Trump's efforts to go after U.S. cities — first Los Angeles and D.C., with, it appears, Chicago next — are alarming. A lot happened, as to all three cities, on Tuesday.
I reread the link, and I agree. I would much rather that someone would gallop in and arrest him for ignoring court orders, but we have to keep acting as though the system works, even when it doesn't, because sometimes it will. It is exhausting, but if we keep it up and continue to push against him hard, there is hope!
I'm glad Judge Breyer took the time to walk through all of these legal arguments.
Curious to see how five Supreme Court justices will argue that the president has the power to use the military in this way. I can't imagine them ruling against Trump on anything of importance.
They all needed to stay out of our bedrooms, and trust we can make are own choices. Constitution says we have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Remember those ends when they bump of others rights.
"Constitutional exception", as enunciated by Task Force commander Major Gen. Scott Sherman, was always a tough sell, and Judge Breyer was — to say the least — incredulous of the claim. While Gen. Sherman was said to question the legality of the task force deployment, he said under testimony that "he was told by his superiors" that such an "exception" was inherent in certain presidential powers, etc., etc., so mount up, General.
Well, let's see what the Supremes say about Judge Breyer's impeccably authored decision.
Doug, there are some reprisals available to California which has enormous economic leverage and considerably in-state legal options in striking st corporate Trump allies. See the recent analysis over slat Existential Republic.nTge blue states like California band Illinois are not defenseless l. DC is not so lucky.
Will look; thanks. But we will have to go outside the legal system. As in the civil rights era. People power. In some form(s). All for using the law and courts. Both/and!
Above all, let’s definitely pretend we have the courts as a defense—and that’s it. If the courts fail, we get on our knees for MAGA and congratulate them for winning a fair fight. Well done, fascists!
Then, onward to the carbonized death of the human future! We can just tell our kids we played by the rules with their executioners. They’ll understand.
If they can find a way to let him defy the law they will. I don't like anything about Trump, he is too much like mom and she was a psychopath! Creater help us all.
He will never stop breaking the law, until the Supreme Court stands up to him. Even then, I have my doubts.... What a total mess 😖 Thanks, Chris, good article, and will reStack ASAP 💯👍
This is a topic that countless scholars have discussed at length since Jan. 20. It is an issue that I — and so many others — have written about at length. See this and the many, many links therein — https://www.lawdork.com/p/defending-the-rule-of-law-in-the-trump-era — for more. I truly think that people still asking this question now have to not want the answer.
🙄 It’s a perfectly legitimate question. Sure, sue and do all of that for the reasons you have stated. And if and when that doesn’t work? If and when judges just bow down? Everything the Nazis did was nice and legal.
I truly think that people still refusing to address this question now have to not want the answer.
Well it's not really an answer but it's ultimately true for any human society. Rules only work if we all abide by them. If some of us, and that could include all of the president, the supreme court, and the congress, decide they are not going to follow them, it's still up to the rest of us to decide how we're going to respond and what we're going to do. I think your point is usually that those actors alone don't get to decide whether we have rule of law, but that each and every one of us has a say in that in how we choose to act, and that it's when we abdicate that responsibility that we're really in trouble. It seems to me that in that sense you and your critics are both right and not really in disagreement.
Thank you for posting the link. I reread it. What we have is holding fast to laws and what we know is right, in every corner and circumstance. I suppose in the past we as a country were held to norms and ethics. A sizeable portion of us don't hold to any norms and certainly no ethics, including members of SCOTUS. But there are ways of holding firm, standing up, upholding laws, refusing to kowtow. I think that's what we have, and we abandon all of that to our peril, and to the peril of our children and grandchildren who deserve to live in a democracy and not a fascist world.
Crazy theory: did ARNORTH think bullets in red wouldn’t show differently via FOIA because most of them are black and white? They didn’t count on legal discovery? 🤣
I reread the link, and I agree. I would much rather that someone would gallop in and arrest him for ignoring court orders, but we have to keep acting as though the system works, even when it doesn't, because sometimes it will. It is exhausting, but if we keep it up and continue to push against him hard, there is hope!
I suggest we hoard paper clips and printers for the noble struggle ahead.
😂
I'm glad Judge Breyer took the time to walk through all of these legal arguments.
Curious to see how five Supreme Court justices will argue that the president has the power to use the military in this way. I can't imagine them ruling against Trump on anything of importance.
Five? Not six justices? I hope you don’t expect Roberts to side against Trump.
He rarely does
Indeed. And apparently Justice Barrett just came out with a book justifying (among other things) the Dobbs decision—can’t trust that.
They all needed to stay out of our bedrooms, and trust we can make are own choices. Constitution says we have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Remember those ends when they bump of others rights.
They - the six conservative justices - deem themselves elite … and the elite recognizes no such rights for the riffraff
David, I read a preview of that book that says she makes a statement in it that the Court's task is to express the will of the people. Huh??
She makes it sound as if they were some third chamber of Congress. What happened to the laws and Constitution?
Ah, judicial doublespeak! Will of what people? (Surely not women!) And of course, lip service about the rule of law that SCOTUS is blindsiding.
Barrett also objected to the tone of the dissents. Polite dissent? Respect for a duplicitous court?
Clear, concise writeup
"Constitutional exception", as enunciated by Task Force commander Major Gen. Scott Sherman, was always a tough sell, and Judge Breyer was — to say the least — incredulous of the claim. While Gen. Sherman was said to question the legality of the task force deployment, he said under testimony that "he was told by his superiors" that such an "exception" was inherent in certain presidential powers, etc., etc., so mount up, General.
Well, let's see what the Supremes say about Judge Breyer's impeccably authored decision.
If they back Trump, what then? Lots of outraged Substack comments?
Doug, there are some reprisals available to California which has enormous economic leverage and considerably in-state legal options in striking st corporate Trump allies. See the recent analysis over slat Existential Republic.nTge blue states like California band Illinois are not defenseless l. DC is not so lucky.
Will look; thanks. But we will have to go outside the legal system. As in the civil rights era. People power. In some form(s). All for using the law and courts. Both/and!
Ah, the ever-present threat of tossed sandwiches! This just in: Trump issues bibs to National Guard!
An excellent ruling by Judge Breyer (a San Franciscan, of course) … but will his findings be ignored by SCOTUS?
Yes.
They shouldn't but they might
They do so repeatedly—the Colorado case, the immunity decision, all these shadow docket decisions …
Bowser fucking caved. She’s worthless.
Above all, let’s definitely pretend we have the courts as a defense—and that’s it. If the courts fail, we get on our knees for MAGA and congratulate them for winning a fair fight. Well done, fascists!
Then, onward to the carbonized death of the human future! We can just tell our kids we played by the rules with their executioners. They’ll understand.
PS: For the love of God—don’t do anything effective like this: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/citizens-are-tracking-ice-real-time-warn-migrants-is-that-legal-2025-09-03/. It might be illegal—so if you do it, YOU ARE JUST AS BAD AS MAGA!
If they can find a way to let him defy the law they will. I don't like anything about Trump, he is too much like mom and she was a psychopath! Creater help us all.
He will never stop breaking the law, until the Supreme Court stands up to him. Even then, I have my doubts.... What a total mess 😖 Thanks, Chris, good article, and will reStack ASAP 💯👍
How would today’s judgement (or others to come on this subject) be enforced if it is upheld?
This is a topic that countless scholars have discussed at length since Jan. 20. It is an issue that I — and so many others — have written about at length. See this and the many, many links therein — https://www.lawdork.com/p/defending-the-rule-of-law-in-the-trump-era — for more. I truly think that people still asking this question now have to not want the answer.
🙄 It’s a perfectly legitimate question. Sure, sue and do all of that for the reasons you have stated. And if and when that doesn’t work? If and when judges just bow down? Everything the Nazis did was nice and legal.
I truly think that people still refusing to address this question now have to not want the answer.
Well it's not really an answer but it's ultimately true for any human society. Rules only work if we all abide by them. If some of us, and that could include all of the president, the supreme court, and the congress, decide they are not going to follow them, it's still up to the rest of us to decide how we're going to respond and what we're going to do. I think your point is usually that those actors alone don't get to decide whether we have rule of law, but that each and every one of us has a say in that in how we choose to act, and that it's when we abdicate that responsibility that we're really in trouble. It seems to me that in that sense you and your critics are both right and not really in disagreement.
Thank you for posting the link. I reread it. What we have is holding fast to laws and what we know is right, in every corner and circumstance. I suppose in the past we as a country were held to norms and ethics. A sizeable portion of us don't hold to any norms and certainly no ethics, including members of SCOTUS. But there are ways of holding firm, standing up, upholding laws, refusing to kowtow. I think that's what we have, and we abandon all of that to our peril, and to the peril of our children and grandchildren who deserve to live in a democracy and not a fascist world.
Crazy theory: did ARNORTH think bullets in red wouldn’t show differently via FOIA because most of them are black and white? They didn’t count on legal discovery? 🤣
I did