...I happen to believe the plaintiff made a good case against the government, no mater how the judges reacted in their questioning.
Judge Nelson was really arrogant, and wrong, about the level of violence as he listed off a threatening sounding list of complaints which turned out to be a handful of individual acts which were effectively responded to by local law enforcement.
That backed up the the response to Nelson that if the WH is claiming an 'emergency,' then preemptively staging it four months earlier was a strange way of going about it, the judge wrongly claiming it was later and covering that mistake by going on and on about the president's ability to make the judgement based on something or the other that Portland officials can't possibly know.
But the entire justification of Trump, loudly stated in front of cameras from the WH, was that there was a 'war zone' in Portland which the AG spelled out to the court in a recitation of police reports from successive days leading up to the president's order which clearly DID NOT show ANY exigent emergency that required the introduction of more troops.
Even the moaning from Nelson about the ICE facility having to have been closed for *gasp* three weeks was rebutted as nothing more than a personnel issue that, again is not an emergency that necessitated the introduction of troops.
Moreover, there's still the issue of the order which would allow military troops to escort ICE around the city on their raids, on the absurd premise that they need protection from the citizens yelling at them to go home and leave their neighbors alone as they brutalize them and forcibly remove them from their homes and families without warrant or even an opportunity to prove they have a right to be where they're abducted from.
If the judges look at the ruling in Chicago, as I think they will, they will read the ruling that the introduction of troops into the city was an aggravating factor that fomented unrest instead of repelling it as claimed by the administration.
___U.S. District Judge April Perry said she was “troubled” by what she described as a disconnect between the official orders from the federal government directing the activities of military troops in Chicago and the public statements made by the president about what their duties are in the city.
Perry said that tactics used by immigration agents in Chicago so far have only increased the risk of protests, and that bringing in the National Guard would only make matters worse.
She also rejected the president’s claim that his actions were lawful because protests against his immigration crackdown in Chicago posed the risk of rebellion against US government authority.
“Evidence demonstrates that the deployment of the National Guard will lead to civil unrest,” she said.
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/trump-troop-deployment-to-chicago-blocked-for-now-by-judge
= new reply since forum marked as read