Don't Pop the Champagne Just Yet - Bush Admin Alum Warns JB Pritzker Over SCOTUS Nat'l Guard Decision
As RedState reported on Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court
refused to issue a stay on a lower court ruling that blocked President
Donald Trump from deploying National Guard troops in Illinois. RedState
further reported that Justice Samuel Alito issued a blistering dissent,
essentially saying that the courts were hindering the Trump
administration from protecting federal officers.
As Bob Hoge wrote:
As we reported on Tuesday,
the Supreme Court refused to stay a lower court order blocking the
Trump administration from deploying National Guard troops in Illinois.
Many conservatives were outraged, complaining that since the advent of
President Trump 2.0, judges at all levels have been doing everything in
their power to kneecap his agenda. The Supreme Court has issued some
favorable decisions along the way — but not this time.
One person
who was not amused was a Supreme Court justice himself: Justice Samuel
Alito, and his dissent on the case doesn’t mince words about his
displeasure with what he sees as "unwise" and "imprudent" determinations
made by the 6-3 majority. In addition, Alito — not one known to hold
back on his opinions — thought it improperly took power from the executive branch:
The
majority also did not give enough deference to Trump after the
president found that agitators were hindering immigration officers and
other federal personnel from doing their jobs in Chicago and that the
National Guard needed to step in to help.
"Whatever one may think
about the current administration’s enforcement of the immigration laws
or the way ICE has conducted its operations, the protection of federal
officers from potentially lethal attacks should not be thwarted," Alito
wrote.
Of course, Illinois Governor JB Pritzker took a victory lap anyway:
Illinois
Gov. JB Pritzker applauded the court’s decision in a statement, saying,
“I am glad the Supreme Court has ruled that Donald Trump did not have
the authority to deploy the federalized guard in Illinois. This is an
important step in curbing the Trump Administration’s consistent abuse of
power and slowing Trump’s march toward authoritarianism."
As Joe Cunningham explained, Pritzker may have worn himself out unnecessarily because SCOTUS has not rendered the final ruling on this.
The
Court emphasized that it was not issuing a final decision on whether or
not the president has the authority to deploy the National Guard. It
focuses on the emergency request before the Court while side-stepping
the overall issue, which is not out of line with other recent rulings.
The
Court made clear in its decision that it is not addressing the
underlying constitutional questions, nor is it making a determination as
to whether or not Trump's orders were lawful. It also, notably, does
not prevent future deployments.
With that in mind,
John Yoo, attorney and former Deputy Assistant Attorney General under
the George W. Bush administration, had a possibly different
interpretation of this SCOTUS decision. Yoo appeared on Fox News'
America Reports and surmised that the decision may not mean what
Pritzker and others think it means.
YOO:
But the statute says, the President has to be unable to enforce the law
with regular forces. What does regular forces mean? We don't know, the
Supreme Court has never decided this question before yesterday. The
Supreme Court now says, regular forces means you have to try with the
regular armed forces first before you bring out the National Guard.
Oops. Yoo even set out a precedent from a past president on how this could play out.
So,
the unintended consequence here might be that the president is going to
have to call the 82nd Airborne, or the Marines, or the 101st Airborne
Division as for example President Eisenhower did after Brown v. Board of Education
in the South to enforce desegregation. President Trump might have to do
that first in order to protect those federal buildings, those ICE
agents. And then if they fail, he can then call out the National Guard.
WATCH:
As
Cunningham noted above, the SCOTUS decision is not on the merits, so
this is not the final word on the issue, particularly in light of
Alito's dissent noted above, the dissent of Justice Neil Gorsuch, and
the concurring opinion of Justice Brett Kavanaugh. In fact, Yoo thinks
SCOTUS could be giving President Trump an opening.
YOO:
Second, and I think, more worrisome, the Supreme Court is essentially
inviting President Trump to send regular armed troops and deploy those
to Chicago and Los Angeles before he can send the National Guard. I
think a governor would rather have National Guard troops than the 82nd
Airborne and the Marine Corps patrolling the streets of Chicago.
One could naturally come to that conclusion, but JB Pritzker only cares about what will polish his presidential bona fides.
Just as he is more than willing to see unrest and innocents die from
the violence in Chicago and the ICE protests, he could be salivating at
the mouth to see Trump direct more U.S. military to roll into the state
just to give credence to his blather about "abuse of power" and
"authoritarianism."
While Trump may be within his rights as head
of the executive branch, he also doesn't need to give a cretin like
Pritzker any more fodder for his propaganda crusades or his probable
2028 presidential campaign.
No comments:
Post a Comment