Anthony Michael Kreis

It’s even worse when you have a bit of the accent living in the south.

OR2ndTRORequest100525

BREAKING: California joins Oregon's existing suit over National Guard deployment, both request Judge Immergut issue TRO against CA guard being sent to OR, argue Trump admin move is attempt to circumvent court order. Docs: www.documentcloud.org/documents/26... www.documentcloud.org/documents/26...

Okay, I’m with you now!

But they both essentially argue that the courts are competent to adjudicate these matters because the Commander In Chief gets to make these decisions in a largely unreviewable way? I don’t think there’s a lot of light between them.

OregonNatGuardCA9StayMot100525

JUST IN: Trump administration asks 9th Circuit for emergency stay of judge's order blocking Oregon National Guard deployment for ICE security there. Doc: www.documentcloud.org/documents/26... Earlier: www.politico.com/news/2025/10...

But then why wouldn’t he just say that instead of splitting hairs?

I’ve been trying, Steve.

You are not missing anything.

This is a recurring tactic: use strangely fine distinctions to create logical epicycles which then function as wedges to disrupt settled law. He did the exact same thing by arguing that technical international law principles historically explain (and thus drive) how the Citizenship Clause operates.

He’s nothing, if not methodologically consistent.

So the argument is that Congress giving *judges* this power ≠ Congress giving *courts* this power?

Umm…

Yeah, but now I have unitary executive theory questions.

An administrative check 😂

Who will be the first in the legal academy to defend this?

But if he truly thinks there’s a meaningful difference, then I might argue he has undermined the unitary executive theory in one fell sweep.

a black cat is peeking out from behind a cabinet ALT: a black cat is peeking out from behind a cabinet

But it is non-judicial, then that doesn’t seem very unitary executive to me.

a wales flag with a red dragon and the words wales intensifies below it ALT: a wales flag with a red dragon and the words wales intensifies below it

Speaking of invasions, just three days until Wales meets Atlanta.

Indeed. I have not a damn clue what Prof. Wurman means here.

Allowing POTUS a couple of bad-faith bites at the apple with the armed forces on American soil before we determine the constitutionality of his conduct is anathema to our constitutional tradition. Prof. Wurman is wrong about the judicial power, but he's also abandoning our most cherished values.

Anyone who knows even the basics of Anglo-American constitutionalism between 1685 and 1789 would tell you that the abuses of a standing army were a significant concern for leading legal minds and the public at large.

The idea that courts have some special deference to the *domestic* deployment of military personnel despite an entire statutory regime is absurd. The Founders would have rejected the idea that courts must take a back seat and wait for the public to be injured before tort law would protect liberties.

The weird snipe at @stevevladeck.bsky.social aside, Ilan misses the entire point that even the framers accepted the general idea of judicial oversight re: the president's deployment of military forces. Congress enacted a statutory regime. The president is bound by it. Courts have equitable powers.

beyond what Steve says, I think the OP‘s argument is a trial balloon for just outright ignoring court orders and if that is not what he means he should clarify

Perhaps he’s still stuck in the universal injunction mindset.

Maybe— but that still raises the question about the propose of law at all.

Some people just make things up.

Other people are experts ⬇️

In other non-Constituonal law news, I suspect a nasty pop music battle is coming.

The president is the constitution though!

The issue isn’t lawfulness, it’s about remedies.

None of it makes sense unless you just don’t believe in the system.