As the streets of Los Angeles were being set on fire by rioters, Donald Trump went around California Gov. Gavin Newsom to federalize the National Guard and deploy troops to quell the rioting.
His deployment was blocked by a federal judge who is quickly becoming a thorn in Trump’s side, but that injunction was overturned by the appellate court.
Now, a GOP House member is making his move to have that judge impeached.
In early June, Trump used Article 10 to override California’s governor and activate the National Guard to deploy in California.
Trump’s memo stated, "In light of these incidents and credible threats of continued violence, by the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I hereby call into federal service members and units of the National Guard under 10 U.S.C. 12406 to temporarily protect ICE and other United States government personnel who are performing federal functions, including the enforcement of federal law, and to protect federal property, at locations where protests against these functions are occurring or are likely to occur based on current threat assessments and planned operations.”
Newsom went on the offensive against Trump, claiming it was the activation of the troops that had escalated the riots.
He also filed suit to block the deployment, which was initially successful.
The judge who oversaw the case initially was Judge Charles Breyer, the brother of retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer.
Newsom celebrated when Breyer, not surprisingly, blocked Trump. He posted, "The court just confirmed what we all know -- the military belongs on the battlefield, not on our city streets."
He added, “This win is not just for California, but the nation. It's a check on a man whose authoritarian tendencies are increasing by the day. End the illegal militarization of Los Angeles now, @realDonaldTrump. History is watching."
It turns out that Newsom was a bit premature slapping himself on the back, as the ruling was blocked by the appellate court, which said that Trump was well within his authority to federalize the National Guard in this instance.
You guys have probably figured out by now that I don’t like grandstanding. Normally, that is what I would call a move like this in Congress, but this time, Rep. Randy Fine (R-FL) has a real case against Breyer.
The term “activist” judge has been used far too much by Republicans simply because many of Donald Trump’s orders have exceeded his powers and were unconstitutional (and I say that, agreeing with the policy, but these issues need to be properly legislated, not by issuing illegal executive orders).
In this case, however, Breyer’s ruling was biased, and he should be held accountable. Fine stated, "The goal is to get judges to do their jobs. If we’re not going to try to hold accountable the ones that aren’t, then they have no incentive to stop.”
Fine will not be successful in his attempt to impeach Breyer, as one offense will not take him down that path. However, I love bringing awareness to a ruling that was clearly faulty. The proper course of action is to file a complaint with the district judiciary review board, get it on the record, and continue to monitor other rulings made by Breyer. If he winds up showing a pattern of rulings that are overturned by higher courts, then Fine will have a real case to have him removed from the bench.
