Leftist judge RULES that if Cali refuses to enforce fed law, NO ONE has the authority to do so

You have no idea how totally the Left is winning in the battle to re-take the U.S. from conservatives.
 
On Sep 2 a federal judge DECREED that when a state governor not only refuses to enforce federal law but actively aids lawbreakers, no president can deploy National Guard troops to that state to enforce valid federal law--including searching for criminal illegal aliens or crowd control.

Oh wait...the liberal didn't exactly say "no president" could deploy the Guard:  What the liberal shithead said was that the Trump administration couldn't do it.  Big damn difference, eh?  Cuz you can be sure that if some conservative state were to start refusing to allow, say, same-sex marriage, a future Dem preznit would send in the troops to "enforce fed law," eh?

The huge difference, of course, is that conservative states help the feds enforce federal law.  Dems are the ones who defy laws they don't like.  But I digress.

The state of California sued the Trump admin over Trump’s deployment of the Guard to L.A. to enforce valid federal immigration law--which that state had continually refused to do.

When a state refuses to enforce valid federal law, Democrats smirk and taunt "Neener neener neener, yew deplorables cain't do jack-shit about it!  Cuz my daddy (the leftist judge) sed so!"

And just so we're clear, for the Dems who say "Well Trump should have done what we smaht Democrats do: get a judge to ORDER California to enforce federal law!"  Except...leftist judges long ago ruled that states don't have to enforce federal law.

If you've heard of the Constitution's "supremacy clause," the above statement above seems so insane that you might not believe it.  The insane hairsplitting by the courts is that even though federal law overrides state law, states aren't required to enforce federal law.  It's insane, but that's how the courts have ruled.

Only one court--the Supreme Court--occasionally rules in favor of Trump--and the Democrats want to pack that court with liberal Democrat judges like the notoriously leftist Katanji Brown-Jackson, to ensure all rulings favor their side.  Cunning.

SO...the Constitution says federal law is supreme, but lib judges have ruled that states can't be ordered to enforce federal laws.  So if a Dem state refuses to enforce the law, how is federal law to be enforced in those states, eh?  

In the past, the president has sent in the National Guard.  But in LA, shithead leftist judge Charles Breyer RULED that Trump’s deployment of Guard troops violated a federal law called the "Posse Comitatus Act," which bars the "U.S. military" from enforcing the law in the U.S.

If the Guard is defined as "U.S. military" that would would mean NO ONE would be able to enforce valid federal law in a rebellious state.  I'm pretty sure the men who drafted and ratified the Constitution never envisioned that, let alone intended it.

So in the past the idea has been that the National Guard is distinct from "active duty military"--even if called out by the president.  So when president Eisenhower called in the Guard to force a southern state to admit blacks to an all-white school, the Left didn't scream that Ike was violating Posse Comitatus.  But now Breyer says if a state refuses to enforce federal law, NO ONE has the legal authority to enforce it.  Same in Chitcongo (different judge). 

Predictably, shithead Democrat Gavin Newsom gloated about Breyer's ruling, writing on X (in all caps) "DONALD TRUMP LOSES AGAIN!” 

At least Breyer graciously allowed Trump to use National Guard troops to guard federal buildings.  Okay, but if a rioter sets fire to a federal building or throws a bomb thru a window, the Guard wouldn't be allowed to make an arrest--cuz dat wud be "enforcing duh law in the U.S!" 

Two weeks ago Trump placed Washington D.C.’s police under federal control, and deployed National Guard troops in that city.  CNBC claims Trump did that to address "what he claims is a rampant crime problem."

That cutesy bullshit phrase "what he claims is..." was written by the Democrat shitheads at CNBC.  See, Dems assure you DC did NOT have a crime problem before.  Nope nope nope!  "Oh sure, a couple of carjackings a day, a murder every udder day, a gazillion robberies--but nunna' dat iz a "crime problem," citizen!  We DC residents nevah see nuffin' bad!"  

So to fellate the Democrats who rule DC, the shitheads at CNBC use the phrase "what [Trump] claims is a crime problem."

Same with Chitcongo, where 20 or 30 people are shot in Chicago over a typical weekend, three or four fatally.  "Dis not a crime problem," the Dems bleat in unison.

In his RULING Breyer wrote, “Congress spoke clearly in 1878 when it passed the Posse Comitatus Act, prohibiting the use of the U.S. military to execute domestic law.  Defendant Trump deployed the National Guard and Marines to Los Angeles ostensibly to quell a rebellion and ensure that federal immigration law was enforced."

"Ostensibly," shithead?  Ain't no "ostensibly" about the fact that California's Dem government has ordered his state law officers to refuse to enforce federal immigration law.  Same with city cops in LA, on the orders of the communist mayor Karen Bass.

Breyer wrote “...there was no rebellion, nor was civilian law enforcement unable to respond to the protests and enforce the law.”  The cunning key word there is "unable:"  Civilian cops weren't unable to arrest the rioters, instead the city's communist mayor, Karen Bass, and Dem governor Gavin Newsom ordered the cops to stand down.  Breyer is playing word games to get the ruling he wants.

To summarize: shithead Dem judges have RULED that if states refuse to enforce federal law, NO ONE is allowed to.  Think on that for a minute.  It's insane--but that's where the U.S. is today, thanks entirely to leftist judges.

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/09/02/trump-national-guard-california-newsom.html