19/ Now we're on the California AG's argument.
This is what real law sounds like:
"You asked two questions, Judge Breyer. Was the statute properly invoked, and if not, is there any other basis for federalizing the national guard? The answer to both questions is no."
This is what real law sounds like:
"You asked two questions, Judge Breyer. Was the statute properly invoked, and if not, is there any other basis for federalizing the national guard? The answer to both questions is no."
Comments
He's right.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6066081450900314197
Breyer asks, essentially, what if the President declares a vacancy when there isn't one. Must the court really sit back and pretend there is? "Is a rebellion whatever he says?"
Breyer pushes at AG's weakest point: you've argued they *might* violate PCA, but where's the evidence that they have? Trump hasn't invoked Insurrection Act
Calif AG's best argument here is to point at the Trump administration's public statements.
Breyer is skeptical of granting injunctive relief on the basis of political statements. Suggests that a court order might get admin to behave.