81 Comments
User's avatar
Anne P. Sacco's avatar

If ALL powers are given to a President, then there are no more guardrails. This is all precedent setting. Good to hear the Courts still reserve review powers, but will the Supreme Court also remain true to the laws of the land and what is "reasonable" vs "unreasonable"? Newsom absolutely needs to fight to his last breath, 49 other States count on it. All avenues. All measures.

Expand full comment
Joel Hageman's avatar

Yep.

Expand full comment
Don Buckter's avatar

I watched too and got the same feeling as the hearing unfolded. That one of the judges (Sung) is a Biden splinter does not bode well going forward. Was this a “Judgement At Nuremberg moment”? https://youtu.be/xGfHkdR3tXs

Expand full comment
Anne P. Sacco's avatar

Stirring testimony. Still relevant today. Interestingly, I have rcvd some criticism myself online from some German citizens when I have made the correlation between Germany, Nuremberg, and what's unfolding in America today. In my view, what's transpiring in America at this very moment, is a mirror image of Germany 85 years ago. It starts with seemingly small, seemingly benign actions, changes in language, etc, but always picks up speed with relentless determination. The cruelty ramps up, the dehumanizing at a rapid pace. The GASLIGHTING constant. The brainwashing of an entire country exacted with precision. Thank you for sharing this video. I have passed it along too. 🇨🇦

Expand full comment
Don Buckter's avatar

Elbows up in this household my friend.

Expand full comment
Wendy Leigh's avatar

I’ve gotten the exact opposite. Warnings saying we’ve seen this exact thing before, heed our warnings, open your eyes and REVOLT.

Expand full comment
Frank Black's avatar

Normalizing lawlessness. The guy needs to be impeached or removed. Oh wait. Congress. Doing nothing. Shocking.

Expand full comment
Annie Moore's avatar

This is horrific. Saw it coming & now he will be going after every single blue state when we protest. Deplorable

Expand full comment
Diane's avatar

Watching the oral argument when it came time for the attorney representing CA to speak felt like the Zelensky moment in the oval office. The judges, especially the presiding judge, seemed to spring to the offensive, often interrupting and speaking over Mr. Harbourt. I knew from the moment I saw that, they had already made their decision. It is a disgrace. Everytime we see something like this happen, I immediately think "pay-off".

Expand full comment
Quantum Kitty's avatar

Sounds like Newsom should take his chances with full 9th circuit - this has such large consequences for every state - otherwise we're looking at federalization of law enforcement everywhere upon trumps whim & totally sink us into totalitarian fascist dictatorship

Expand full comment
fresita's avatar

Shame on the 9th circuit- shame on you all...weak lost souls

Expand full comment
Jasmine Le Guyader's avatar

This is disgusting and now the felon has Carte Blanche to do this to every blue state. Newsome needs to fight this tooth and nail.

Expand full comment
Steve's avatar

The court only considered precedent, but failed to see the ulterior motive of Trump.

Expand full comment
Bryan Walters's avatar

Sorry Popok, I watched the oral argument and nothing about this decision has even a sprinkling of surprise. This is pretty much where they seemed to want to go ab initio.

Expand full comment
Steve's avatar

They gave Trump a license to do whatever he wants and at the same time claim that they're in control. They avoided the heart of the argument entirely.

Expand full comment
Bryan Walters's avatar

What is the heart of the argument? I’m sorry, but I don’t know what you mean.

Expand full comment
Steve's avatar

Trump dispersed the guard to incite violence, not to quell it. That's the point they missed.

Expand full comment
Bryan Walters's avatar

Thanks for your explanation!

Expand full comment
Joel Hageman's avatar

I'm so sick of bad news.

Expand full comment
Justine Simone's avatar

There is only one piece of bad news I want to hear, read, exclaim, and chat about!

Expand full comment
Jean Conley's avatar

Pessimist here, as usual. it won't end until the Dump and the majority of the republiCRAPS are out of office. The way things are going, we're going to be under a full dictatorship certainly by the end of this year, if not sooner.

Expand full comment
Lisa Unger's avatar

That’s so stupid. Trump overstepped and we all know it. It’s very hard to keep hope alive when these judges keep allowing Trump to get away with whatever he wants. He’s allowed to be lawless while the rest of us need to be flawless.

Expand full comment
Manda's avatar

This is complete BS and the opening that will start our next Civil War. He will send troops in to disrupt elections.

It's not 1827. None of the conditions are the same. But hey, let's hold our decision to what worked 200 years ago.

Please troops, remember your oath to the CONSTITUTION.

Expand full comment
Jean Conley's avatar

Your last line sums it up perfectly. Don't want violence or war, but the TROOPS ARMY/AIR FORCE/ALL need to stand up for US. Defy the Dic(k)tator Criminal in the Oval Office AND the National Guard (now that the Dic(K)tator has control over that, too).

Expand full comment
Keith's avatar

The last man on Earth that should be given deference in this way. Did they not see how this all came about? What a travesty again.

Expand full comment
Eleni Doherty's avatar

This is BS. "Through the Governor" means "through the Governor." "Through" is rarely used as the judges interpret it. Instead words like "bypass" or "circumvent" would be included.

To me, pointing to a case in 1827 to make a decision about an act created almost 100 yrs is ludicrous. Should we go back to before slaves were freed and point to rulings that were pro-slavery. How about rulings on pro-segregation? You don't go way back in time to find one case that agrees with the ruling you want to give. With this ruling the president has the right to instigate a situation, call some type of emergency, and take away a state's sovereignty even for a broken fingernail.

Expand full comment
Bluesmurf's avatar

Fortunately, it is not over until it is over even when it is bad. So, as much as I detest the fact that the 9th circuit ruled in this manner, there is more to come and I am anxious to see how it turns out. In the mean time, the order runs out in 60 days. I don't like the fact that he can call up national guard troops at will whenever he wants. Maybe not all the courts across the nation will agree with this bullcrap!

Expand full comment
Cindy's avatar

This is insane!! Are these federal judges appointed by Trump??🤬

Expand full comment
willsx2's avatar

One was a Biden appointee.

Expand full comment
Rose Cassie's avatar

We taxpayers MUST say enough is enough!! Stop this wasteful spending just so Trump can flaunt and showoff! Free California, you crooked federal MAGA judges! Shame on you for shredding the Constitution!😡

Expand full comment
Susan Paulo's avatar

Newsom needs to go for the “en banc” decision. Yes, there is a risk of another loss, but without trying, Trump will put National Guard troops in every state, and we will be pretty much under martial law.

Expand full comment