Another in an ongoing series:
Dear Senator McCormick;
I am a constituent of yours and I'd like to ask you a few questions.
The AP reported early this morning:
A federal judge late Sunday temporarily blocked the Trump administration from deploying any National Guard units to Oregon at all, after a legal whirlwind that began hours earlier when the president mobilized California troops for Portland after the same judge blocked him from using Oregon’s National Guard the day before.
During a hastily called evening telephone hearing, U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut granted a temporary restraining order sought by California and Oregon.
Immergut, who was appointed by Trump in his first term, seemed incredulous that the president moved to send National Guard troops to Oregon from neighboring California and then from Texas on Sunday, just hours after she had ruled the first time.
“How could bringing in federalized National Guard from California not be in direct contravention to the temporary restraining order I issued yesterday?” she questioned the federal government’s attorney, cutting him off.
“Aren’t defendants simply circumventing my order?” she said later. “Why is this appropriate?”
Indeed, Senator. Why is this appropriate?
In the same AP article, we find:
Trump, however, has turned his attention to the city, calling Portland “war ravaged,” and a “war zone” that is “burning down” and like “living in hell.”
However in Judge Immergut's initial ruling, she wrote:
The President’s determination was simply untethered to the facts.
And:
This historical tradition boils down to a simple proposition: this is a nation of Constitutional law, not martial law.
And so I'll ask you again, Senator, are President Donald Trump's actions at all appropriate? Is Trump right about Portland or is Immergut? Are we a nation of Constitutional law or of martial law?
I'll await your answer.
As always, I'll post here whatever answer I get from you or your office, Senator.
