https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.450934/gov.uscourts.cand.450934.64.0.pdf

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5736914&forum_id=2)#49010147)

You really don't understand how military orders work.

If there is no authority, then that means THERE IS NO PAY.

Neither the Soldiers nor their Commanders will lift a fucking finger.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5736914&forum_id=2)#49010597)

amen brother

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5736914&forum_id=2)#49010180)

Betchu Trump will claim this is just like 8647 and sends the FBI to harass Newsom and his staff like he did Comey

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5736914&forum_id=2)#49010217)

There's also the problem of lack of funding.

If there is no legal authority for the mission, then military leadership won't have the funds, thus nobody is going anywhere.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5736914&forum_id=2)#49010602)

---------------------------

"there is little evidence of whether the violent protesters’ actions were “open or avowed.” Some presumably engaged violently with officers at close quarters in the daylight, while many others threw items under cover of darkness, protected by a crowd, identities concealed"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5736914&forum_id=2)#49010279)

"First, a rebellion must not only be violent but also be armed. Second, a rebellion must be organized. Third, a rebellion must be open and avowed. Fourth, a rebellion must be against the government as a whole—often with an aim of overthrowing the government—rather than in opposition to a single law or issue."

The Boston Tea Party wasn't a "rebellion" because they were mad about the Tea Act rather than acting against the government as a whole.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5736914&forum_id=2)#49010358)

Nevertheless I graciously accept the terms of your offer to be really nice to me for a year if SCOTUS fails to vacate.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5736914&forum_id=2)#49010929)

---------------

"there is little evidence of whether the violent protesters’ actions were “open or avowed.” Some presumably engaged violently with officers at close quarters in the daylight, while many others threw items under cover of darkness, protected by a crowd, identities concealed"

"there is little evidence of whether the violent protesters’ actions were “open or avowed.” Some presumably engaged violently with officers at close quarters in the daylight, while many others threw items under cover of darkness, protected by a crowd, identities concealed"

"there is little evidence of whether the violent protesters’ actions were “open or avowed.” Some presumably engaged violently with officers at close quarters in the daylight, while many others threw items under cover of darkness, protected by a crowd, identities concealed"

"there is little evidence of whether the violent protesters’ actions were “open or avowed.” Some presumably engaged violently with officers at close quarters in the daylight, while many others threw items under cover of darkness, protected by a crowd, identities concealed"

"there is little evidence of whether the violent protesters’ actions were “open or avowed.” Some presumably engaged violently with officers at close quarters in the daylight, while many others threw items under cover of darkness, protected by a crowd, identities concealed"

"there is little evidence of whether the violent protesters’ actions were “open or avowed.” Some presumably engaged violently with officers at close quarters in the daylight, while many others threw items under cover of darkness, protected by a crowd, identities concealed"

"there is little evidence of whether the violent protesters’ actions were “open or avowed.” Some presumably engaged violently with officers at close quarters in the daylight, while many others threw items under cover of darkness, protected by a crowd, identities concealed"

"there is little evidence of whether the violent protesters’ actions were “open or avowed.” Some presumably engaged violently with officers at close quarters in the daylight, while many others threw items under cover of darkness, protected by a crowd, identities concealed"

"there is little evidence of whether the violent protesters’ actions were “open or avowed.” Some presumably engaged violently with officers at close quarters in the daylight, while many others threw items under cover of darkness, protected by a crowd, identities concealed"

"there is little evidence of whether the violent protesters’ actions were “open or avowed.” Some presumably engaged violently with officers at close quarters in the daylight, while many others threw items under cover of darkness, protected by a crowd, identities concealed"

"there is little evidence of whether the violent protesters’ actions were “open or avowed.” Some presumably engaged violently with officers at close quarters in the daylight, while many others threw items under cover of darkness, protected by a crowd, identities concealed"

"there is little evidence of whether the violent protesters’ actions were “open or avowed.” Some presumably engaged violently with officers at close quarters in the daylight, while many others threw items under cover of darkness, protected by a crowd, identities concealed"

"there is little evidence of whether the violent protesters’ actions were “open or avowed.” Some presumably engaged violently with officers at close quarters in the daylight, while many others threw items under cover of darkness, protected by a crowd, identities concealed"

"there is little evidence of whether the violent protesters’ actions were “open or avowed.” Some presumably engaged violently with officers at close quarters in the daylight, while many others threw items under cover of darkness, protected by a crowd, identities concealed"

"there is little evidence of whether the violent protesters’ actions were “open or avowed.” Some presumably engaged violently with officers at close quarters in the daylight, while many others threw items under cover of darkness, protected by a crowd, identities concealed"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5736914&forum_id=2)#49025689)

https://x.com/kyledcheney/status/1933335178057035891?s=46

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5736914&forum_id=2)#49010284)

Author: ''"'"''""

a majority opinion joined by ACB, Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomayor

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5736914&forum_id=2)#49010407)

Author: ,.,.,.,.,,.,..,:,,:,,.,:,.,,.,:.,,.:.,:.,:.::,.

Roberts knows he fucked up with the immunity opinion. He won’t make the same mistake twice and give him even more power.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5736914&forum_id=2)#49011382)

"Come, join me."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5736914&forum_id=2)#49010298)

It’s a tricky question. I don’t think SCOTUS will reflexively agree that street protests are a matter of “national security” just because they’re being mean to Drumpf

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5736914&forum_id=2)#49010392)

https://x.com/calltoactivism/status/1932137612136915255?s=46

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5736914&forum_id=2)#49010324)

https://x.com/cagovernor/status/1933336133657899335?s=46

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5736914&forum_id=2)#49010332)

https://x.com/gavinnewsom/status/1933340388615729577?s=46

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5736914&forum_id=2)#49010390)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5736914&forum_id=2)#49010378)

https://x.com/gavinnewsom/status/1933340388615729577?s=46

This will be good practice for cons who will have to start referring to him as “President Newsom” in about 1,000 days

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5736914&forum_id=2)#49010399)

The court opinion just says, essentially, "well, the government didn't prove that ICE could have arrested more people but for those protests." Never mind the blocked federal buildings.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5736914&forum_id=2)#49010479)

https://x.com/cagovernor/status/1933350523949940819?s=46

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5736914&forum_id=2)#49010585)

Daddy Newsom: "Roll the fuck over!"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5736914&forum_id=2)#49010659)

Shoulda hit him wid dat plz respond

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5736914&forum_id=2)#49010962)

is that the analysis?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5736914&forum_id=2)#49010634)

what a gay crock of shit. i hate being a lawyer

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5736914&forum_id=2)#49010707)

https://www.linkedin.com/in/ryne-m-cannon

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5736914&forum_id=2)#49010785)

Trump needs to swipe away all Soros-infected judges.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5736914&forum_id=2)#49010965)

https://deadline.com/2025/06/trump-court-ruling-troops-la-newsom-1236432420/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5736914&forum_id=2)#49011438)

stepping back, i also don't see the 9th enjoining the physical protection of ICE when there was violence directed at ICE. that's a monstrous proposition and the 9th would take great pains to avoid any such order.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5736914&forum_id=2)#49011981)

2) there is a rebellion or danger of rebellion against the authority of the US

3) POTUS is unable with to execute federal law with regular forces

the protectors are preventing the execution of federal law. even if there is some scant argument either of these arent met, the courts (especially the district courts) must show POTUS extreme deference.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5736914&forum_id=2)#49012000)

what do you make of this passage?

"there is little evidence of whether the violent protesters’ actions were “open or avowed.” Some presumably engaged violently with officers at close quarters in the daylight, while many others threw items under cover of darkness, protected by a crowd, identities concealed"

when i read it, i thought "ok he's simply determined to vote for Newsom and against Trump." because he's way too smart to believe in that passage.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5736914&forum_id=2)#49012059)

you cant have a system where officials violate THE LAW to protect NORMS. in a democracy uf you want to want to give NORMS the force of LAW you must legislate!

jfc the window into your sick minds is terrifying. the same line of reasoning was used to defend removing trump from ballots and prosecuting him. this is banana republic shit and if you possessed any second-order thinking you'd understand that your decades of overreach and lawlessness is exactly why people elected a steongman like trump.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5736914&forum_id=2)#49012062)

i get that you're probably running a long term lib scholar schtick but ljl you are good at triggering me sometimes

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5736914&forum_id=2)#49012112)

the court declaring potus's is using the military unlawfully in a domestic situation is so fucking extreme. that should only happen on the brink of a civil war. i can't believe libs are courting disaster this way. this has nothing to do with trump or the policy, it's just so obviously partisan banana republic shit.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5736914&forum_id=2)#49012245)

Amazing work as usual, Number Two

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5736914&forum_id=2)#49012207)

we need to start impeaching hawaii judges. this goes for retard cons too. make the threshold a certain number of unanimous appellate reversals. this isn't a partisan issue or shouldn't be -- we can't have a system where judges attempt to prevent the executive from lawfully exercising his power. this is why the courts thought it prudent to show POTUS extreme deference. this is clearly something SCOTUS should decide, not some trial judge.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5736914&forum_id=2)#49011961)

first, the judge granted sweeping injunctive relief that the State of California never even asked for. that's a weakness for California on appeal.

second, there are factual premises that some people are claiming were not in California's brief and that are not true anyway.

third, by claiming to grant a TRO, which normally isn't appealable and which California didn't ask for, the USDC judge has muddied the waters.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5736914&forum_id=2)#49013851)

Kyle Cheney

@kyledcheney

JUST IN: Judge Breyer declines to postpone his preliminary injunction schedule re: the Guard and Marine deployment on L.A.

He notes, but takes no position, on Newsom’s claim that the appeals court has no jurisdiction over Breyer’s temporary restraining order.

====

also, he uses the shitty version of "fulsome"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5736914&forum_id=2)#49015594)

Jennifer Sung, Pussy hatted Biden azn girl judge who called Kavanaugh morally bankrupt.

Eric Miller, Fedsoc/Thomas clerk appointed by Trump (you may remember him from one of EPAH's walmart suit arguments)

with the tiebreaking being none other than the HONORABLE MARK BENNETT OF HAWAII (nominally a Trump judge)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5736914&forum_id=2)#49024406)

https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/calendar/monthly_sittings/154025.html

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5736914&forum_id=2)#49024496)

clean win for the forces of justice and all's that's right in the world.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5736914&forum_id=2)#49025064)

It upset me that the faggy Californian stood in front of the American flag.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/sam-harbourt-19770160

California is literally suing the United States.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5736914&forum_id=2)#49025278)

and he's defending a Breyer ruling that's about to go down in flames.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5736914&forum_id=2)#49025471)

Honestly the reviewability is all I cared about and I see DOJ lost there. Saying "we can review but POTUS wins" is just how they do isn't it? I still don't know what relief CA is asking for since I never saw the National Guard do anything during the protests.