Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
The DOJ attorney emphasized that “sustained mob violence” in response to ICE raids is “no ordinary civil unrest,” claimed that it is ongoing, and asserted that such violence is “expressly aimed at preventing federal officers from enforcing federal law,” supporting Trump’s federalization of the Golden State’s National Guard.
That's just a lie, isn't it?
Isn't everything the fascist assholes say a lie?
That's standard Republican strategy. A lot of the cases that ended up in front of the Supreme Court are straight up manufactured. In the case of the lady who refused to create a website for a gay wedding, they contacted the guy who supposedly made the request and he'd never heard of it before. Republican operatives basically looked up a gay guy in San Francisco and used his details in the website's contact form.
Despite all that, the courts happily took the case and ruled on a complete fiction. Same thing happened in the case of the coach that forced his football team to pray.
See also: "Weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq.
Literally fabricated "intelligence."
Even if it were true, that does not amount to rebellion. Nobody is trying to overthrow the federal government.
Yet.
Well, it's mostly true. I mean this isn't normal civil unrest. This is the people being fed up with a government trying to use fear as a weapon against it's own people. And the mob violence isn't generally preventing federal officers from doing what they want, it is in response to it. There is some mob shouting preventing some federal officers ftom doing what they want.
But issue at hand is that the law is very vague about the quantity needed to trigger the allowance of using the national guard. By just reading it, ICE could send a single agent to arrest 5 people in a facility that has 500. If the people stop the arrests, then it meets the written requirements. It ludicrous though to interpret it that way of course. But since it was written so poorly, we are at the mercy of the courts.
Tastes like fascism.
This is dictatorship. It's mild only because no one is fighting back. The moment someone tries the gloves will come off.
That is how they want everyone to feel so there isn't much fight back. However, I think if there was, and the gloves came off, it may also split Republicans and even Trumpers.
Telling the court that the court has no say. Bold move Cotton….
I mean hes done it before with no consequences so we'll see
So much to unpack there...
So the bestest president evah now caused a rebellion? Did that ever happen before to any president? Oh yeah, under trump 1 there was January the 6th, instigated and orchestrated by king Cheeto
And now there is another rebellion?
I mean, it's demonstrations but seeing that distinction is hard for smooth brain idiots
Then telling judges that they can't say no because else they can't stop a rebellion? I mean, you STARTED it, if you want to stop it's really easy: STOP BREAKING THE LAW!
And stop telling judges they can't do their job
The keyword is rebellion...
But it is not really about current protests ... it is to have all lights on green when there actually IS a rebellion cooking so the response can be swift and far beyond proportions.
"BECAUSE WE SAID SO!! OKAY?!"
"Because once we have that power, we'll use it on you if you speak out."
That's what authoritarianism is (leaving off the "OKAY?!").
yea, that's how fascism works. "judges" are there to protect the state from the people, not the other way around
Sounds like Dictatorship to me
That's some incredibly intense kneeling they're doing right there. Who knew the DOJ was so good at kissing the floor?
Whelp. Trump now has the means to get his 3rd term.
Obama 2028!
You are funny. He'll be dead before even giving the thought that he is running.
Welcome to fascism.
And Harvey Weinstein's lawyers say he's totally innocent too...
trumps been using the DOJ as his own lawyers, they're always gonna say he can do whatever he wants. Literally, they said nothing about this can be weighed on by any court:
“Our view is that this statute commits the decision whether to call up the forces to the president’s unreviewable discretion,” Shumate answered. “So no, there’s no role for the court to play in reviewing that decision.”
It two trump judges and one from Biden. And while the trump judges clearly disagree, they're gonna kick it to the SC.
Which is what was always going to happen here. Newsom isn't dumb enough to think a lawsuit would fix anything, he's just grandstanding because he wants to run for president.
It two trump judges and one from Biden. And while the trump judges clearly disagree, they're gonna kick it to the SC.
SCOTUS is an appeals court, they rule on lower court findings.
A lower court can't "kick it to the SC". They have to make a ruling.