Daily Beast: Newsom Mocks Stephen Miller’s Meltdown Over Legal Defeat

The governor ridiculed the top White House official after a judge halted Trump’s National Guard deployment plans.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom went on a wild posting spree mocking Stephen Miller after a federal judge blocked the Trump administration from deploying out-of-state National Guard troops into Portland.

U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, who was nominated to the bench by President Donald Trump, issued an order preventing the administration’s plans to move troops from California and Texas into the Democratic stronghold of Portland, Oregon.

Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff, melted down in a lengthy X post over the ruling, calling it “one of the most egregious and thunderous violations of constitutional order we have ever seen.”

“A district court judge has no conceivable authority, whatsoever, to restrict the President and Commander-in-Chief from dispatching members of the U.S. military to defend federal lives and property,” Miller added.

Newsom, a rumored Democratic 2028 contender who has taken to trolling MAGA figures online, targeted Miller with a barrage of social media posts.

In response to Miller’s 219-word X rant, Newsom posted the “I ain’t reading all that” meme–a screenshot of a direct message commonly used to dismiss long online tirades.

The Newsom’s press office account piled on after the ruling, posting “Live look at Stephen Miller tonight” alongside a photo of Voldemort, the Harry Potter villain–a common nickname for the top Trump ally seen as the architect behind many of the president’s hardline immigration plans.

Elsewhere, Newsom’s office mocked Miller after he clashed online with Hawaii Sen. Brian Schatz, who asked whether ordering National Guard troops from GOP-led states into Democratic states was a “red line” for Republicans.

“US Senator thinks troops can only serve in one state,” Miller wrote. In response, Newsom’s press office posted, “Stephen Miller thinks governors can ship National Guard troops across state lines to be used AGAINST American citizens. RT if you think Stephen Miller should be FIRED!”

Newsom also hit out at Trump’s plan to deploy the Texas National Guard into Chicago, as revealed by Democratic Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker.

“This is a breathtaking abuse of the law and power by the President of the United States,” Newsom wrote. “America is on the brink of martial law. Do not be silent.”

In response, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said no one “cares” what Newsom says on X. However, polls suggest that the governor’s trolling tactic is seen as more favorable than unfavorable, and is improving Newsom’s national profile ahead of a potential White House bid.

On Saturday, Judge Immergut also halted the Trump administration’s deployment of Oregon’s own National Guard into Portland, ruling the president’s claims that it was justified to tackle unrest in the city were “untethered to facts.”

“This is a nation of Constitutional law, not martial law,” Immergut wrote.

Newsom has publicly rebuked Trump for months following the president’s controversial decision in June to deploy the National Guard and Marines into Los Angeles to assist law enforcement during protests against ICE raids.

In September, a federal judge ruled that the deployment was illegal, blasting Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth for “moving toward creating a national police force with the President as its chief.”

https://www.thedailybeast.com/gavin-newsom-mocks-stephen-millers-meltdown-over-legal-defeat

Raw Story: Supreme Court used wrong statute to make monumental birthright citizenship ruling: expert

Conservative legal scholar Jack Goldsmith revealed that the U.S. Supreme Court relied on an incorrectly cited statute to justify its shocking birthright citizen ruling.

Goldsmith, a former United States Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel under the George W. Bush administration, wrote that the decision written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett contained a key error, as Slate legal reporter Mark Joseph Stern summarized.

“Justice Barrett’s opinion in the universal injunction case rests on an error: For the purposes of historical analysis, she looked at the wrong statute and got the relevant date wrong by nearly *a century,*” wrote Stern on Bluesky Tuesday.

Goldsmith’s analysis looked at 18 interim orders that deal specifically with President Donald Trump’s administration. Notably, he specified that the cases involving a kind of ban on universal injunctions came amid lower courts’ efforts to temporarily pause Trump’s executive orders from going into effect until after they can be litigated.

The ruling in June stated that injunctions should only affect those involved in legal challenges, and shouldn’t be applied over huge swathes of the public.

It specifically referred to injunctions involving challenges to Trump’s attempts to limit birthright citizenship — a Constitutional law that states anybody born in the U.S. is a citizen. It said injunctions could only affect individuals or groups involved in the legal action, not the nation as a whole.

“The Court stated that Section 11 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 ‘endowed federal courts with jurisdiction over ‘all suits . . . in equity,’ and still today . . . ‘is what authorizes the federal courts to issue equitable remedies,'” the article cites the ruling.

However, he noted, it appears the Court didn’t look at the text or context of Section 11 when making its ruling.

“The Court’s claim that equitable remedies are authorized by Section 11 and thus ‘must have a founding-era antecedent’ is novel,'” the article continues, meaning that it’s new or unusual. “It [is] also questionable since Section 11 cannot have authorized equitable remedies in CASA.”

That’s when Goldsmith drops the hammer, saying “Section 11 is a jurisdictional statute” and that the jurisdiction in the CASA case was “based on federal question jurisdiction and suits against the United States. Neither head of jurisdiction is mentioned in Section 11, because neither existed until the last quarter of the nineteenth century. And none of the three heads of subject matter jurisdiction in Section 11 has any legal connection to CASA.”

So, under the Supreme Court’s logic “that jurisdictional statutes authorize equitable remedies, it should have looked to the state of remedies beginning in 1875, when the federal question jurisdiction statute was enacted, not 1789.”

So it seems that Amy Coney Barrett is not much brighter than the fascist who nominated her in 2020.

https://www.rawstory.com/supreme-court-amy-coney-barrett

The Hill: Opinion: What ICE agents are doing is outrageous — and legal

The Trump administration’s draconian immigration enforcement actions are raising the specter of American autocracy, prompting many to ask — perhaps for the first time — how the U.S. could possibly have gotten here. Videos of masked ICE agents in street clothes accosting unsuspecting people in public places, or smashing car windows and dragging people into unmarked vehicles, are all over the internet and social media.

The behavior of ICE agents is also revealing glaring blind spots in the law, which has long been premised on the assumption that government officials mostly act in good faith, prompting the widespread question: Can they legally do that?

Rather astonishingly, the answer is — for the most part — yes, they can.

ICE’s heavy-handed tactics are even being used against people once presumed to be immune from raw police brutality: elected officials.

https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/5364547-what-ice-agents-are-doing-is-outrageous-and-legal