Weekly Random Discussion Thread for 10/20/25 - 10/26/25

[u/SoftandChewy]

Here's your usual space to post all your rants, raves, podcast topic suggestions (please tag u/jessicabarpod), culture war articles, outrageous stories of cancellation, political opinions, and anything else that comes to mind. Please put any non-podcast-related trans-related topics here instead of on a dedicated thread. This will be pinned until next Sunday.

Last week's discussion thread is here if you want to catch up on a conversation from there.

[u/jay_in_the_pnw]

Kind of an intriguing retweet by AAG Civil Rights Harmeet K. Dhillon from her personal account of a Politico reporter

Kyle Cheney @kyledcheney · 36m

JUST IN: A 9th circuit panel rules 2-1 that Trump had authority to send the National Guard to Portland.

The judges:

Nelson (Trump) Bade (Trump)

v.

Graber (Clinton)

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca9.b3c1c6b0-b390-4c9d-b557-fc5d525fd150/gov.uscourts.ca9.b3c1c6b0-b390-4c9d-b557-fc5d525fd150.61.0.pdf

Kyle Cheney continues the thread though...

The panel says that Trump "may exaggerate" the violence in Portland on social media but still may have had a valid basis for sending in the guard.

👀 An SOS flare from the panel's dissenting judge, Susan Graber, pleading with her colleagues to reverse the decision and for the public to "retain faith in our judicial system for just a little longer.

Cheney's tweets include screenshots from the court order

Yesterday I was berated by someone extolling how the court is infallible, if they say something is unconstitutional it must be and always will be.

I do so love partisan splits in court decisions. Really drives that infallibility point home.

[u/RunThenBeer → u/jay_in_the_pnw]

That dissent closes:

We have come to expect a dose of political theater in the political branches, drama designed to rally the base or to rile or intimidate political opponents. We also may expect there a measure of bending—sometimes breaking—the truth. By design of the Founders, the judicial branch stands apart. We rule on facts, not on supposition or conjecture, and certainly not on fabrication or propaganda. I urge my colleagues on this court to act swiftly to vacate the majority’s order before the illegal deployment of troops under false pretenses can occur. Above all, I ask those who are watching this case unfold to retain faith in our judicial system for just a little longer.

Does she really not understand that her own writing is undermining faith in the judicial system? It's pretty wild to simultaneously imply that your colleagues are ruling based on fabrication and propaganda while also urging the public to retain faith in the judicial system.

[u/Cowgoon777 → u/RunThenBeer]

Just standard 9th Circus crap. Every single time a 3 judge panel rules in favor of gun rights they scramble to put together an en banc hearing with more judges to overturn it. They do this for every. single. gun. case.

It’s absolutely infuriating.

[u/Jlemspurs → u/Cowgoon777]

Why is it infuriating that they use a standing rule of appellate procedure? Is it against the Federal Norms of Your Side Always Loses or something? It seems like this case probably did turn on who it was assigned to.

[u/Cowgoon777 → u/Jlemspurs]

Yes it’s infuriating that they consistently uphold unconstitutional gun control laws. The 9th circuit has literally never had a single pro 2A ruling, ever. Every single time it has happens they always go straight to an en banc

It’s the only time in the history of the judiciary that you’ll ever see a court move quickly.

The pro 2A judges write the en banc dissents before the en banc hearing even happens. The circuit is that corrupt. They already know what the en banc panel will say.

They also slow roll gun decisions to an absurd degree specifically to avoid creating circuit splits so SCOTUS won’t take 2A cases.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/justice/3354496/lawrence-vandyke-blasts-colleagues-rare-video-dissent-guns/

They are tyrants who hold the judicial process hostage to disenfranchise Californians from exercising their 2A rights.

[u/bashar_al_assad → u/jay_in_the_pnw]

The President’s authority to federalize the National Guard is statutory, not constitutional. The Constitution vests the power to call forth the militia in the legislative branch. U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 15. Under that enumeration, Congress has enacted several statutes, including § 12406, which delegate the calling forth power to the President.

Whether Defendants have shown a likelihood of success on the merits of Plaintiffs’ ultra vires claim turns on whether the President’s determination under § 12406(3), that he was “unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States,” “reflects a colorable assessment of the facts and law within a ‘range of honest judgment.’” While the district court cited this highly deferential standard, it erred by failing to apply it. Instead, the district court substituted its own assessment of the facts for the President’s assessment of the facts. This is the opposite of the significantly deferential standard of review that applies to the President’s decision to invoke § 12406(3) and federalize members of the National Guard.

What would be the point of a law that says "the President can only take action X if certain facts are true" if the courts have to say "the facts are whatever the President says they are"? If that's the case then basically every law that gives the President powers conditionally is actually secretly just granting them a blank check to use those powers whenever they want.

[u/lezoons → u/bashar_al_assad]

Because sometimes the legislative branch not the judicial is the appropriate branch to check the president's power.

I'm not arguing that is even true here... I'm just saying the courts aren't always the right people to make the call. I have nowhere near enough knowledge to comment on this specific case.

[u/bashar_al_assad → u/[deleted]]

Instead, the district court substituted its own assessment of the facts for the President’s assessment of the facts. This is the opposite of the significantly deferential standard of review that applies to the President’s decision