Supreme Court Denies Trump Use of National Guard

The Supreme Court has denied Trump the use of the National Guard in Chicago by allowing the appeals court decision to stand.

In the appellate decision, the 7th Circuit judges found that the Trump administration failed to satisfy the conditions for invoking Title 10 to call the National Guard into federal service in Illinois.

HERES THE IMPORTANT PART!

"Political opposition is not rebellion," the 7th Circuit judges wrote. "A protest does not become a rebellion merely because the protestors advocate for myriad legal or policy changes, are well organized, call for significant changes to the structure of the U.S. government, use civil disobedience as a form of protest, or exercise their Second Amendment right to carry firearms as the law currently allows."

Wow, and Supremes let that stand, 6 to 3. Of course that is what the Constitution says. I think the Supremes are seeing that Trump has gone too far now.

 

I somehow doubt that he still has his hands on the nuclear launch button, but who (if anyone) does is a mind boggling subject.
With Trump's history with Putin, I have little doubt that the launch codes have changed. People working quietly in the background, is probably the only thing now saving the US from financial collapse and possibly war.

One thing that puzzles me, it why Trump has not been removed, either legally or by assination. Perhaps the people pulling the strings amongst all the chaos are not as loyal as I would like to think.
History books will be quite interesting 50 years from now.

 

The devil you know is often the safest option.

If Trump dies or gets locked up, what happens in the US.
Does his party elect another leader and complete the term, or is a full election triggered. ?

 

lol! I thought Europeans knew our system. We have these things called vice presidents. They're usually irrelevant, except when facing death trying to have a peaceful transition.

That's ok. President Gavin Newsom will save us all!

 

Here in the UK, we do not have a vice prime minister as such. A prime minister can relinquish his role during a term and the party can then vote in house for a replacement. This is largely because we vote a party into power, its leader does not play a major part. In cases such as Margaret Thatcher and Winston Churchill they did play a major part in getting the party into power.
Tony Blair (who I called Tony Blabbermouth) was another exception and all that was a huge mistake. He could blabber for hours, without saying anything other than "Look at me". When the water got too hot and he passed the mess onto Gordon Brown, that was that for the party until the other party started messing up.
Their fatal mistake, which may not have made headline news in the US, was when Liz Truss announced a budget to resolve all our problems. She completely forgot to mention it to the governor of the Bank of England or the International Monetary Fund. When it was pointed out that her ideas would bankrupt the UK, she promptly resigned.
PS.
In certain ways, our Bumbling Boris reminded me of Donald Trump. Perhaps they just shared the same barber.