I’ve heard of similar things going on in New York City, if not necessarily on the scale we have seen in Los Angeles. One difference I’ve seen, however, is that Mayor Adams seems to have been much more down to earth about the reality on the ground than Mayor Bass in L.A., not to mention Governor Newsom.
How brilliant would Newsom have been to call in the National Guard himself. He could have distanced himself from BLM era riots and his covid hypocrisy. The extreme leftists rioting would have to support him in the end anyway. He could have had a shot at getting back disenchanted Democrats who voted for Trump.
It was like a second chance. But clearer and easier this time.
By “ federal overreach,” you mean “enforcement of federal law,” over which the absurd governor of California and the idiot mayor of Los Angeles have no say. It’s just that simple. Protest all you want, but if you attempt to obstruct the enforcement of federal law, you could very well find yourself languishing in a nice cozy prison cell. Apparently the Resistance comrades suffer from a mental block that prevents them from figuring this out. Nor does parsing words affect that reality.
I can't speak for 'Resistance comrades" but no, I personally do not equate federal law enforcement to overreach. Rather, it's the tactics of the force doing the enforcement. Trump is escalating immigrant sweeps into military operations, claiming any instance of civil disorder to be insurrectionary. That's the BIG PICTURE I am talking about,
Crowd control is what the police are pretty good at, National Guard (and the Marines), not so much. (I'm thinking back to Kent State here). So far, there have been no serious injuries either to police or protesters (or reports & bystanders). I sincerely hope it stays that way.
We are observing a process of escalation which could easily provide a pretext for federal declaration of the Insurrection Act, when there is no insurrection, mainly people in the streets. And think, where does it go from there? How likely is de-escalation, given the president's proclivity for 'retribution' and low impulse control -- and what I see as a paucity of responsible people in his close circle of advisors?
I am not making an argument about immigrants, civil rights or even my own political views -- I am a liberal, you are not, so be it -- but on a more basic level, 'we the people' need to be able to talk about these matters. LOts of questions to be considered:
So far, does the situation in LA amount to an 'insurrection'? If the answer is 'no', then was it a good idea for the president to nationalize the National Guard and order them to be deployed to LA (not sure why, other than for performative reasons)? Is deployment of US Marines in some way helpful for defusing the situation, or is the Federal Executive overreaching its authority to meddle in State matters? At what point does the NG deployment end and the Marines ordered to return to barracks?
Well, let’s think a bit. First, the claim that the Trump Administration is using “military tactics” to arrest and deport illegal aliens is without foundation. What could you possibly mean by that?
Second, the aim of the rioters is to prevent ICE officers from doing their job. They are, in fact, attempting to obstruct the enforcement of federal law—and by violent means. It’s certainly no stretch to describe that kind of behavior as insurrectionary. It’s certainly criminal behavior.
Third, the refusal of state and local officials to cooperate with ICE makes the latter’s job harder and more dangerous. On the first day of the disorders in LA, it took the LAPD two hours to respond to the scene where a federal building was under siege.
I hear a lot of talk about “the rule of law” from Democrats and progressives, but it’s pretty clear that that they feel entitled to decide which laws they choose to obey and which ones they can simply ignore.
In this, as in most things, there is a spectrum of action. You've brought up some details and I am not going to try and litigate them, as I wasn't there. So I will deal only in broad strokes.
Contrary to your assertion, I believe it IS a stretch to say that attempted obstruction of arrests is insurrectionary. No question about the fact that a riot broke out; we can assume that the motivation was to prevent immigration enforcement, but we've seen destructive behavior many times before. Fortunately the destruction was limited and no one seriously hurt that I know of.
It was criminal behavior, for sure.
But I contend, it did not rise to the level of an insurrection.
Obstruction can be a political act, but not always, and police deal with it all the time. Ask a policeman if he's ever had people try to prevent him from making an arrest -- I am sure it literally happens every day. Police are trained to handle those situations. Obstruction -- non-violently i.e. getting in the way -- does not signify insurrection.
I've got nothing to say about LAPD's response times. Slow responses are something people tend to complain about a lot no matter where you go.
As I am sure you know state and local officials cannot obstruct federal agents from doing their jobs, but are not required to actively assist. Their role in a mob situation is to maintain public order.
To your point, yes, we DO hear a lot of yakking about "the rule of law" from Democrats (and a number of law profs and a few retired judges who comment on TV). I think that's because this administration is stretching and bending laws in ways that are unprecedented, and indeed intended to set new precedents for asserting presidential authority where it does not belong.
Isn't it perfectly normal to call for the protection of the law when we see our interests threatened, but to call for changing laws with which we disagree ("we" meaning all human beings)?
We are batting arguments back and forth but not convincing each other. So, (changing the subject ) perhaps you remember watching the Monty Python "Argument Clinic" sketch -- it might be a good time to re-watch it an get a laugh. I think this is the lnk: https://youtu.be/ohDB5gbtaEQ
"Enforcing federal law in her city is terrorism. And Mayor Bass won’t stand for it. That sure sounds like an insurrection to me!" - TG
News Flash!!! Resisting federal overreach, is NOT ipso facto an insurrection. We can disagree ( and I'm sure we do disagree) on when federal intervention in civil disorder is overreach.
To be clear, I am not standing up in defense of riots, or wanton acts of violence against persons or property.
But let us turn to that source of enlightenment on all the stuff we are not personally expert...the Internet. Specifically, MSFT Co-Pilot, which I believe is the 'voice' of ChatGPT.
"A riot is typically a spontaneous, chaotic outbreak of violence, often driven by anger, frustration, or social unrest. Riots can stem from protests, sporting events, or other gatherings that spiral out of control. They usually lack clear leadership or a defined goal beyond immediate outrage.
An insurrection, on the other hand, is a deliberate, organized attempt to overthrow or challenge an established authority, such as a government. Unlike riots, insurrections have political or ideological motivations, often involving planned actions, leaders, and specific objectives. Historical insurrections have sought regime changes or policy shifts.
To simplify: riots = chaos-driven upheavals, insurrections = calculated rebellions."
Newsom is enjoying the publicity gained from beating his manly chest.
But his threats to sue are only as good as a lefty judge granting the suit standing.
And unfortunately, Dems are very good at finding sympathetic judicial allies.
The judiciary is not covering itself with glory - from circuit courts to SCOTUS - the courts either exceed their authority or abdicate it.
(Most Americans are underwhelmed by the contrast of SCOTUS's immediate review of an illegal's deportation but their willingness to defer reviewing a 2nd Amendment violation for "a term or two".)
The judiciary derives it standing from the acceptance by Americans of its authority.
Right now, a significant minority of Americans look at the judiciary with dismay.
The judiciary needs to remember that they need the respect and trust of Americans. They are casually dissipating that regard by playing politics.
I’ve heard of similar things going on in New York City, if not necessarily on the scale we have seen in Los Angeles. One difference I’ve seen, however, is that Mayor Adams seems to have been much more down to earth about the reality on the ground than Mayor Bass in L.A., not to mention Governor Newsom.
How brilliant would Newsom have been to call in the National Guard himself. He could have distanced himself from BLM era riots and his covid hypocrisy. The extreme leftists rioting would have to support him in the end anyway. He could have had a shot at getting back disenchanted Democrats who voted for Trump.
It was like a second chance. But clearer and easier this time.
Yes, I’ve gathered the impression that Newsom has blown up is presidential ambitions.
By “ federal overreach,” you mean “enforcement of federal law,” over which the absurd governor of California and the idiot mayor of Los Angeles have no say. It’s just that simple. Protest all you want, but if you attempt to obstruct the enforcement of federal law, you could very well find yourself languishing in a nice cozy prison cell. Apparently the Resistance comrades suffer from a mental block that prevents them from figuring this out. Nor does parsing words affect that reality.
I can't speak for 'Resistance comrades" but no, I personally do not equate federal law enforcement to overreach. Rather, it's the tactics of the force doing the enforcement. Trump is escalating immigrant sweeps into military operations, claiming any instance of civil disorder to be insurrectionary. That's the BIG PICTURE I am talking about,
Crowd control is what the police are pretty good at, National Guard (and the Marines), not so much. (I'm thinking back to Kent State here). So far, there have been no serious injuries either to police or protesters (or reports & bystanders). I sincerely hope it stays that way.
We are observing a process of escalation which could easily provide a pretext for federal declaration of the Insurrection Act, when there is no insurrection, mainly people in the streets. And think, where does it go from there? How likely is de-escalation, given the president's proclivity for 'retribution' and low impulse control -- and what I see as a paucity of responsible people in his close circle of advisors?
I am not making an argument about immigrants, civil rights or even my own political views -- I am a liberal, you are not, so be it -- but on a more basic level, 'we the people' need to be able to talk about these matters. LOts of questions to be considered:
So far, does the situation in LA amount to an 'insurrection'? If the answer is 'no', then was it a good idea for the president to nationalize the National Guard and order them to be deployed to LA (not sure why, other than for performative reasons)? Is deployment of US Marines in some way helpful for defusing the situation, or is the Federal Executive overreaching its authority to meddle in State matters? At what point does the NG deployment end and the Marines ordered to return to barracks?
Well, let’s think a bit. First, the claim that the Trump Administration is using “military tactics” to arrest and deport illegal aliens is without foundation. What could you possibly mean by that?
Second, the aim of the rioters is to prevent ICE officers from doing their job. They are, in fact, attempting to obstruct the enforcement of federal law—and by violent means. It’s certainly no stretch to describe that kind of behavior as insurrectionary. It’s certainly criminal behavior.
Third, the refusal of state and local officials to cooperate with ICE makes the latter’s job harder and more dangerous. On the first day of the disorders in LA, it took the LAPD two hours to respond to the scene where a federal building was under siege.
I hear a lot of talk about “the rule of law” from Democrats and progressives, but it’s pretty clear that that they feel entitled to decide which laws they choose to obey and which ones they can simply ignore.
In this, as in most things, there is a spectrum of action. You've brought up some details and I am not going to try and litigate them, as I wasn't there. So I will deal only in broad strokes.
Contrary to your assertion, I believe it IS a stretch to say that attempted obstruction of arrests is insurrectionary. No question about the fact that a riot broke out; we can assume that the motivation was to prevent immigration enforcement, but we've seen destructive behavior many times before. Fortunately the destruction was limited and no one seriously hurt that I know of.
It was criminal behavior, for sure.
But I contend, it did not rise to the level of an insurrection.
Obstruction can be a political act, but not always, and police deal with it all the time. Ask a policeman if he's ever had people try to prevent him from making an arrest -- I am sure it literally happens every day. Police are trained to handle those situations. Obstruction -- non-violently i.e. getting in the way -- does not signify insurrection.
I've got nothing to say about LAPD's response times. Slow responses are something people tend to complain about a lot no matter where you go.
As I am sure you know state and local officials cannot obstruct federal agents from doing their jobs, but are not required to actively assist. Their role in a mob situation is to maintain public order.
To your point, yes, we DO hear a lot of yakking about "the rule of law" from Democrats (and a number of law profs and a few retired judges who comment on TV). I think that's because this administration is stretching and bending laws in ways that are unprecedented, and indeed intended to set new precedents for asserting presidential authority where it does not belong.
Isn't it perfectly normal to call for the protection of the law when we see our interests threatened, but to call for changing laws with which we disagree ("we" meaning all human beings)?
We are batting arguments back and forth but not convincing each other. So, (changing the subject ) perhaps you remember watching the Monty Python "Argument Clinic" sketch -- it might be a good time to re-watch it an get a laugh. I think this is the lnk: https://youtu.be/ohDB5gbtaEQ
"Enforcing federal law in her city is terrorism. And Mayor Bass won’t stand for it. That sure sounds like an insurrection to me!" - TG
News Flash!!! Resisting federal overreach, is NOT ipso facto an insurrection. We can disagree ( and I'm sure we do disagree) on when federal intervention in civil disorder is overreach.
To be clear, I am not standing up in defense of riots, or wanton acts of violence against persons or property.
But let us turn to that source of enlightenment on all the stuff we are not personally expert...the Internet. Specifically, MSFT Co-Pilot, which I believe is the 'voice' of ChatGPT.
"A riot is typically a spontaneous, chaotic outbreak of violence, often driven by anger, frustration, or social unrest. Riots can stem from protests, sporting events, or other gatherings that spiral out of control. They usually lack clear leadership or a defined goal beyond immediate outrage.
An insurrection, on the other hand, is a deliberate, organized attempt to overthrow or challenge an established authority, such as a government. Unlike riots, insurrections have political or ideological motivations, often involving planned actions, leaders, and specific objectives. Historical insurrections have sought regime changes or policy shifts.
To simplify: riots = chaos-driven upheavals, insurrections = calculated rebellions."
Quoth the Internet.
Newsom is enjoying the publicity gained from beating his manly chest.
But his threats to sue are only as good as a lefty judge granting the suit standing.
And unfortunately, Dems are very good at finding sympathetic judicial allies.
The judiciary is not covering itself with glory - from circuit courts to SCOTUS - the courts either exceed their authority or abdicate it.
(Most Americans are underwhelmed by the contrast of SCOTUS's immediate review of an illegal's deportation but their willingness to defer reviewing a 2nd Amendment violation for "a term or two".)
The judiciary derives it standing from the acceptance by Americans of its authority.
Right now, a significant minority of Americans look at the judiciary with dismay.
The judiciary needs to remember that they need the respect and trust of Americans. They are casually dissipating that regard by playing politics.