Posted on 06/12/2025 8:58:49 PM PDT by jeannineinsd
Before BENNETT, MILLER and SUNG, Circuit Judges
The Court has received the government's emergency motion for stay pending appeal. DKt No. 5. The request for an administrative stay is GRANTED. The district court's June 12, 2025 temporary restraining order is temporarily stayed pending further order. See Doe#1 v Trump, 944F.3rd 1222, 1223 (9th Circuit 2019).
The response to the emergency motion is due June 15, 2025 at 9:00 AM PDT. The optional reply in support of the emergency motion is due June 16, 2025 9:00AM PDT.
The panel will hold a remote hearing by Zoom on June 17, 2025 at 12:00PM PDT.
(Excerpt) Read more at x.com ...
yes, the judge had no visible constitutional authority to issue his (rather strange) order in the first place
to underscore this, the 9th circuit (or circus as it is called) is still pretty much far leftist and ideological ... and yet they’ve stepped right in fast and stayed this judge’s order
It is one blow after another by democrats in gowns.
Dumbass Breyer does not have the authority to do this. He’s trampling the U.S. Constitution. Fire his butt.
The 9th Circuit used to be known as the “9th Circus”. But as I remember, President Trump was able to fill a few vacancies during his first term with his own picks......
Newsome would dismantle it or pit gum in the tracks to impede them.
Praise God!
Some sunshine breaking through. It’s been a cloudy night.
Change his job description to cleaning public restrooms in a bus station with a Q-tip.
Timing is to drag it out so that Sat morning the National Guard have court order to go home while commies burn LA to the ground.
If you live there, get out.
WTH HAPPENED???????
IT’S MIDNIGHT FOR PETE’S SAKE...
That'll learn 'em.
I want that lawyer cat in on the Zoom meeting.
In a just world, a Federal Judge would order a recall of all hair gels, even the hair gel that has been applied to hair. Guv Newscum would then need a Betty Ford type clinic to recover from decades of self abuse.
"Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stays Judge Breyer's Order requiring Trump to hand control of National Guard back to Newsom"
Anti-Trump judges seem to be overlooking one of two comparable constitutional clauses concerning Trump's removal of dangerous undocumented Democrats.
From related threads ...
One clause deals with domestic violence and orders the feds to STAND DOWN to domestic violence unless state government elected officials officially request federal assistance to suppress violence.
"Article IV, Section 4: The United States [all emphases added] shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."
But when violence threatens national interests, the Constitution's Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 (1.8.15) is reasonably descriptive of what Trump is doing in LA imo.
"Article I, Section 8' Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia [all emphases added] to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"
-PJ
This is an example of “home cookin’” which is more often seen in state courts at the trial level, but appears in the federal courts from time to time. An absurd decision that plays to the local audience. In state courts, the judges at the trial level are elected, so it makes some sense. Federal District court judges have a lifetime appointment. Largely to isolate them from political influence. Obviously, it does not entirely work that way.
>> Trump is a king! You don’t tell kings what they can or can’t do!
I like the way you think. Are you attending the next YES to KINGS rally? :-)
Love your tag line as well.
The king is a fink.
Good. The 9th Circus can even see a horrible decision on occasion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.