Judge Orders Control of NG Returned to Newsome -that was quick Federal Judge reverses that order

I'm sure the judge is a commie America hater and that Trump will appeal it to his homies on the scotus.

 

sleep tight…

Trump administration can keep control of California National Guard troops for now, appeals court rules

 

Did you really think that a district judge’s word was going to be the end of the matter, whichever way it went? Of course, it was going to be appealed and would have been by the Governor if it had gone the other way. This is not “over” until the Supreme Court rules or one side quits, and neither side is going to quit.

 

From the description of attorneys/commentators who have actually read it the opinion of the District Court is very well reasoned relying essentially on the definition of the terms in the statute primarily that of "rebellion" that Trump is using as the basis for the federalization of the National Guard. That being said it's a virtual certainty that the Supreme Court will review the case on an expedited basis and based on it's history of deferring to Trump will uphold his federalization of the Guard in a 6-3 or 5-4 decision. No way will the Donald's personal SCOTUS will affirm the original decision no matter how well reasoned.

 

That is all possible. But in the mean time, this is playing out in an actual court. Odds are, the President wins in the appeals court, and if he does my (admittedly forlorn) hope is that he takes the victory, goes back to the governor, and comes to a solution that both can live with. You know, like adults with incredible power are supposed to do. It is in the interest of all for this never to go to the Suprene Court because both men came out of their trenches and reached an understanding on the major points each could find satisfactory.

 

I agree although expecting Trump to act like an adult is truly wishful thinking. If he does it may be the first time.

 

You are 100% correct, but that is still not the full picture. I am told by people close to the governor that he, too, has had some off-ramps where he could have been the bigger man and come away with most of what he wanted but preferred to grandstand. To diffuse the situation he will also have to humble himself and subordinate his future presidential ambitions to the public interest. I’m not willing to bet on that any more than I’m willing to bet on Trump stepping back in with Lincolnesque wisdom and letting the governor up easy after a victory in court.

 

I like how they sat "for now" like any judge, or even the Supreme Court can overturn the Constitution.

 

Well, no … but the Supreme Court can make a decision that makes one side or the other wail and gnash its teeth that the Constitution has been overturned, which is not precisely same thing.

 

I’d be curious what those off-ramps were. Newsom was on the Nyt daily podcast the other day. He said prior to the deployment he spoke with Trump, it was very cordial and there was no mention of deploying the national guard. Literally hours later Trump deployed the national guard. Then later Trump said he and Newsom discussed it, when they actually didn’t. So either Trump is lying or he literally didn’t remember. I have no reason to disbelieve what Newsom was saying - he was pretty emphatic about it.

What was most interesting was some of the guardsman were police, so they were not available to do their job. Some of them were moved away from positions on the border. Then once deployed the LAPD had to go protect the guard from protesters, vs deal with protesters elsewhere.

 

When, as just one example, ICE comes into the Los Angeles area and arrests 2 parents who have been living in the United States for over 20 years, and leaves a sixth grade boy on his own, what is the off ramp for the governor?

 

To let ICE do their job enforcing the law on the books. Then hold a press conference highlighting how those two parents broke no law in the US, other than entering illegally, during their 20 years living in the US and all the social and economic benefit they, and people like them, provided to California and the United States. The jobs they created, the impact to their community they had, and why the DHS has to focus on the illegal immigrants that have committed crimes versus the law abiding ones.

 

Yah Newsome is good at letting things burn down.

 

Man your conspiracies are becoming too much…

 

They are both acting like giant twats. But instead of getting called out, everyone chooses a side.

 

Just to remove the emotion from your oddly specific example, we will replace it with a completely different federal crime that does not make our hearts bleed so much. So we will say a mom-and-pop counterfeiting or money-laundering operation that brings in federal law enforcement to detain the parents and leaves our sixth-grade boy of your scenario on his own. Generally speaking, said child will go into the custody of social services, pending his placement with relatives of good legal standing or, failing that, foster care. Either way, the governor of the state involved is not likely to lose any sleep over the matter.

At any rate, you are referring all the way back to the matter of federal law enforcement executing raids on U.S. soil in accordance with U.S. law and to what degree the states have to cooperate with or are allowed to obstruct those actions. That's an interesting conversation to have, but the "off-ramps" I was referring to are on this issue of federal versus state control of the National Guard. There is no question under the law that the governor has tactical and operational control of the Guard (but never administrative control on matters such as policy; that is always governed at the federal level) under normal conditions but that Presidents can take Title-10 operational control more or less at their pleasure. The amount of consulting that has to take place between Presidents and Governors is a matter of norms and good manners but not law. Now in complete fairness I think the President could have and should have acted differently at several points in his dealings with the Governor. But since your challenge to me was about what the Governor could have done differently at certain points I'll only address that and strictly in the hypothetical since I was not in the room and can only guess how some of these engagements with the President (or his people) might have gone based on little bits of information that reached me three levels down at the brigade level.

We can agree that the first engagement probably happened shortly after people violently interfered with ICE agents in the conduct of their duties in LA, something you just can't do even if you don't like ICE, even if you don't agree with those particular laws. The Governor's opening position was no doubt for the President to stop the raids, and the President's opening position was that the Governor had a duty to fully support federal law enforcement. Now we both know neither can accept the other's position, but there was a healthy compromise to be found. It was fair, for instance, for the Governor to request state and local enforcement to be advised in advance of any raids (not for coordination but to have crowd control on standby in the event of unrest), and it was fair for the President to request that the Governor not surreptitiously use that information to alert immigrant communities for political purposes. I also think a fair compromise could have been reached on use of the Guard to protect federal buildings but that the federal government would pay for the deployment. There are lots of happier mediums between "ICE is not allowed to do its job in California" and "Reconstruction, Part II: Occupy Los Angeles." But for that to happen one of these two men is going to have to be the bigger man, and I think that is going to have to be the Governor.

 

Yeah, I hear you. And I don't want to imply I was right outside the room (I was in Fresno, not Sacramento, right up until yesterday when I got to Tampa) or even that I have spoken with any of the people who were directly in the room. Since I'm a brigade commander in California, I've met the Adjutant General (TAG), who was in the room, a few times, and I know some of his inner circle pretty circle pretty well. I can tell you TAG is an ethical and professional officer but also, of course a card-carrying Democrat as a political appointee. Well, TAG seemed to give his people the impression, whether he meant to or not, that the Governor got the President to do exactly what he wanted him to do, federalize the Guard. I suspect this has to do with more than just naked political ambition and might have some cynical, practical purposes. But I am going to beg your pardon in withholding that theory for the moment. If you will grant me the patience of asking me again on March 22, when the current political situation has died down and I am no longer one of the Governor's brigade commanders, then I will share my theory with you. Even with the semi-anonymity of GC, it's just too easy to figure out who I am.

On the issue of police officers in the Guard, it's almost never a real problem. During mobilizations for civil disturbances, peace officers are specifically exempted in the mobilization orders. Same thing for firefighters when the mobilization is for fires. Now, what often happens is, certain police officer prefer Guard duty to police duty under these circumstances and don't tell their departments this. That, I can't help.