Started By
Message

re: What If the Federal Judge Sides with Newsom?

Posted on 6/9/25 at 6:18 pm to
Posted by gizmothepug
Louisiana
Member since Apr 2015
8133 posts
Posted on 6/9/25 at 6:18 pm to
quote:

Johnson did the same thing.


A lot of our problems in 2025 can be traced back to that POS.
Posted by PJinAtl
Atlanta
Member since Nov 2007
13501 posts
Posted on 6/9/25 at 6:27 pm to
quote:

JFK federalize the National Guard multiple occasions during the civil rights movement. Johnson did the same thing.

They both invoked the Insurrection Act of 1807. Once invoked there is no need to get governor's permission to call up the Guard and it also suspends or allows for work arounds if Posse Comitatus.

If Trump would invoke the Act I'm not sure anything could be done. Right now it's a gray area as long as the Guard and Marines are providing protection to federal employees (ICE) and property and not acting as law enforcement in any way.
Posted by cubsfan5150
NWA
Member since Nov 2007
16942 posts
Posted on 6/9/25 at 6:28 pm to
quote:

What If the Federal Judge Sides with Newsom?


He’ll probably redirect the case to THE POLITICAL BOARD
Posted by kywildcatfanone
Wildcat Country!
Member since Oct 2012
130715 posts
Posted on 6/9/25 at 6:31 pm to
quote:

What If the Federal Judge Sides with Newsom?


He should be removed
This post was edited on 6/9/25 at 6:32 pm
Posted by RougeDawg
Member since Jul 2016
6896 posts
Posted on 6/9/25 at 6:32 pm to
But it was perfectly fine for LBJ to do it to allow civil rights marches in Alabama.
Posted by tide06
Member since Oct 2011
17183 posts
Posted on 6/9/25 at 6:53 pm to
I would do my constitutional duty as president and end the rioting.
Posted by OweO
Plaquemine, La
Member since Sep 2009
118171 posts
Posted on 6/9/25 at 6:54 pm to
quote:

Federal judges have stopped him from doing many things so far and Trump just takes it like a bitch. Wish he would say frick those federal judges but he won't.


I am all for getting the illegals out, but do you want a president who will make it a norm for presidents to say "frick those federal judges"? Because its fine as long as it is for doing something you support.. What about when there is a president who is doing shite you don't support?
Posted by Lowdermilk
Lowdermilk Beach
Member since Aug 2024
598 posts
Posted on 6/9/25 at 6:57 pm to
Posted by holdmuh keystonelite
Member since Oct 2020
2727 posts
Posted on 6/9/25 at 7:03 pm to
When it comes to the safety of the country, yes I do think he should go ahead and reject them. I know it sets a bad precedent but this country has to be saved now before its too late.
Posted by thejuiceisloose
Member since Nov 2018
5558 posts
Posted on 6/9/25 at 7:05 pm to
quote:

quote:
No judge has the authority to stop the President from doing the duties as Commander in Chief.

But does the judge know that or even care?


This is like asking "does the judge know as much federal law as Ponchy Tiger on TD?"
Posted by UltimaParadox
North Carolina
Member since Nov 2008
47403 posts
Posted on 6/9/25 at 7:09 pm to
quote:

He’ll probably redirect the case to THE POLITICAL BOARD


Good point
Posted by cssamerican
Member since Mar 2011
7736 posts
Posted on 6/9/25 at 7:15 pm to
quote:

Because its fine as long as it is for doing something you support.. What about when there is a president who is doing shite you don't support?

If there’s an issue with a presidential order, it should go straight to the Supreme Court. The idea that some random judge in California can block something from the President is ridiculous. I don’t care which party is in power, it’s just a messed-up way to run the country.
Posted by Clark14
Earth
Member since Dec 2014
24300 posts
Posted on 6/9/25 at 7:20 pm to
(no message)
This post was edited on 6/11/25 at 5:59 pm
Posted by MISSOURI WALTZ
Adrift off the Spanish Main
Member since Feb 2016
963 posts
Posted on 6/9/25 at 7:24 pm to
quote:

do you want a president who will make it a norm for presidents to say "frick those federal judges"?

Google Andrew Jackson and Indian Removal Act of 1830.
Posted by dallastigers
Member since Dec 2003
8330 posts
Posted on 6/9/25 at 7:24 pm to
quote:

What if the federal judge sides with Gov. Newsom and decides that Pres. Trump does not have the authority to nationalize the California National Guard?


He has the power. Trump has actually been following these overreaches by Dem judges and waiting for stays by higher courts including the Supreme Court, but at some point Parker needs to get his shite together and start immediately acting on these or Trump will be forced to ignore especially when something like riots and violence towards law enforcement are happening.
Posted by OweO
Plaquemine, La
Member since Sep 2009
118171 posts
Posted on 6/9/25 at 7:35 pm to
quote:

The idea that some random judge in California can block something from the President is ridiculous


True. I was just trying to make a point that its all great when its something you (not you. in general) agree with, but absolutely you can't all of these judges dictating what can and can't happen.

But I just don't understand people protesting this. There is a legal process of becoming a citizen. If you are hear illegally you should 100% be aware that at any time you could be caught and kicked out.

If you drive without a license..You are find until.... you are stopped by the police. You know the risk.
Posted by dallastigers
Member since Dec 2003
8330 posts
Posted on 6/9/25 at 7:43 pm to
quote:

"The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches." --Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815. ME 14:303

quote:

"The Constitution... meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch." --Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51
quote:

"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277
quote:

"In denying the right [the Supreme Court usurps] of exclusively explaining the Constitution, I go further than [others] do, if I understand rightly [this] quotation from the Federalist of an opinion that 'the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived.' If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide]. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scare-crow... The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please." --Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819. ME 15:212

Posted by newmexicotiger
Member since Sep 2017
3536 posts
Posted on 6/9/25 at 7:44 pm to
What If the Federal Judge Sides with Newsom?


Let it burn. Pull all Federal funding and immediately begin sending every illegal alien in the country to California (blue cities).
Posted by RoscoeSanCarlos
Member since Oct 2017
1739 posts
Posted on 6/9/25 at 8:09 pm to
Who the frick is stupid enough and so informed that they would downvote this post. LBJ was a horrible piece of shite who I hope is burning in hell.
Posted by TigerHornII
Member since Feb 2021
938 posts
Posted on 6/9/25 at 8:13 pm to
For 68, you're pretty damn ignorant.

The Guard has been called out hundreds of times before and after Kent State by both parties. There was only one Kent State.

I bet you were all in when the Guard was called out for J6? Such a shame that those violent rioters set all those fires and stole all those flat screens. Oh wait.......

first pageprev pagePage 2 of 5Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram