This decision is a master class in how judicial abstraction produces real-world danger. The National Guard exists precisely to avoid domestic militarization, yet the Court’s logic makes it legally safer to send in Marines than Guardsmen. That’s not restraint—it’s insanity. Justice Alito nails it: the majority rewrote the statute, stripped “unable” of its ordinary meaning, and substituted judicial theory for executive judgment. Worse, the Court decided an issue no party even argued, then hid behind a per curiam veil. Presidents don’t govern from chambers; they govern in crises. Forcing them to escalate first is how norms collapse. This ruling doesn’t protect liberty—it booby-traps it.
Americans are now less safe because of this embarrassing and unsigned SCOTUS opinion. Illinois and other states have refused to abide by law to protect federal workers and federal property. The Supreme Court rejected the idea that we truly are a group of united states with a Federal Government that supports domestic security. They also refused to see that there is a grave problem with ICE officers and ICE facilities being targeted. As SCOTUS fiddles, Rome is burning. Americans watched two National Guard soldiers in DC shot by a terrorist. Many who screamed posse comitatus with the use of National Guard troops will now face the risk of zero military protection for valuable federal assets like federal courthouses, prisons, infrastructures like roads, highways, utilities, and dams. Terrorists now have much freer reign thanks to a SCOTUS who appears too busy partying during holidays to make a credible interpretation of Constitutional law, and actually sign it.
This is what happens when you place DEI appointee Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan, who was never even a municipal court judge, on the Supreme Court. They don't know what they are doing, except that they are supposed to vote against President Trump.
It seems clear to me that the SCOTUS majority has succumbed to the inverted, cognition flawed thinking/reasoning of Woke TDS sufferers.
Does our Constitution contain a provision to protect the country from a SCOTUS gone insane (perhaps due to malicious activities on the part of Deep State, or WEF Globalist genius Yuval Harari’s “human mind hacking” psyops that he publicly boasted of not long ago)?
OR, perhaps EVIL is simply kicking GOOD’s ass in this Prelude to Armageddon?
With a corruption packed Congress and Judiciary presiding over an uber-polarized Nation, is there ANYTHING that can be done legally to prevent an authoritarian Martial Law or impending civil (or world) war?
The courts have no jurisdiction over POTUS's 'extraordinary' powers as , POTUS, CIC and compelling DUTY to do whatever is Necessary and Proper for that time and events. He alone bears the Sword.
The courts, further, are BOUND by "UNDER" the US Constitution and also by "Good Behavior," which is a moral standard. The Courts have no jurisdiction NOR any arm of enforcement whatsoever. They bear only the duty to opine OPINIONS (NOT Commandments).
Further, they have no lifetime tenure. Jackson ignored SCOTUS, as should Trump. POTUS alone knows what is necessary, not the pen-weilders who think they are gods. They cannot even yet define life or a woman or a chromosome, or a boy or a girl, nor a marriage. Nor, have they born the flogging that they should have had when Roberts freely changed the submission of 0care from tax to insurance, thereby ALTERING the submission of the travesty. AND, Roberts freely helped himself to long-exiting Title VII Civil Rights legislation to ADD special protections for Transgendered men and women. BS. UNlawful.
I think the amuse-x take is correct in direction, and it often takes hyperbole to break through. The ruling was much more narrowly framed than indicated. It qualifies that “regular forces” are the armed services, and not the federal agencies. It specifically allows active duty military to be used for support, which was what some of the argument was about back at the time of the “seditious six” (now up to the seditious nine, by my count - but that’s just the Senate).
Yes, sometimes hyperbole is necessary. But I’m not sure it is here. As noted in the Powerline blog, POTUS has ample means for protecting federal personnel and property, but for purposes of this appeal, it pinned its authority to nationalize the NG entirely on §12406(3). The Court said “no, that’s not what this provision means.” As Powerline notes, this isn’t that much of a setback, and I think this Administration may be just fine with that outcome. It permits the use of active military *if* that use is otherwise permitted in the execution of the laws. As the Powerline blog notes, military use authorization may be broader than many people realize.
Amuse may be directionally correct that we don’t want the military to be the first step, but now that we know what 10 U.S.C. §12406(3) requires, what I see more likely as a prerequisite to using the NG is a presidential determination that the military is not suited or authorized for use in the particular scenario. I don’t see him being required to actually deploy the military first in order to prove that it is not capable of enforcing the law. Combined with the rather broad authority of the Insurrection Act, I don’t see that many constraints on POTUS’s ability to nationalize the NG. So, yeah, just IMHO, I think the hyperbole here is not entirely necessary.
Just from my POV, calling out the military for domestic purposes is not a good look, and it is probably politically risky. I suspect the Administration was looking for a way to broaden its path for using the NG. They didn’t get it here in this particular scenario and under this particular statue; that’s all this opinion means. YMMV. 🍻
Guess we’ll see the invocation of the Insurrection Act consequences play out in real time if progressive violence continues around federal offices in blue cities. The ultimate in FAFO.
When will congress back him up, The congress needs to further clarify the statute and leave no portion up for interpretation. making it clear that the Guard is the first option, etc Get off their keesters and get this done.
It has always been stated from the public beginning of this war that the cleanup would be “ by the book under Constitutional Law” and Military was the “ only way”. This so called ruling just opened the door to do just that. By invoking the Insurrection Act and sending in the Military, Trump is now legally and Constitutionally able to utilize the Military to finish the cleanup and give us our Country back. His actions will be lawful and by the book, as he said it would always be. So on the surface it appears to be a bad ruling. But understanding what it leads to is the ultimate goal to the finale of all this. It’s all perspective.
And how would you suggest that happens? Seriously. This is the Highest Court in the Land, which has made a backassward legal ruling which neither side raised or briefed; a legal ruling that, as suggested, can only lead the President with the option of invoking the Insurrection Act, which will open many dark doors in the future. So again, who takes the next step? And what would that be?
And perhaps, this (specifying section 1406 only) was all a well-planned chess move by Trump’s team, who APPEAR to have LOST a major court decision, but walk away with a big WIN: a plausible legal justification to send in the military along with the National Guard in order to CRUSH the insurrection created & funded by the Left. If so, a bold and decisive move by Trump and checkmate for Antifa and the snowflakes.
This decision is a master class in how judicial abstraction produces real-world danger. The National Guard exists precisely to avoid domestic militarization, yet the Court’s logic makes it legally safer to send in Marines than Guardsmen. That’s not restraint—it’s insanity. Justice Alito nails it: the majority rewrote the statute, stripped “unable” of its ordinary meaning, and substituted judicial theory for executive judgment. Worse, the Court decided an issue no party even argued, then hid behind a per curiam veil. Presidents don’t govern from chambers; they govern in crises. Forcing them to escalate first is how norms collapse. This ruling doesn’t protect liberty—it booby-traps it.
Yes it absolutely does!❤️🇺🇸❤️🇺🇸❤️🇺🇸
Americans are now less safe because of this embarrassing and unsigned SCOTUS opinion. Illinois and other states have refused to abide by law to protect federal workers and federal property. The Supreme Court rejected the idea that we truly are a group of united states with a Federal Government that supports domestic security. They also refused to see that there is a grave problem with ICE officers and ICE facilities being targeted. As SCOTUS fiddles, Rome is burning. Americans watched two National Guard soldiers in DC shot by a terrorist. Many who screamed posse comitatus with the use of National Guard troops will now face the risk of zero military protection for valuable federal assets like federal courthouses, prisons, infrastructures like roads, highways, utilities, and dams. Terrorists now have much freer reign thanks to a SCOTUS who appears too busy partying during holidays to make a credible interpretation of Constitutional law, and actually sign it.
This is what happens when you place DEI appointee Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan, who was never even a municipal court judge, on the Supreme Court. They don't know what they are doing, except that they are supposed to vote against President Trump.
It seems clear to me that the SCOTUS majority has succumbed to the inverted, cognition flawed thinking/reasoning of Woke TDS sufferers.
Does our Constitution contain a provision to protect the country from a SCOTUS gone insane (perhaps due to malicious activities on the part of Deep State, or WEF Globalist genius Yuval Harari’s “human mind hacking” psyops that he publicly boasted of not long ago)?
OR, perhaps EVIL is simply kicking GOOD’s ass in this Prelude to Armageddon?
With a corruption packed Congress and Judiciary presiding over an uber-polarized Nation, is there ANYTHING that can be done legally to prevent an authoritarian Martial Law or impending civil (or world) war?
It makes me wonder how many of them received the Covid vaccine and how many boosters they got 🤦♀️
That was quite an eye-opener. Thank you!👍👍
Now exactly sure what purpose was being served. Why was this ruling made? Bit of limited thinking here.
The courts have no jurisdiction over POTUS's 'extraordinary' powers as , POTUS, CIC and compelling DUTY to do whatever is Necessary and Proper for that time and events. He alone bears the Sword.
The courts, further, are BOUND by "UNDER" the US Constitution and also by "Good Behavior," which is a moral standard. The Courts have no jurisdiction NOR any arm of enforcement whatsoever. They bear only the duty to opine OPINIONS (NOT Commandments).
Further, they have no lifetime tenure. Jackson ignored SCOTUS, as should Trump. POTUS alone knows what is necessary, not the pen-weilders who think they are gods. They cannot even yet define life or a woman or a chromosome, or a boy or a girl, nor a marriage. Nor, have they born the flogging that they should have had when Roberts freely changed the submission of 0care from tax to insurance, thereby ALTERING the submission of the travesty. AND, Roberts freely helped himself to long-exiting Title VII Civil Rights legislation to ADD special protections for Transgendered men and women. BS. UNlawful.
Yes. Trump can ignore the SCOTUS ruling. He wouldn't be the first President to do so.
Frightening that such obvious legal incoherence, even to a layman, emanated from that court.
Trump should call their bluff and send in the Marines.
Then what are they going to do with egg all over their idiotic faces?
Truly shocking.
Perhaps section 1406 failure is actually a huuuge WIN (5-D chess).
Thank you for this well written explanation.
This may sound silly, but I wonder if the lack of protection for the Supreme Court members a few years ago had a effect on their ruling??!!
A slightly different take https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2025/12/supreme-court-rules-on-guard-deployment.php
That’s well worth the read, especially the quote from Kavanaugh’s concurrence. I think the reaction here is a bit hyperbolic.
I think the amuse-x take is correct in direction, and it often takes hyperbole to break through. The ruling was much more narrowly framed than indicated. It qualifies that “regular forces” are the armed services, and not the federal agencies. It specifically allows active duty military to be used for support, which was what some of the argument was about back at the time of the “seditious six” (now up to the seditious nine, by my count - but that’s just the Senate).
Yes, sometimes hyperbole is necessary. But I’m not sure it is here. As noted in the Powerline blog, POTUS has ample means for protecting federal personnel and property, but for purposes of this appeal, it pinned its authority to nationalize the NG entirely on §12406(3). The Court said “no, that’s not what this provision means.” As Powerline notes, this isn’t that much of a setback, and I think this Administration may be just fine with that outcome. It permits the use of active military *if* that use is otherwise permitted in the execution of the laws. As the Powerline blog notes, military use authorization may be broader than many people realize.
Amuse may be directionally correct that we don’t want the military to be the first step, but now that we know what 10 U.S.C. §12406(3) requires, what I see more likely as a prerequisite to using the NG is a presidential determination that the military is not suited or authorized for use in the particular scenario. I don’t see him being required to actually deploy the military first in order to prove that it is not capable of enforcing the law. Combined with the rather broad authority of the Insurrection Act, I don’t see that many constraints on POTUS’s ability to nationalize the NG. So, yeah, just IMHO, I think the hyperbole here is not entirely necessary.
Just from my POV, calling out the military for domestic purposes is not a good look, and it is probably politically risky. I suspect the Administration was looking for a way to broaden its path for using the NG. They didn’t get it here in this particular scenario and under this particular statue; that’s all this opinion means. YMMV. 🍻
Interesting and on point !
But, do you think that the black robe mafia gives 2 cents about what the law really says ?
It's what's ever that's in their twisted liberal minds
Except for our American patriots, Thomas and Alito !!
Thank God for two reasonable men who can read law as written and rule on it without wavering..
And Gorsuch
Excellent find. TY. 🙏
Guess we’ll see the invocation of the Insurrection Act consequences play out in real time if progressive violence continues around federal offices in blue cities. The ultimate in FAFO.
When will congress back him up, The congress needs to further clarify the statute and leave no portion up for interpretation. making it clear that the Guard is the first option, etc Get off their keesters and get this done.
100%
"The worst of man is seen whenever people are shielded from accountability for their actions." - Sarah Cain, The Crusader Gal
Exactly what has happened when these "justices" refused to put their names to this travesty.
Man you clowns are itching for a civil war and dictatorship.
It has always been stated from the public beginning of this war that the cleanup would be “ by the book under Constitutional Law” and Military was the “ only way”. This so called ruling just opened the door to do just that. By invoking the Insurrection Act and sending in the Military, Trump is now legally and Constitutionally able to utilize the Military to finish the cleanup and give us our Country back. His actions will be lawful and by the book, as he said it would always be. So on the surface it appears to be a bad ruling. But understanding what it leads to is the ultimate goal to the finale of all this. It’s all perspective.
Well stated! This needs to be corrected immediately!
And how would you suggest that happens? Seriously. This is the Highest Court in the Land, which has made a backassward legal ruling which neither side raised or briefed; a legal ruling that, as suggested, can only lead the President with the option of invoking the Insurrection Act, which will open many dark doors in the future. So again, who takes the next step? And what would that be?
And perhaps, this (specifying section 1406 only) was all a well-planned chess move by Trump’s team, who APPEAR to have LOST a major court decision, but walk away with a big WIN: a plausible legal justification to send in the military along with the National Guard in order to CRUSH the insurrection created & funded by the Left. If so, a bold and decisive move by Trump and checkmate for Antifa and the snowflakes.