 12.

    dmsilev

    At this point, I imagine Trump is running through the White House searching for his phone. Tweets must be tweeted!

  14. 14.

    Mister Forkbeard

    @Renie: At this point, I’m wondering if Trump’s resulting twitter scream could be used as evidence of the EO being racially/religiously motivated, etc.

    As for serious questions from our resident armchair lawyers: This has no bearing on the merits of the case itself, but merely refers to the Stay Order, correct?

  15. 15.

    Adam L Silverman

    @Gin & Tonic: As you know, judges don’t like having their legitimacy challenged. Nor do they like, even if it is sometimes/often true, being called politicized and biased.

  16. 16.

    JMG

    I don’t know how many of you have ever been on the business end of a judge, but as a class, they don’t like people who diss them at all. If only the opinion had ended, “I didn’t want to do it, but I felt I owed it to the President.”

  19. 19.

    dmsilev

    Hah. From the NYT story:

    In its briefs and at the argument, the administration’s position evolved. As the case progressed, the administration supplemented its request for categorical vindication with a backup plea for at least a partial victory.

    “Throw us a bone, will ya? Have you seen the guy we have to work for?”

  23. 23.

    dmsilev

    @Mister Forkbeard:

    This has no bearing on the merits of the case itself, but merely refers to the Stay Order, correct?

    Not a lawyer, but yes that’s correct. So, the stay remains in place while the case is heard on the merits (assuming, of course that the Supreme Court doesn’t intervene to lift the stay).

  25. 25.

    Paul W.

    So happy it was unanimous! But am definitely fearful for citizens and judges targeted by Trumps very ill considered trashing of both the actual purpose of the judiciary as well as the right of citizens to make up their own damn minds!

  26. 26.

    japa21

    I think this whole thing could have been avoided if the EO just referred to the issuance of new visas rather than stripping away current visas and, in some cases green cards.

  27. 27.

    Schlemazel

    I am watching “All the Way” currently. It ia early yet but the horse trading to get 64 and 65 bills past, the dealing with a black-hostile FBI, using HHH to get the right thing done. The strength of MLK and fight inside both the White House and Kings organization. Knowing how it ends and all I can do is cry

  29. 29.

    eric

    overworked lawyer here, so forgive me, but if likelihood of success on the merits is a necessary requirement for an injunction/TRO, how was constitutionality, i.e., merits, not raised below? much thanks.

  31. 31.

    Gin & Tonic

    @Mike J: From a quick read:

    Rather than present evidence to explain the need for the Executive Order, the Government has taken the position that we must not review its decision at all. We disagree, as explained above.

  32. 32.

    dmsilev

    @Mike J: About halfway through:

    Instead, the Government has taken the position that the President’s decisions about immigration policy, particularly when motivated by national security concerns, are unreviewable, even if those actions potentially contravene constitutional rights and protections. The Government indeed asserts that it violates separation of powers for the judiciary to entertain a constitutional challenge to executive actions such as this one.

    There is no precedent to support this claimed unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy.

    I guess that’s what a raised middle finger looks like in legalese.

  33. 33.

    patroclus

    @Mister Forkbeard: Yes and no. Getting the TRO required a facial showing of “substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits.” But other than that, it only concerns the TRO and not the merits directly.

    The key was the Government lawyer’s claim that the President could not be overseen at all by the courts – that was just ridiculous, especially given the Immigration Act of 1965’s provision (and Marbury v. Madison). Trump’s name-calling of the judges was legally irrelevant although legal realists would claim that it was highly so.

  37. 37.

    kindness

    Trolling Trump with this type stuff may be the only thing that keeps us safe. Slow walk everything and maybe Social Security will still be there when I retire next decade.

  39. 39.

    patroclus

    Trump responds on twitter with an all caps message – “SEE YOU IN COURT.” He hasn’t figured out yet that he’s already been seen in court and he lost.

  43. 43.

    trollhattan

    @NotMax:
    “I’m banning out of control California and the activist court, bigly!”
    California: “Okay, but we get to keep the bases, national labs, Central Valley Project and the national forests and parks, plus you don’t get no more tax receipts.”
    Winning.

  47. 47.

    burnspbesq

    @Mister Forkbeard:

    As for serious questions from our resident armchair lawyers: This has no bearing on the merits of the case itself, but merely refers to the Stay Order, correct?

    Correct. Unless the Supremes get involved, the next step would be filing briefs with the District Court in Seattle with respect to the pending motion for a preliminary injunction.

  48. 48.

    lgerard

    “contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy”

    get used to hearing that phrase

    trump seems to think he “governs” by giving “orders”

  49. 49.

    PsiFighter37

    Trump looks like a complete moron – someone tell him he did just lose IN COURT.

    I have a feeling that if they appeal to SCOTUS, you could see him lose 8-0. Even I don’t think Uncle Clarence really has an appetite for this fight…Roberts and Kennedy certainly do not…

  50. 50.

    Mister Forkbeard

    @trollhattan: I keep seeing this suggestion, but here’s the thing: If Trump decides to defund Federal dollars to CA, that’s something that can (sort of) happen, given the right course and actions. But CA can’t decide to withhold funds to the feds, can they? This isn’t a thing that goes both ways.

    Though I suppose it would actually keep CA from having to follow a lot of executive orders on Federal Programs, if CA was no longer being funded for those programs.

  51. 51.

    Miss Bianca

    @patroclus: “SEE YOU IN COURT”? you mean..”AGAIN”?

    I wonder if at any point in the next four years the words “Shut the fuck up, Donnie, you’re out of your element” are EVER going to become irrelevant.

  53. 53.

    SiubhanDuinne

    @japa21:

    I think this whole thing could have been avoided if

    I have a terrible sinking feeling that we’re going to use, and see, and say those ten words very frequently in the coming months and years, about all manner of things.

  54. 54.

    comrade scotts agenda of rage

    What’s the make up of the 9th? I mean if Twitler starts to lose the Alito clones the Bushies appointed, there might be hope for us yet.

  58. 58.

    hovercraft

    @NotMax:
    Someone pointed out the other day that the GOP’s wet dream is to disband the 9th. They are to us what the 5th is to them. This will make the Toddler in Chief eager to disband it too.

  60. 60.

    Mister Forkbeard

    @SiubhanDuinne: I think the Big Lebowski’s “Donnie, you’re out of your element” is probably going to be one of the most quoted scenes ever. The entire scene is just so perfectly targeted.

    @SiubhanDuinne: Twitter is hitting him pretty hard about it the tweet and his caps. Twitter’s not a good barometer for success, but it’s promising at least. He looks deranged, and people can actually see that.

  62. 62.

    Plantsmantx

    Donald J. Trump Verified account
    ‏@realDonaldTrump

    SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!

  63. 63.

    Mike J

    BTW, when wingnuts start complaining that the 9th is the most overturned court, remember it is also the most upheld court. The 9th is MASSIVE, and handles many times more cases than other circuits.

  64. 64.

    Dave

    @Mister Forkbeard: The thing with that though is if it gets to that point the country is basically done. California will not pay federal taxes while not receiving any federal funding. The legalities only matter as long as people en masse accept them. If it comes to that things will have moved far beyond even what they are now and heighten the contradiction/what’s the worst that can happen voters will enjoy participating in a full civic breakdown.

  65. 65.

    PsiFighter37

    @Jerzy Russian: The judges that rules are Carter, Dubya, and Obama appointees – unanimous decision. I have to think that most Dubya people are not behind this ban.

  67. 67.

    Waynski

    Apparently one of the laws the justices cited in their decision was the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Payback’s a…. well, we know what it is.

  71. 71.

    Peale

    @Plantsmantx: yep. And the courts will find that no, there are limits to the security state. Which is why we have to take off our shoes and belts to travel, but not hand over our personal mail. And despite 15+ years of the right complaining about it, Muslims can still fly in planes.

  73. 73.

    Jerzy Russian

    @PsiFighter37:

    I have to think that most Dubya people are not behind this ban

    If nothing else, they should be annoyed at how sloppy the EO was, and they should be even more annoyed at Dolt45’s comments regarding the judiciary.

  80. 80.

    jl

    Non-lawyer here. but looks like the US started with argument that all Trump has to do is write down ‘national security’ on anything and it should be beyond legal challenge until a full hearing on the merits (or even that should be disallowed? IANAL and that part is too subtle for me). And the judges said, Hoo-kay… we’ve heard enough, forget about it. And US had zip nada nothing to back up any claims of national security interest at all, let alone an emergency that would justify such drastic action. I guess a prudent judge would disregard any US request to throw them a bone as setting a dangerous precedent, since their main argument was considered so outrageous that it had to be stomped on with prejudice.

  83. 83.

    Ian

    The judges are the last thing keeping this country great. It is a real pity the democratic senators did not do more to fill judicial vacancies. We refused to blow up the filibuster, I do not think it will last long after we start using it against the republicans.

  85. 85.

    Mike J

    Walker Orenstein ‏@walkerorenstein 25 minutes ago
    .@GovInslee responds to @POTUS tweet: “Mr. President we just saw you in court, and we beat you.” #WAvTrump – at Washington State Capitol

  86. 86.

    Adam L Silverman

    @EBT: Federal Law Enforcement is not barred from operating within the US. The Posse Comitatus Act bars the US military from being used as law enforcement within the US.

  87. 87.

    jl

    @NotMax: Trump probably won’t notice or care, but the 9th circuit is not a state institution and California does not run it. It is a federal court that by historical happenstance has its headquarter in California.

    But would be fun if Trump goes apeshit on ‘out of control’ California over the decision, so news anchors can helpfully point out to the whole nation that the hearing was in a federal court. Fox will probably let such an oopsie go uncorrected though.

  88. 88.

    japa21

    @Ian: Filibuster was blown up. Problem was that when GOP regained majority, they refused to have votes on Obama’s nominees.

  89. 89.

    jeffreyw

    @patroclus:
    My understanding of Marbury v. Madison is that it is the decision that underpins the view that “…it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” However this is true only insofar as everybody agrees that it is true – or is there a more robust foundation in this world that has been turned upside down? Can the consensus necessarily prevail?

  90. 90.

    Adam L Silverman

    @Ian: Actually Senator Reid did get rid of the filibuster for all appointments other than for the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, the Democrats lost the majority in 2014 allowing Senator McConnell to effectively stop confirming President Obama’s Federal judicial appointments.

  91. 91.

    Francis

    From the opinion: “The Government cites Mandel for the proposition that “‘when the Executive exercises’ immigration authority ‘on the basis of a facially legitimate and bona fide reason, the courts will [not] look behind the exercise of that discretion.’” The Government omits portions of the quoted language to imply that this standard governs judicial review of all executive exercises of immigration authority.”

    I know that the briefing was done on an expedited basis, but DAMN the 9th Circuit just accused the DOJ of professional misconduct!

    [to non-lawyers: When a judge accuses you of materially misrepresenting what a case stands for, that’s a big effing deal — the kind of thing that gets an attorney fired and the law firm sued for malpractice.]

  92. 92.

    EBT

    @Adam L Silverman: I saw “federal troops” and thought federal law enforcement, you saw “federal troops” and thought military, I was re-asking the question with my specific parameters.

  93. 93.

    jl

    @Mike J: Whew, looks like the intrepid state of Washington is there to take the heat off of ‘out of control’ California for a while. Thanks Washington. I’ve always had a high opinion of that great state of the union.

  94. 94.

    geg6

    @Ian:

    It should go. It’s already only available for use by Republicans. I say blow it up. It serves no purpose for our side at all.

  95. 95.

    hilts

    @patroclus:

    He hasn’t figured out yet that he’s already been seen in court and he lost.

    It’s time for an aide to pull out the crayons and construction paper to create a pictogram that will explain the structure of our court system to the Doofus in Chief.

    @PsiFighter37:

    Trump looks like a complete moron

    Trump will do something every single day in office to elicit that observation.

    OT

    Spicer: Conway has been counseled (whatever the fuck that means) regarding her shameless shilling for the shit that Ivanka is selling.

  96. 96.

    Dave

    @Jerzy Russian: Right this shows how bad they are at governing and the politics of governing. Regardless of actual practical merit or legal merit an EO about border security carried out in a less slap-dash and mean spirited manner should not be below water in popularity (I believe it currently is correct me if I’m wrong) this should have been an easy PR/political win for them instead it’s whatever the hell this has become pretty it ain’t.

  97. 97.

    EBT

    @hilts: Counseled is military speak for someone yelled at her until they were blue in the face and her stupid hair stood straight back.

  98. 98.

    LAC

    @patroclus: that asshat does know that this isn’t like an episode of Law and Order where he is going to be sitting at the table in the courtroom whisper yelling to his attorneys, right?

    The DOJ barely has time to digest this filing before his royal orange ass weighs in.

  101. 101.

    NotMax

    @hovercraft

    Yeah, the right has been yammering on about the 9th circuit at least since Reagan.

    9th circuit direct jurisdiction area currently encompasses ~20% of the U.S. population.

  103. 103.

    HeleninEire

    I feel like at felt when Obergfell was decided. I know this is not the Supreme Court, but gosh, my heart is full!!

  105. 105.

    burnspbesq

    @Dave:

    California will not pay federal taxes while not receiving any federal funding.

    Really. If you have thoughts on how to get my employer to stop withholding Federal income tax and Social,Security from my salary, that don’t involve filing a fraudulent W-4, I’d be eager to hear them.

  107. 107.

    Amaranthine RBG

    Perhaps an appellate specialist could answer this:

    Since appeals court treated this as a preliminary injunction instead of a TRO and have upheld it, are the proceedings over until there is an appeal to Supreme Court?

    Or does the lower court retain jurisdiction and reinstate its briefing schedule and determine whether to extend the TRO to a preliminary injunction?

    If the former, this seems like a horrible blunder by US, since the record below has practically no information on which their likelihood of success could be based.

  108. 108.

    Gin & Tonic

    Good question from Zbigniew Brzezinski on Twitter: “Does America have a foreign policy right now?”

  109. 109.

    Adam L Silverman

    @EBT: Troops is a military term. And yes, I know some places call their state patrol “troopers”. Also, the Girl Scouts, which most people don’t realize is our back up uniformed force and it is fully funded thanks to cookies.

  110. 110.

    AnderJ

    Doesn’t Per Curiam mean “we do not tell you wether it was unanimous or not”? See Bush v. Gore.

  111. 111.

    SiubhanDuinne

    @Adam L Silverman:

    Also, the Girl Scouts, which most people don’t realize is our back up uniformed force and it is fully funded thanks to cookies.

    I re-upped a couple of days ago as part of the Thin Mints Brigade.

  112. 112.

    hilts

    @jl:

    It’s clear from Trump’s tweets and public statements that he hasn’t got the slightest fucking clue as to how our goddamn government is structured.

    McConnell and Ryan are incapable of feeling any shame, but they damn well should for their decision to support a knuckle dragging neanderthal who does not have the faintest grasp of anything relating to governance.

  114. 114.

    Jerzy Russian

    @Gin & Tonic:

    Good question from Zbigniew Brzezinski on Twitter: “Does America have a foreign policy right now?”

    Pissing people off and generally fucking up?

  115. 115.

    maya

    Trump’s retort: “SEE YOU IN COURT. THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE”.
    Sounds vaguely familiar. Didn’t Joan of Arc say that exact same thing?

  116. 116.

    HeleninEire

    @HeleninEire:

    And by the way – I saw “Loving” just yesterday. Same feeling. EVERYONE’s rights are civil rights. And guaranteed in the constitution. YAY, America.

  119. 119.

    Adam L Silverman

    @Gin & Tonic: The Trump Doctrine I laid out late last Spring: America will be treated well. Or else…

    You see this?
    http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN15O2A5?il=0

    In his first call as president with Russian leader Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump denounced a treaty that caps U.S. and Russian deployment of nuclear warheads as a bad deal for the United States, according to two U.S. officials and one former U.S. official with knowledge of the call.

    When Putin raised the possibility of extending the 2010 treaty, known as New START, Trump paused to ask his aides in an aside what the treaty was, these sources said.

    Trump then told Putin the treaty was one of several bad deals negotiated by the Obama administration, saying that New START favored Russia. Trump also talked about his own popularity, the sources said.

    There’s more bizarre and frightening stuff at the link.

  123. 123.

    EBT

    What happens when deadbeat donnie sends in every ICE agent to a sanctuary city to “enforce the law”?

  124. 124.

    NotMax

    @Gin & Tonic

    Several, all equally oppugnant*. Check back every few hours and there’ll be even more.

    “If it’s Tuesday, we must like Belgium.”

    *A venerable word which rarely gets dusted off and given a chance to shine.

  125. 125.

    Peale

    @Gin & Tonic: yes. Punish our largest trading partners. Insult anyone world leaders who are from weaker countries. Prepare to take things. Fight the GWOT in silly ways.

    The Guantanamo EO is on the way. Good news! It’s accepting applicants again. But someone convinced the administration to keep the glorification of torture on the down low.

  129. 129.

    japa21

    @Adam L Silverman: Saw that earlier. Really scary stuff. He didn’t even know what the treaty was but just reflexively said it was bad. Apparently, only he can negotiate good stuff.

  131. 131.

    Peale

    @EBT: not much. If all the ICE agents are in one place, that means they aren’t in all other places. We might be better off that way.

  135. 135.

    Adam L Silverman

    @EBT: If you’re still asking about Federal Law Enforcement: yes. With a bit of a but. ICE Special Agents investigate immigrations and customs related crimes. If an undocumented immigrant commits a murder, while ICE may ultimately take custody of that individual, the investigation will be done by the appropriate local law enforcement. The FBI can be a bit more far reaching as they can investigate all Federal crimes. But each Federal Law Enforcement agency has its own jurisdiction and is, by and large, limited to it.

  136. 136.

    Dave

    @burnspbesq: It’s hyperbole, I’ve been on Twitter today it takes a bit to change that thought pattern more arch then I tend to go for, reality though is that would so break the country that mass widespread civil unrest would be very very likely and things would get even uglier. Law only means anything if critical mass accept it’s legitimate (not agree with a given law but accept the broad legitimacy of it) or have sufficient force to enforce things can break and that is the sort of move that would likely cause that break if it was successful or nearly so. I do think this admin would be boneheaded enough to make the attempt if they thought it was something they could do. I do not believe they would be successful the posited scenario sorta presumed that success.

  137. 137.

    TS

    I love this from the ruling – reads to me that the Judges have no faith in the President words as he may redefine what he says whenever it suits

    The White House counsel is not the President, and he is not known to be in the chain of command for any of the Executive Departments. Moreover, in light of the Government’s shifting interpretations of the Executive Order, we cannot say that the current interpretation by White House counsel, even if authoritative and binding, will persist past the immediate stage of these proceedings.

  140. 140.

    SiubhanDuinne

    @Adam L Silverman:

    My friend’s pusher daughter is now doing fucking personalized videos for everyone who has placed meaningful orders in past years. How can I possibly resist?

  142. 142.

    Gin & Tonic

    @Adam L Silverman: Yes, I have seen that. Unfortunately.

    I’m kind of hoping that after he hung up, Vladimir Vladimirovich said “what the fuck did I do?”

    Honestly, I don’t necessarily expect any newly-inaugurated POTUIS to understand all the nuances of arms control policy. It is complicated. But I do expect him to TAKE A FUCKING BRIEFING on them before picking up the fucking phone.

  144. 144.

    debbie

    @Adam L Silverman:

    Trump slams everything else just to make his own efforts seem that much better. Everything made by anyone else is a “disaster” and he’s going to “destroy” it and make it better.

    Happy, his efforts to date make him look like a boob. Trump’s more J.R. Ewing than Churchill, though I’m sure he would disagree.

  146. 146.

    SiubhanDuinne

    Seen just now on Facebook:

    “SEE YOU IN COURT” is just the grown-up version of “I’M TELLING MOM.”

  149. 149.

    efgoldman

    @dmsilev:

    I guess that’s what a raised middle finger looks like in legalese.

    “Excuse me, sir. There’s a Justice Marshall on the line from 1803…”

  151. 151.

    hovercraft

    @Adam L Silverman:

    When Putin raised the possibility of extending the 2010 treaty, known as New START, Trump paused to ask his aides in an aside what the treaty was, these sources said.

    Trump then told Putin the treaty was one of several bad deals negotiated by the Obama administration, saying that New START favored Russia. Trump also talked about his own popularity,

    He just can’t help himself, he has no interest in learning any fucking thing, how do you get on a call with Putin not knowing what the START Treaty is, how are you getting Nat. Sec. briefings and not aware of it. And then to wander off into bullshit about your supposed popularity which everyone in the world except your deluded followers knows is non existent, is just bizarre. Putin doesn’t need the FSB to know how unpopular he is, everyone in the world knows that he is the most unpopular person on the planet right now.SAD !

  152. 152.

    efgoldman

    @schrodingers_cat:

    What happens if T sends Federal troops to a so called sanctuary city if the local police refuse to obey his orders?

    Then both he and everyone in the chain of command is in violation of federal law. I’m not saying none of the generals would do it – Adam can answer this much better than I – but any that do are risking their jobs, pensions, and maybe their freedom.

    ETA: The local police obey local orders. While many individuals may agree with Amber Asswipe, they’d also be in violation.

  154. 154.

    dww44

    @Trentrunner: Late, but even worse, she had Alan Dershowitz. He’s worse than Will, even though it is SOOOOOOOOOO annoying to be lectured by Will, thus………..

    Talking about how all Americans are having to adjust to the Trump President, Will says, “even my liberal friends” are discovering James Madison and his writings. and remembering that the Constituton provided for 3 separate co-equal branches of government….” I then changed the channel. I’m not in a mood to be lectured by a conservative, even if he’s anti-Trump.

  159. 159.

    efgoldman

    @EBT:

    What happens when deadbeat donnie sends in every ICE agent to a sanctuary city

    Then there won’t be any at airports….

  161. 161.

    Debbie1

    @Gin & Tonic: “Good question from Zbigniew Brzezinski on Twitter: “Does America have a foreign policy right now?”

    Don’t talk to me about that guy. I’ll NEVER forgive him for spawning Mika of the Morning.

  162. 162.

    Lizzy L

    @hovercraft:

    how are you getting Nat. Sec. briefings

    He isn’t. But even if he were, it wouldn’t matter, because he doesn’t remember stuff unless it’s about him.

    Here’s the part of the decision that jumped out at me.

    “The Government contends that the district court lacked authority to enjoin enforcement of the Executive Order because the President has “unreviewable authority to suspend the admission of any class of aliens.” The Government does not merely argue that courts owe substantial deference to the immigration and national security policy determinations of the political branches—an uncontroversial principle that is well-grounded in our jurisprudence. Instead, the Government has taken the position that the President’s decisions about immigration policy, particularly when motivated by national security concerns, are unreviewable, even if those actions potentially contravene constitutional rights and protections.” [ ] [My bold] “There is no precedent to support this claimed unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy.”

    I am dancing.

  163. 163.

    efgoldman

    @Gin & Tonic:

    I do expect him to TAKE A FUCKING BRIEFING on them before picking up the fucking phone.

    Even if he did, he wouldn’t remember any important parts for more than an hour five minutes.

  167. 167.

    Debbie1

    Tr*mp must be nearly apoplectic right about now. I can just see him, running around the White House in his shortie bathrobe. And Kellyanne Conjob trying to cheer him up by wearing her drum major inaugural outfit, and saying something like, “Don’t think of it as a loss, think of it as an alternative win!”

  168. 168.

    Adam L Silverman

    @schrodingers_cat: If they are Federalized, no. If called up by their state Governor – it depends. This is a Title 10 versus Title 32 issue:
    http://www.ngaus.org/sites/default/files/Guard%20Statues.pdf

    Many events trigger responses across multiple jurisdictions and different levels of government. The National Guard is
    exceptionally suited for its Homeland Defense role due to its geographically disperse forces with links to local
    communities and ties to state and local governments. These relationships allow for rapid and integrated responses in
    times of emergency. Because of its unique dual constitutional authority, the National Guard serves to bridge the “zone of
    ambiguity” across State and Federal government boundaries.
    The National Guard is the only United States military force that operates across both State and Federal responses,
    leveraging State Active Duty (SAD), Full-Time National Guard Duty (Title 32) and Active Duty (Title 10). While SAD, Title
    32 and Title 10 are different statuses and roles, they provide mutually supporting capability.
    In the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act, Congress passed legislation which partially eliminated mutual
    exclusivity with regard to Chain of Command, allowing specially designated National Guard officers to command forces
    in both Title 10 and Title 32 statuses – designated as a Dual Status Commanders.
    State Active Duty (SAD)
    The Governor can activate National Guard personnel to “State Active Duty” in response to natural or man-made
    disasters or Homeland Defense missions. SAD is based on State statue and policy as well as State funds. Soldiers and
    Airmen remain under the command and control of the Governor. A key aspect of this duty status is that the Posse
    Comitatus Act does not apply, giving National Guardsmen the ability to act in a law enforcement capacity within their
    home state or adjacent state if granted by that state’s Governor.
    Title 32 Full-Time National Guard Duty
    “Full-time National Guard Duty” means training or other duty, other than inactive duty, performed by a member of the
    National Guard. Title 32 allows the Governor, with the approval of the President or the Secretary of Defense, to order a
    member to duty for operational Homeland Defense activities in accordance with the following sections of U.S. Code
    (USC):
    1. 32 USC 502 (f): This statue allows member of the National Guard to be ordered to full-time National Guard duty
    to perform operational activities. It was used for the Airport Security mission after 9/11 and also for Hurricane
    Katrina and Rita response effort.
    2. 32 USC § 901: The term “Homeland Defense activity” means an activity undertaken for the military protection of
    the territory or domestic population of the U.S., or of infrastructure or other asset of the U.S. determined by the
    Secretary of Defense as being critical to national security and at risk of a threat or aggression against the U.S.
    3. 32 USC § 902 – Homeland Defense activities: funds. (a) The Secretary of Defense may provide funds to a
    Governor to employ National Guard units or members to conduct Homeland Defense activities that the
    Secretary determines necessary and appropriate for participation by the National Guard or members.
    The key to this instance is that Federal Law provides the Governor with the ability to place a soldier in a full-time duty
    status under the command and control of the State but is directly funded with Federal dollars. Even though this duty
    status is authorized by Federal statue, this section is a statutory exception to the Posse Comitatus Act; the Governor
    may use the Guard in a law enforcement capacity while the chain of command rests in the State.
    Title 10 Active-Duty
    “Active duty” means full-time duty in the active military service of the U.S. Title 10. It allows the President to “federalize”
    the National Guard forces by ordering them to active duty in their reserve component status or by calling them into
    Federal service in their militia status in accordance with the following USC sections:
    1. 10 USC § 12301 (d) – Voluntary Order to Active Duty: At any time, a member of the National Guard may be
    ordered to active duty voluntarily with his or her consent and the consent of the Governor.

    2. 10 USC § 12302 – Partial Mobilization: In time of national emergency declared by the President, the Secretary
    concerned may order any unit and any member to active duty for no more than 24 consecutive months.
    3. 10 USC § 12304 – Presidential Selected Reserve Call Up: When the President determines that it is necessary
    to augment the active force or any operational mission, he may authorize the service secretaries to order any
    unit and any member to active duty for not more than 365 days.
    4. 10 USC § 331 – Federal Aid to State Governors: Whenever an insurrection occurs in any State against its
    government, the President may, upon the request of its legislature or of its Governor, if the legislature cannot be
    convened, call into Federal service such of the militia of the other States, in the number requested by that State,
    and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to suppress the insurrection. This section is a
    statutory exception to the Posse Comitatus Act.
    5. 10 USC § 332 – Use of Militia and Armed Forces to Enforce Federal Authority: Whenever the President
    considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the U.S.,
    make it impractical to enforce the laws of the U.S. in any State or Territory by the ordinary course of judicial
    proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces
    as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion. This section is a statutory
    exception to the Posse Comitatus Act.
    6. 10 USC § 333 – Interference with State and Federal Law: The President, by using the militia or the armed
    forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a
    State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if it:
    a. So hinders the execution of the law of that State, and of the U.S. within the State, that any part or class
    of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity or protection named in the Constitution and
    secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail or refuse to protect that
    right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
    b. Opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the U.S. or impedes the course of justice under those
    laws. In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal
    protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.
    7. 10 USC § 12406 – Air and Army National Guard: Air and Army National Guard call into Federal service in case of invasion, rebellion or inability to execute Federal law with active forces.

    Additional Laws and Authorities
    Stafford Act (42 USC § 5121) – designed to bring an orderly and systemic means of federal natural disaster assistance
    for state and local governments in carrying out their responsibilities to aid citizens. Congress’ intention was to encourage
    states and localities to develop comprehensive disaster preparedness plans, prepare for better intergovernmental
    coordination in the face of a disaster, encourage the use of insurance coverage, and provide Federal assistance
    programs for losses due to a disaster.
    Posse Comitatus Act (18 USC § 1385)

  169. 169.

    Frank Wilhoit

    @Debbie1: It’s not a good question. America has not had a foreign policy for a long time, if ever. Every mention of any overseas actor is an allegory for some domestic faction. The worst that might be said of Brzezinski (and I will not actually say it, as I cannot prove it) is that he failed to notice that fact during his long career in the foreign-relations profession.

  170. 170.

    Adam L Silverman

    @Frank Wilhoit: I think it is more accurate to say that we have multiple policies in the foreign affairs area that have developed over time. Many of them made sense when first formulated, many of them still do. Unfortunately many of them contradict each other.

  171. 171.

    scott (the other one)

    @Mister Forkbeard: There are currently 14 members of the House who are Republicans from California. If Trump were to defund CA, it would be very painful in the short term, but in the next election, I would expect the Democrats would pick up roughly 14 new seats.

  172. 172.

    EBT

    @Dave: I grew up in the semi-rural south around a LOT of anti-government types. Every federal agent is a troop to them.

  173. 173.

    Aleta

    Unless there’s a serious scare, his military plans still depend on making Congress allocate plenty of money. So he won’t give in on the “major security threat requires immediate action.” But to save face and brag about results he may be inclined to widen or speed up the deportations he’s started. I sort of suspect they are also moving toward more requirements that legal residents must follow or else be in violation.

  175. 175.

    janelle

    @Baud: MSNBC’s great from 8-11pm ET on weeknights and whenever Joy Reid’s on. Outside of that it’s pretty hit-or-miss, getting to be a lot more “miss” in recent months (and of course Morning Doucheborough is always a “miss”).

  176. 176.

    janelle

    @Groucho48: You mean split into two or more separate circuits, I presume. There are already 13 U.S. district courts (and two territorial districts) that feed up to the 9th Circuit. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington is the court whose temporary restraining order was upheld today by the 9th Circuit.

  177. 177.

    Diana

    @Groucho48: There has been a lot of talk over the years to break the 9th into at least two circuits because it’s so large. The trouble is, the circuits go by state, and California is so large that even if you broke the 9th into California and then put all the other states into a 14th circuit, the vast majority of both cases and judges would still be in the “California ninth.”
    The other problem with that is that Federal circuits are not supposed to be one-state courts; if they were it would only be a matter of time until the entire jurisprudence of that court became identical to state law.

  178. 178.

    Groucho48

    Yep. Circuits, not Districts. My bad.

    Anyway, they want to split the current 9th into two or three Circuits. One liberal and one or two conservative.

    All of a sudden, in various blogs I check out, all the right wingers are experts on the 9th Circuit and how big it is and how many times its decisions have been overturned by the Supreme Court and how out of touch it is with “American values”

    That’s coming from somewhere…

  180. 180.

    NotMax

    @janelle

    Let ’em go ahead and do that.

    No judges would be removed, just moved to the new circuit(s), and the new circuit(s) would be bound by the precedent of any already extant 9th circuit decisions (as, for example, the 11th circuit – IIRC – is bound by such decisions of the 5th circuit from which it was carved out in the 80s).

Comments are closed.