Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

🎃 Trick or Pete 🎃 Lucier @peterlucier.bsky.social · 1m

clips for new New Heights ep are out. Jason just fires away at Travis point blank about Wood.

Sometimes I wonder if we deserve content this good.

But here the algorithm is, standing there loving me
Whether or not it should.
So, somewhere in my youth or childhood
I must have done something good.

Reposted by 🎃 Trick or Pete 🎃 Lucier

The Chamberlain Network @chamberlainvets.bsky.social · 20m

A retired 4-star general warns that the president’s actions breach a sacred trust between America and its military.

Gen Brooks (Ret) served in Iraq, Egypt, Thailand, Korea. He’s seen what happens when that trust is lost.

🧵: www.armytimes.com/opinion/2020...

Dismay and disappointment — A breach of sacred trust

As an African American man, the feelings of inadequate and unfulfilled justice that I have felt for too many years of my life come again to the fore.

www.armytimes.com

1 2 3

🎃 Trick or Pete 🎃 Lucier @peterlucier.bsky.social · 1h

It means your undergrad alma mater was bad at sports is what it means

1

🎃 Trick or Pete 🎃 Lucier @peterlucier.bsky.social · 2h

“Bayou-bred pushover with a dignity deficit”

just absolute poetry. words are music

Buh buh puh with a deedeedee dee eff cee

Love a triplet

jamelle @jamellebouie.net · 2h

really can’t say enough about how mike johnson is a sniveling little coward of a man. a bayou-bred pushover with a dignity deficit that would embarrass renfield

Aaron Rupar @atrupar.com · 3h

Q: Do you agree that the mayor of Chicago and governor of Illinois should be in prison?

MIKE JOHNSON: Should they be in prison? I'm not the attorney general. I'm not following the day to day on that

Reposted by 🎃 Trick or Pete 🎃 Lucier

Jill Lawrence @jilldlawrence.bsky.social · 16h

Grim @radiofreetom.bsky.social assessment of Trump's march to authoritarianism: He's muzzled intelligence and purged lawyers and cops. "Only the military remains outside Trump’s grip...But for how long?" He's on the brink, and so are we. 🎁
www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/...

The Civil-Military Crisis Is Here

The leaders of the U.S. military may soon face a terrible decision.

www.theatlantic.com

5 67 180

🎃 Trick or Pete 🎃 Lucier @peterlucier.bsky.social · 3h

Been there. Love your work.

🎃 Trick or Pete 🎃 Lucier @peterlucier.bsky.social · 16h

It makes me happy that one salty guy tried to skate out of duty almost 200 years ago and in doing so set a standard that still matters today.

Matters a great deal, it turns out.

Feels like real lance corporal behavior. Keep those skates sharp, black chevron mafia. See you in the smoke pit, Mott.

1 7

🎃 Trick or Pete 🎃 Lucier @peterlucier.bsky.social · 16h

So let’s recap:

The President is authorized to federalize the National Guard under 12406, if conditions are met.

The President determines if those conditions are met, and his determination is due a great deal of deference
But courts still have a role in reviewing if claimed ground facts are true

1 2

🎃 Trick or Pete 🎃 Lucier @peterlucier.bsky.social · 16h

Judge Immergut put it this way, "'a great deal of deference' is not equivalent to ignoring the facts on the ground."

1 1

🎃 Trick or Pete 🎃 Lucier @peterlucier.bsky.social · 16h

The court rejected that the President’s § 12406 determination was “nonjusticiable.”

Why?

Because § 12406 has a clear factual threshold. Courts are competent to evaluate that.

Whether or not limits have been overstepped, in a particular case, are judicial questions, said the court in Constantin

1 1

🎃 Trick or Pete 🎃 Lucier @peterlucier.bsky.social · 16h

But upon review of what the admin had submitted, and what Oregon offered to the contrary, the Court found:

No disruption to federal prosecutions; and
No evidence local agencies had lost control

The Court concluded:

“The President’s determination was simply untethered to the facts.”

2 2

🎃 Trick or Pete 🎃 Lucier @peterlucier.bsky.social · 16h

To show prove the authority of 12406 was enabled by the existence of the factual predicate conditions,

the President claimed immigration law couldn't be enforced cause all this protestin'.

And submitted evidence (of questionable merit and relevance) to support that claim

1 1

🎃 Trick or Pete 🎃 Lucier @peterlucier.bsky.social · 16h

So whats the standard? How do we decide?

§ 12406 allows federalization of the National Guard if:

“the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States;” § 12406(3)

That clause is a "factual predicate" - authority, contingent upon a set of factual conditions.

1 2

🎃 Trick or Pete 🎃 Lucier @peterlucier.bsky.social · 16h

The admin claimed protests were obstructing immigration enforcement. Importantly, immigration law is federal law.

Federal law couldn't be enforced, was the claim, so the OR National Guard was ordered into federal service

But Oregon sued, arguing there was no actual inability to enforce the law.

1 2

🎃 Trick or Pete 🎃 Lucier @peterlucier.bsky.social · 16h

Today, the rule is generally, that the President is entitled to “a great level of deference” when making determinations like those required for 12406.

But deference ≠ immunity from review.

There still must be a colorable basis — a good-faith, fact-based rationale within a range of honest judgment.

1 2

🎃 Trick or Pete 🎃 Lucier @peterlucier.bsky.social · 16h

So we have tension:

Mott says the President’s decision to call out troops is “conclusive”

Constantin says courts can review whether the emergency justification is real

What does that mean for us today, and how do we balance these questions?

1 1

🎃 Trick or Pete 🎃 Lucier @peterlucier.bsky.social · 16h

“What are the allowable limits of military discretion, and whether or not they have been overstepped, in a particular case, are judicial questions.” (Sterling, 287 U.S. at 401.)

1 1

🎃 Trick or Pete 🎃 Lucier @peterlucier.bsky.social · 16h

In Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 378 (1932), the Supreme Court took a different approach.

Texas's governor claimed emergency powers to shut down oil fields using state troops. The Court held that the judiciary could review whether the facts actually supported the claimed emergency.

1 1

🎃 Trick or Pete 🎃 Lucier @peterlucier.bsky.social · 16h

The Court held that when it comes to calling out the militia,

“The authority to decide whether the exigency has arisen belongs exclusively to the President, and [...] his decision is conclusive upon all other persons.”
(Mott, 25 U.S. at 30.)

But that isn't the end of the story.

1 1

🎃 Trick or Pete 🎃 Lucier @peterlucier.bsky.social · 16h

The Supreme Court tackled this type of question in 1827, in Martin v. Mott.

Jacob Mott refused to muster for militia duty during the War of 1812. He claimed the President had no lawful basis to call him up — no real emergency.

He lost.

1 1

🎃 Trick or Pete 🎃 Lucier @peterlucier.bsky.social · 16h

A federal court blocked the President from federalizing the Oregon National Guard.

Judge Immergut ruled the government had not met the factual threshold required under 10 U.S.C. § 12406.

Generally, courts are highly deferential to the executive. So what was different? Lets walk through it.

1 4 14

🎃 Trick or Pete 🎃 Lucier @peterlucier.bsky.social · 18h

a white potted plant sits in front of a door that has a sticker on it that says ' a '

ALT: a white potted plant sits in front of a door that has a sticker on it that says ' a '

media.tenor.com

1

🎃 Trick or Pete 🎃 Lucier @peterlucier.bsky.social · 19h

i just made this same joke before i saw these. i have never had an original thought.

🎃 Trick or Pete 🎃 Lucier @peterlucier.bsky.social · 19h

wait until these dudes find out about Italian beef. they are gonna fit right in in Chicago

1 1 9

🎃 Trick or Pete 🎃 Lucier @peterlucier.bsky.social · 23h

second response close to this answer. and thats a good question. and something i think i can pull an explainer and some material together on, so thanks for the response!

1