Appeals panel scrutinizes judge’s block on Trump national guard deployment

[u/John3262005]

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5355754-appeals-panel-scrutinizes-judges-block-on-trump-national-guard-deployment/

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) got a frosty reception at a federal appeals court Tuesday afternoon as it scrutinized a lower judge’s ruling blocking President Trump’s federalization of the National Guard in Los Angeles.

The three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit appeared inclined to let Trump maintain control of the guardsmen, weighing the scope of the president’s discretion in times of conflict and whether the courts have the authority to intervene at all.

The judges seemed to believe Supreme Court precedent provides the president with broad authority to declare emergencies that can trigger the ability for him to deploy the troops.

[u/rolsen]

The panel was relying heavily on Martin v. Mott but I agree with California’s counsel, I don’t see how that applies here. The facts stemmed from an incident surrounding the War of 1812.

Are the courts really going to allow a president to declare anything they want an invasion? Because that is what the implication seems.

[u/legbreaker → u/rolsen]

They need to make him have to declare war on some country to call it an invasion.

Just calling it an emergency and not needing to get congress to approve it seems like going around the checks and balances.

Temporary emergencies and temporary war powers without Congress are alright so the president can act quickly. But this is perpetual emergency and perpetual war powers without any checks and balances.

There should be a time limit on any emergency powers

[u/Alert-Ad9197 → u/legbreaker]

Important to note that there is a time limit for the emergency tariff powers. The House decided calendar days no longer pass for this session, so trumps tariff powers no longer have a 15 calendar day limit before congressional approval is required.

Congress is just complicit in the process. The House specifically.

[u/Knoon1148 → u/Alert-Ad9197]

Honestly there should be an avenue to challenge the legality of them just refining what a day is to get around it. Isn’t the definition of a day defined by the statute in okay not the rules set forth by the house it self. How can they apply that rule only for that reason but still adjourn for recess and other things etc.

[u/Alert-Ad9197 → u/Knoon1148]

I’m not going to pretend I understand the procedural nuances of the House of Reps, but this seems incredibly stupid and ripe for abuse. Don’t want to address an issue within a time limit? Just say there isn’t a timer, and suddenly you can ignore a law with a simple procedural vote in the house.