688
Judge Hands Down Second, Emergency Ruling Protecting Portland From National Guard Occupation
(talkingpointsmemo.com)
this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2025
688 points (99.3% liked)
politics
25961 readers
2976 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
...I don't think we can litigate the Nazis off the beaches of Normandy.
The Trump regime is slowed by the courts, even if the regime is clearly not respecting the rule of law. So why give up one tool in our tool belt? We can still resist and practice non-cooperation while the courts do what they can. And plus, the more roadblocks the courts put up, the more the regime will have to do unpopular, illegal shit in order to enact their fascist plans. They won't be able to hide behind a veneer of legality.
While certainly true, we are fighting over the same military. And that military is oath bound to refuse illegal orders. So, the more judges that declare the orders illegal or declare an injunction against them, the more members of that military that will refuse orders.
Trump is known to turn on a dime against anyone who doesn't do what he asks. Once he does that to military members refusing clearly illegal orders, more of them will refuse. So, every bit sets the stage for winning more and more of the military against the nazis.
Best case, JAG officers from a state national guard advise troops to ignore illegal orders, trump attempts to fire them, but doesn't have the authority and he turns entire states worth of national guard completely against him. Then he orders other states guard to arrest them, and their JAG advises to ignore. So he orders the military to do it. And their JAG advises to ignore. Then he has lost the entirety of the military.
I think a lot of people are buying into the image of white guy + tac vest + gun = ICE = fed = military. These things are in no way equal but it's an important part of the administration's plans for you to imagine they are.
ICE is a big bark and a little bite. These people have minimal/no training, they are literally angry thugs on a power trip. Step back and actually think about the outrageous operations and headlines you see.
They're tough guys when they outnumber you or are tackling a 70 year old nanny, but when faced with a critical mass of opposition they tuck tail and run. The only thing they have going for them is the costume and a gun.
Turns out that watching a bunch of conspiracy videos about how brown people ruin America doesn't make you a tough guy. What actually does make you tough is years of drilling, specialized training, decades of institutional knowledge, engaging in real combat, etc. So we're back to the eternal truth: the military are the true kingmakers of the state.
In terms of personal safety you still need to watch out for ICE on the streets. However, in terms of political power they're a paper tiger. They could never lock down a city or shut down an election without massive military support. Whether the military would lend that support is an open question, but certainly not without a compelling reason (beyond the POTUS decrees it)
Exactly, so winning the tug of war for the national guard is key. And court wins help do that.
At some point we need state militias to protect us from the unconstitutional actions of the federal government
Something I learned this year is that many states already have state militias, they're just inactive in many cases:
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/state-militias-by-state
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_defense_force
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category%3AState_defense_forces_of_the_United_States?wprov=sfla1
I looked up the one for Washington, and unfortunately it looks like an organization I would neither want to join nor be allowed to join because of the type of personnel they need and the legal limit of how big it can be. It has 120 members, all officers.
Thank you for this I had no idea
Don't worry there are already tons of militia groups... Oh wait.
I see now that Those were always state sanctioned groups
No but we can make them significantly less effective, less rapid and less legitimate.