Ninth circuit just gave the piece of shit what he wanted federalizing the National Guard.

[Eliot Rosewater]

The Ninth Circuit's three-judge panel allows Trump to continue federalizing the National Guard in California, finding he will likely succeed in his appeal.


(Seen on blue sky)

Is the ninth circuit maga garbage? This is the San Francisco Court. How can they be Maga oh my God.

[SheltieLover]

1. 🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬

[FirstLight]

2. How soon should I be ready to bug out..?

Ugh... It's only going to get worse...

[Eliot Rosewater]

3. Remarkable how bad this is. Wouldn't know it listening to the media.

[elleng]

4. Trump can command National Guard as California's legal challenge moves forward, appeals court says.

'The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided Thursday to leave troops in Los Angeles in the hands of the Trump administration while California’s objections are litigated in federal court, finding the president had broad — though not “unreviewable” — authority to deploy the military in American cities.

“We disagree with Defendants’ primary argument that the President’s decision to federalize members of the California National Guard ... is completely insulated from judicial review,” Judge Mark J. Bennett of Honolulu, a Trump appointee, wrote for the appellate panel. “Nonetheless, we are persuaded that, under longstanding precedent interpreting the statutory predecessor ... our review of that decision must be highly deferential.”

Legal scholars said the decision was expected — particularly as the 9th Circuit has moved from the country’s most liberal to one of its most “balanced” since the start of Trump’s first term.

“It’s critically important for the people to understand just how much power Congress has given the president through these statutes,” said Eric Merriam, a professor of legal studies at Central Florida University and an appellate military judge.

“Judges for hundreds of years now have given extreme deference to the president in national security decisions, [including] use of the military,” the expert went on. “There is no other area of law where the president or executive gets that level of deference.”

The appellate panel sharply questioned both sides during Tuesday’s hearing, appearing to reject the federal government’s assertion that courts had no right to review the president’s actions, while also undercutting California’s claim that President Trump had overstepped his authority in sending troops to L.A. to quell a “rebellion against the authority of the United States.”'

The ruling Thursday largely returns the issue to U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer.

Unlike Breyer, whose temporary restraining order on June 12 would have returned control of the National Guard to California, the appellate court largely avoided the question of whether the facts on the ground in Los Angeles amounted to a “rebellion.”

Instead, the ruling focused on the limits of presidential power.'

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-06-19/9th-circuit-court-of-appeals-rules-on-los-angeles-military-deployment

[Lovie777]

8. From Liberal to balance since more...

so called conservatives were appointed to the 9th?

That in itself is dangerous and gives the confirmation of instead doing the right thing for the people of the USA.

Hopefully the full 9th court will have a outcome that sides with the people of California and limits the want a be dictator.

[Hugin]

5. This is one of the most disturbing rulings in my lifetime.

It goes against my understanding of the structure of the United States, national security, and the prohibitions in and reasoning behind the US Constitution’s explicitly excluding a standing army.

[Mike Niendorff]

6. Two options here:

First, CA can request a full en banc review -- but it likely would be pointless since this is only a ruling on an initial TRO, which basically only covers the lead-up to trial anyway.

Alternatively, they can just let this ruling be and go back to the trial court for a more substantive result on the merits, which is what I expect they will do.

This isn't the end of the road, it's literally just the beginning.

But that said, it's unfortunate that the appellate panel didn't hold the line on this. The executive branch can't have unchecked authority to effectively rewrite the law by redefining terms on-the-fly to mean whatever they need in order to justify their actions after-the-fact. That's beyond dangerous.


MDN

[Eliot Rosewater]

9. Thank you for your informed and intelligent response

Unfortunately, we are in a classic lose, lose, yes, 98% of the time if a maga judge is involved, they’re violating the law and the constitution to rubberstamp Trump, but in the rare cases where the piece of shit might actually have the authority to do something, and this may be one of them, we can be sure he will do it only to hurt patriotic Americans, who won’t vote for him.😡

Which reinforces my belief that there is no way out of this through the courts, yes, what I am saying is there is no traditional way to survive this relying on the courts and the Constitution, it won’t work because we have one political party which is in power which will not I repeat, WILL NOT do the right thing ever ever ever😡

Somebody tell me how we survive this as a democracy if the Republican Party, which controls the House and the Senate refuses to do the right thing.

By the way, don’t tell me wait for the midterms, please search on YouTube “Christopher Titus rigged“ and for God sake, don’t dismiss it until you’ve watched both parts all three hours and I am not talking directly to the person I’m responding to, I am talking to everyone.

Thanks again for this excellent response.

[Silent Type]

7. Honestly, I think a Prez has the authority, but not in trumped up situations like this.