how can they pause an order to preserve peace?The violence and disorder is from the incitement by the President. The order to keep the trump's troopers out of our cities is in line with the Constitution and what used to be America before the Republicans gained the power to destroy it.
To be clear, the stay does not allow the National Guard to actually deploy in Portland. It pauses what the panel describes as the status quo, not the peace or any condition on the ground. It's obviously not a great ruling for Portland, Ore., but it's not a defeat, either, and the judges say it won't affect their final ruling on a stay.
That may be, but listening as an ignorant-of-lawyering worrier about America, I am only furthered saddened to see the once-liberal-and-forward-looking 9th sink into the trumpian mire.
I listened to part of that 9th circuit hearing. Thanks for the link! I was really bothered by the posture of the man on the panel, but I also thought the lawyer for Portland didn't have very good responses. The judge seemed to keep declaring that no one can review the President's decisions, no matter how baseless or stupid or against the wishes of the states it may be. The lawyer didn't seem prepared to do more than repeat the district judges decision. How do people engage in this conversation and emerge from it with anything but a sense that the calling in of the military is a wildly ridiculous overreaction to normal protests with normal incidents that normal law enforcement can handle? That we don't have laws that allow militarization for normal situations? I see the judge asking for where the line gets drawn, but I think the statute says the line is about actually meeting its terms and definitions, not about drawing dates around hypothetical situations.
Another photo op to justify Trump's baseless decisions. He is counting on a confrontation to be able to declare martial law. No one in his circle gives a f**k for the law and the Constitution.
how can they pause an order to preserve peace?The violence and disorder is from the incitement by the President. The order to keep the trump's troopers out of our cities is in line with the Constitution and what used to be America before the Republicans gained the power to destroy it.
To be clear, the stay does not allow the National Guard to actually deploy in Portland. It pauses what the panel describes as the status quo, not the peace or any condition on the ground. It's obviously not a great ruling for Portland, Ore., but it's not a defeat, either, and the judges say it won't affect their final ruling on a stay.
That may be, but listening as an ignorant-of-lawyering worrier about America, I am only furthered saddened to see the once-liberal-and-forward-looking 9th sink into the trumpian mire.
I hear you. Perilous times.
So I depend on your reporting
I listened to part of that 9th circuit hearing. Thanks for the link! I was really bothered by the posture of the man on the panel, but I also thought the lawyer for Portland didn't have very good responses. The judge seemed to keep declaring that no one can review the President's decisions, no matter how baseless or stupid or against the wishes of the states it may be. The lawyer didn't seem prepared to do more than repeat the district judges decision. How do people engage in this conversation and emerge from it with anything but a sense that the calling in of the military is a wildly ridiculous overreaction to normal protests with normal incidents that normal law enforcement can handle? That we don't have laws that allow militarization for normal situations? I see the judge asking for where the line gets drawn, but I think the statute says the line is about actually meeting its terms and definitions, not about drawing dates around hypothetical situations.
Apparently the third part of the statute relies on federal regular forces (i.e., FPS, FBI, ATF) and not local law enforcement.
Another photo op to justify Trump's baseless decisions. He is counting on a confrontation to be able to declare martial law. No one in his circle gives a f**k for the law and the Constitution.