Article

2025-10-06 Home Front: Politix

Trump rightly defies judge to protect ICE agents from Portland militants ‐ shouldn't be this hard

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Frank G 2025-10-06 03:24|| E-Mail|| Front Page|| [1816 views ] Top
File under: Lawfare

1 Judges don't like their orders to be "defied" or circumvented, so she issued an order on Sunday that bans the deployment of National Guard troops from other states as well.

No, you don't "defy" the order of a federal judge. If you don't like it, you appeal, and the thing will go up to the Supreme Court anyway.

Defying means you don't respect the rule of law, and this leads to autocracy, dictatorship and/or civil war.

Posted by European Conservative 2025-10-06 05:27|| 2025-10-06 05:27|| Front Page Top

2 “The district court’s order improperly impinges on the Commander in Chief’s supervision of military operations, countermands a military directive to officers in the field, and endangers federal personnel and property. "

Our judiciary has a bad habit of granting itself powers and authority that has not been granted to it by the legislative branch. That is the Constitutional crisis. It's the one branch that sits for life and is not accountable to the people. You can have a republic or an autocracy run by black robes. The Constitution is clear as to which branch has command, control, and authority over the armed forces. The Demoncrats forced this before in Oxford Mississippi.

Posted by Procopius2k 2025-10-06 06:23|| 2025-10-06 06:23|| Front Page Top

3 #1 The spirit of Weimar?

Posted by Grom the Affective 2025-10-06 06:28|| 2025-10-06 06:28|| Front Page Top

4 "Our judiciary has a bad habit of granting itself powers and authority that has not been granted to it by the legislative branch."

Even if it were so, that's ultimately up to the Supreme Court to decide. You can't chose which judiciary decisions you obey and which not.

I'd also like to remimnd you that any power you're willing to bestow on President Trump may (and will) be used by the next President, who may not be somebody you like.

Posted by European Conservative 2025-10-06 08:25|| 2025-10-06 08:25|| Front Page Top

5 It was used by a prior President, John Kennedy, see link already posted. Then look up the text of the Insurrection Act.

We are not ruled by people who sit for life and are unaccountable to the people. That is not a republic. The law is the Constitution not men.

Posted by Procopius2k 2025-10-06 09:57|| 2025-10-06 09:57|| Front Page Top

6 It's not the President who interprets the Constitution, but the Supreme Court.

Separation of power is what makes a republic, not a President who does whatever he wants to.

The situation Kennedy responded to can hardly be compared with the situation in Portland. "War zone" is wildly exaggerated, and that's what the judge found (appointed by Trump, so hardly a leftist).

Posted by European Conservative 2025-10-06 10:36|| 2025-10-06 10:36|| Front Page Top

7 "appointed by Trump" - you have no idea what the blue slip process even is, do you? Lecture us on our Constitution and Politics?

Posted by Frank G 2025-10-06 10:56|| 2025-10-06 10:56|| Front Page Top

8 The Supreme Court recently ruled that, having been elected President, Donald J. Trump is legally entitled to do president stuff.

For those not following along at home, the Judicial Obstruction Play looks like this:
Trump does something.
Some judge rules he cannot. Lots of mocking headlines.
Judge gets over-ruled by higher court. Media silence.
Trump continues on. Whining about authoritarianism.

"Warzone" may be a bit of hyperbole, but federal officers and federal facilities *are* being attacked. Being of a certain age, I have a vague memory of federal troops escorting kids to school back in the Civil Rights days.

Posted by SteveS 2025-10-06 11:04|| 2025-10-06 11:04|| Front Page Top

9 Euros lecturing us on the Constitution even as their countries are being offered up to the 3rd World Horde based largely on their vote.

Posted by Rex Mundi 2025-10-06 11:16|| 2025-10-06 11:16|| Front Page Top

10 Some might call it irony. I'll just refer to it as justice served.

Posted by Besoeker 2025-10-06 12:05|| 2025-10-06 12:05|| Front Page Top

11 I'm not "lecturing" anyone. I'm giving my opinion like anybody else.

Posted by European Conservative 2025-10-06 12:18|| 2025-10-06 12:18|| Front Page Top

12 Trump tried an end-run by using the California National Guard. It's debatable whether that is "defiance" of a court order or not, since the original court order referred only to the Oregon National Guard. But I think the real defiance going on here is that the powers that be in Portland do not accept federal immigration law, in the very same way that Southern states in the '60's did not accept federal civil rights laws. Who wants to set the precedent that cities and states -- and individuals for that matter -- are not bound by federal law in areas Constitutionally assigned to the federal government?

Posted by Matt 2025-10-06 14:38|| 2025-10-06 14:38|| Front Page Top

13 The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

Says nothing about the Judiciary. No mother may I. Clear to me.

Posted by Pro 2025-10-06 16:06|| 2025-10-06 16:06|| Front Page Top

14 The States fight like brothers. Especially when we get to arguing about what's morally right and wrong. It's as American as apple pie.

Fugitive slave laws were not enforced in the Northern States, which irritated the South.

Civil rights laws were not enforced in the Jim Crow South, but presidents sent in the National Guard to enforce them.

Now we have blue states passing laws requiring state LEOs to avoid assisting federal immigration agents, and Trump et al are making them pay for it.

I think Trump has the law on his side b/c of the laws passed by the blue states; they have ceded the protection of ICE to the Feds much like the scenario in the Jim Crow South.

Texas recently passed anti-abortion enforcement laws akin to the fugitive slave laws, going after the pro-abort moolah. FDA approval for chemical abortion pills was just granted. They are being shipped across state lines into red states that prohibit abortion. If the Texas-style laws were to become federal, which could happen if republicans get 60 votes for it in the Senate, that'd really stick in the eye of the blue states. I think the blue-haired progs in the blue states would not abide such a law.

Posted by Melancholic 2025-10-06 17:13|| 2025-10-06 17:13|| Front Page Top

15 @13
"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;"

Correct. But the President is still bound by the Constitution and U.S. law. Federalized NG units fall under the Posse Comitatus Act.

The President thinks he doesn't violate this act, the governors of California, Oregon and Illinois think he does.

Only the Judiciary can settle this.

Posted by European Conservative 2025-10-06 17:35|| 2025-10-06 17:35|| Front Page Top

16 Posse Commitatus does not supersede the Insurrection Act. It prohibits military from engaging in daily police functions. It was intended to stop the use of the federal army in policing the Southern states during Reconstruction.

Protecting a federal facility/property does not fall in that category.

Posted by Procopius2k 2025-10-06 17:43|| 2025-10-06 17:43|| Front Page Top

17 The governors say there's no insurrection. And the Protective Power you mention is at least under dispute. Once again, the Judiciary needs to settle this.

Posted by European Conservative 2025-10-06 17:58|| 2025-10-06 17:58|| Front Page Top

18 "It's not the President who interprets the Constitution, but the Supreme Court."

That's not exactly correct. In the US each branch of government has an independent obligation to interpret and uphold the Constitution. All of the tensions and grey areas that result are by design, they're features of the system not flaws.

Here Trump is merely attempting to enforce federal law as his oath of office requires that he do. He has scrupulously obeyed every order from every nitwit leftist politicized judge and he's won nearly every appeal. He did the same here: judge orders no OR troops so he orders TX & CA troops to Portland. Judge (stupidly because she was baited into the overstep) orders NO federal troops, clearly she's way out over her skis on that one.

There's a pattern in play many don't really recognize. The executive has systematically baited the leftist activists among the judiciary into overstepping their bounds and has used those judicial abuses of power to roll back several decades of bad law. It's a breathtaking strategy if you recognize what's really going on. Most don't, they're caught up in the daily noise. Shame because it's a masterpiece in the making.

Posted by Big Unurong5862 2025-10-06 19:01|| 2025-10-06 19:01|| Front Page Top

19 The difference between the USA and all other States European Conservative is that The government only exists to support the revolution of the people against government - so Judiciary be damned. We are the only true revolutionary society on the planet. That's what scare all of you left and right and royal and world government the lot of you. No protected by special interests. That's anti-American. Trump is totally right. The Judges are totally wrong.

Posted by 3dc 2025-10-06 19:10|| 2025-10-06 19:10|| Front Page Top

20 EC. The fight you're jumping into has been going on since the early 1800's. Supposedly Andrew Jackson said of a Supreme Court decision "John Marshall has made his decision, Now let him enforce it." The issue was not resolved until a political process came up with a policy. Bottom line is there's a long-standing tradition of telling the Courts to go pound sand. And don't get me started on Jury Nullification or I'll be here all night.

Posted by Mercutio 2025-10-06 19:11|| 2025-10-06 19:11|| Front Page Top

21 #18 - Spot on

Posted by Frank G 2025-10-06 19:20|| 2025-10-06 19:20|| Front Page Top

22 Since the FBI has a 42 member SWAT unit assigned to each of their 56 field offices how about some of those 12,000 agents be formed into a task force to protect government buildings nationwide. I mean - that's an ABSURD number of folks to hold in reserve. That's a workaround for the posse comitatus issue.

I suspect it may be due to their political unreliability. Unfortunately, the US Marshal's SOG unit is capped at under 200 so they aren't an option.

Posted by Clem+Elmish4239 2025-10-06 19:22|| 2025-10-06 19:22|| Front Page Top

23 Set as a classic thread

Posted by badanov 2025-10-06 19:26|| 2025-10-06 19:26|| Front Page Top

24 The governors say there's no insurrection.
-----

They lie. And there's lives at risk--we can't just pretend that everything will be fine and dandy if we leave those people with adequate backup for 14 days.

Posted by Crusader 2025-10-06 19:45|| 2025-10-06 19:45|| Front Page Top

25 ^^^ ...without adequate backup.

Posted by Crusader 2025-10-06 19:45|| 2025-10-06 19:45|| Front Page Top

23:30 Skidmark
22:54 JohnQC
22:14 Canuckistan sniper
22:13 Canuckistan sniper
22:12 Canuckistan sniper
21:54 Canuckistan sniper
21:50 trailing wife
21:15 trailing wife
20:11 Pat and Michael9761
19:58 Woodrow
19:45 Crusader
19:45 Crusader
19:39 Crusader
19:34 Frank G
19:31 Frank G
19:26 badanov
19:22 Clem+Elmish4239
19:20 Frank G
19:11 Alphac
19:11 Mercutio
19:10 3dc
19:01 Big Unurong5862
18:58 Mercutio
18:56 Mercutio
Merry-Go-Blog