By John Q. Hosedrinker 
U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut expressed concern over the Trump administration’s attempt to circumvent her order blocking Oregon National Guard troops from Portland by deploying troops from other states like California and Texas. At a late-night hearing, Immergut questioned the legality of this action, specifically asking if bringing in federalized National Guard troops from California contradicted her previous ruling. After hearing arguments, the judge expanded her order to prevent troops from any state from being sent to Portland, citing the relatively small size of the protests and potential violations of Oregon’s self-governance.
Read the original article here
Judge Slams Trump Admin For ‘Missing The Point’ Of Her Portland Troops Order
The situation boils down to this: a judge, having issued an order regarding the deployment of troops in Portland, is now finding that the Trump administration appears to be deliberately misunderstanding or ignoring that order. The general consensus here is that it’s not about a lack of comprehension; it’s about a conscious decision to circumvent the law. It’s a frustrating pattern, a test of boundaries, and frankly, a blatant disregard for judicial authority.
The comments are clear: this isn’t a case of the administration being confused. It’s a deliberate act of defiance. They aren’t missing the point; they’re actively choosing to ignore it, testing the limits of what they can get away with. The prevailing feeling is that those in power believe they can operate above the law. And if the consequences are minimal, what’s stopping them?
It’s easy to see the comparisons drawn between this scenario and the experiences of ordinary citizens. Everyday people face consequences – fines, jail time – for failing to adhere to court orders. Yet, when it comes to those in positions of power, the repercussions seem significantly weaker, and that’s a bitter pill to swallow. Why is it so controversial to expect the powerful to face the same consequences as everyone else?
The core issue here is enforcement. Laws are only as effective as the willingness to uphold them. Many feel that the Trump administration knew exactly what they were doing, and were banking on the likelihood that no real accountability would come. There’s a cynicism in this, the feeling that the system is rigged to protect those in power, regardless of their actions.
And it’s not just about the specific order related to the troops. It’s part of a larger narrative, a demonstration of authority. The underlying message seems to be: “I can do what I want, and there’s not much you can do about it.” The potential for deploying troops remains, even if the specifics are challenged legally, and that’s the point that many believe is being made.
A few voices within the chorus also touch on the judge’s own role in the situation. One point is that perhaps the wording of the original order was too specific, allowing room for the administration to maneuver. However, the general consensus is that the administration’s actions are deliberate and aimed at testing the bounds of their authority.
The frustration is palpable, as the question keeps recurring: what will be done about it? Court orders, sternly worded rulings – they’re viewed as inadequate responses. The call is for accountability, for real consequences that send a clear message: no one is above the law. The “slams” are not the solution, because no action is taken.
The underlying sentiment is one of growing concern about the erosion of the rule of law, and it’s clear that this situation is seen as a crucial test of the system’s ability to hold those in power accountable. The repeated pattern of defiance, coupled with the perceived lack of substantial repercussions, paints a disturbing picture of where we’re heading.