National Guard troops have been in D.C. since August. A federal judge ruled Thursday that both deployments — D.C. National Guard and out-of-state troops — likely violate the law.
Ah, man, regarding the actions over the past eleven months, Dt played the lawyers and courts. His approach to legal proceedings, reminiscent of his past conduct in New York City, suggests a strategic manipulation of the judicial system, a tactic he likely honed under his former mentor, Mr. Cohn... Lie, cheat, never admit defeat, and never follow the rule of law. Basically, I'm tired of hearing the phase, "likely illegal." What crap!!!!!!
I’m sorry, but, the comment is completely addressed and rebutted in the story. As the story notes, the National Guard deployment has been blocked in multiple locations, so, the litigation has been making a difference.
Second, the “likely,” as also explained in the story, is about the status of the case. It’s a preliminary injunction, so the standard is “likelihood of success on the merits.” No reason to call it “crap.” It is the legal standard at this point in the litigation.
Your rebuttal is accurate. To clarify, my previous statement pertained to the perceived inefficiencies within our judicial system during the current political climate. While lower courts have indeed sought to challenge certain executive actions, the involvement of the six conservative justices on the U.S. Supreme Court frequently results in either a reversal of those decisions, often without detailed explanation, or a remand for further deliberation. This process presents a significant challenge given the urgency of the situation. It is important to recognize that the current political landscape transcends traditional partisan divisions, and we are operating under circumstances that deviate significantly from established democratic norms.
I was surprised by the Posse Comitatus Act parts of the decision..I had heard from the beginning that it didn't apply here in DC. What the judge said made sense to me -not a lawyer- but I'd love to hear more about it, especially in regards to the decision's vulnerability on appeal.
Some people have argued the PCA always applies in DC because the President is the Commander in Chief regardless of status. This opinion disputes the underlying argument, pointing out that the president is statutorily appointed c in c, subject to restrictions in the DC code. So technically, the PCA doesn’t apply not apply, but LE activities are governed by DC law. The judge rejected the government’s argument about the breadth of 32 U.S.C. §502(f) as a means to exploit the NG for missions that could not be undertaken by title 10 military without violating the PCA. Note also that NG operating under the EMAC are not supposed to undertake activities that would violate the PCA if done by regular troops.
Thanks for the reminder on how the DC guard is different and the explanation of how the judge dealt with the differences, Judges are clearly getting really tired of government overreaching on the intent of statutes.
Sad it took so long, but VERY glad up see the decision.
Expect tirades in ALL CAPS and a stamping of the foot—Baby Huey on a tear of vituperation and grievance.
So, too, from Mein Herr Miller.
Rewriting the Electric Flag hit, “Whine, whine, whine.”
Pesky little things, the law and Constitution.
Ah, man, regarding the actions over the past eleven months, Dt played the lawyers and courts. His approach to legal proceedings, reminiscent of his past conduct in New York City, suggests a strategic manipulation of the judicial system, a tactic he likely honed under his former mentor, Mr. Cohn... Lie, cheat, never admit defeat, and never follow the rule of law. Basically, I'm tired of hearing the phase, "likely illegal." What crap!!!!!!
I’m sorry, but, the comment is completely addressed and rebutted in the story. As the story notes, the National Guard deployment has been blocked in multiple locations, so, the litigation has been making a difference.
Second, the “likely,” as also explained in the story, is about the status of the case. It’s a preliminary injunction, so the standard is “likelihood of success on the merits.” No reason to call it “crap.” It is the legal standard at this point in the litigation.
Your rebuttal is accurate. To clarify, my previous statement pertained to the perceived inefficiencies within our judicial system during the current political climate. While lower courts have indeed sought to challenge certain executive actions, the involvement of the six conservative justices on the U.S. Supreme Court frequently results in either a reversal of those decisions, often without detailed explanation, or a remand for further deliberation. This process presents a significant challenge given the urgency of the situation. It is important to recognize that the current political landscape transcends traditional partisan divisions, and we are operating under circumstances that deviate significantly from established democratic norms.
Yes. I don't know if you're a new to this newsletter, but I cover all of that regularly and at length. (And, undoubtedly will soon enough again.)
👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
I was surprised by the Posse Comitatus Act parts of the decision..I had heard from the beginning that it didn't apply here in DC. What the judge said made sense to me -not a lawyer- but I'd love to hear more about it, especially in regards to the decision's vulnerability on appeal.
Some people have argued the PCA always applies in DC because the President is the Commander in Chief regardless of status. This opinion disputes the underlying argument, pointing out that the president is statutorily appointed c in c, subject to restrictions in the DC code. So technically, the PCA doesn’t apply not apply, but LE activities are governed by DC law. The judge rejected the government’s argument about the breadth of 32 U.S.C. §502(f) as a means to exploit the NG for missions that could not be undertaken by title 10 military without violating the PCA. Note also that NG operating under the EMAC are not supposed to undertake activities that would violate the PCA if done by regular troops.
THANKS! only a little over my head, but a got the gist! I am just hoping the judge's reasoning is sound!
The reasoning looks sound to me, unfortunately no guarantee it will survive review.
Likely illegal is like the courts being likely slow
See Geidner's comment above.
Thanks for the reminder on how the DC guard is different and the explanation of how the judge dealt with the differences, Judges are clearly getting really tired of government overreaching on the intent of statutes.
A genuine relief. Thank you for your coverage!
Rules don't apply the same way to Republicans and Trump.