Chris Kaiser
LightNews LightNews
banner
chriskaiserva.bsky.social
Chris Kaiser
@chriskaiserva.bsky.social
760 followers 660 following 370 posts
Policy Director ACLU of Virginia | Fmr: ACLU of Louisiana | Unrepentant Kentuckian | Cincinnati Reds stan | Opinions are mine alone.
Posts Replies Media Videos
Reposted by Chris Kaiser
anatosaurus.bsky.social
One, spicy, focus group participant here ("activatable" white women, Nov. 5) laying out how it undermines defiance by regular folks when those in power refuse to demonstrate courage & convictions.
Quotation from focus group participant: "We were able to see 420 pages of when wild Bill got his little willy wet. We can't see nothing on the Epstein files? Why is that? Because everything leads back to Trump and they're protecting him. And anybody that is defiant to that is being trampled on. That's where our fear are coming in. That's where we're thinking, 'What can little old me do when these powerful people are being trampled on?'"
November 9, 2025 at 11:18 PM
Reposted by Chris Kaiser
anatosaurus.bsky.social
There are endless examples of this regime of the bullies for the billionaires attacking our people. When we make believe we're in a fight for healthcare subsidies alone, as critical as those are, negotiating in good faith as if MAGA were normal party - we normalize the regime.
November 9, 2025 at 10:29 PM
Reposted by Chris Kaiser
mikesacks.bsky.social
Judge Immergut permanently enjoins Trump from deploying federalized National Guard members to Oregon

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON STATE OF OREGON and the CITY OF PORTLAND, and STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Case No. 3:25-cv-1756-IM FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Plaintiffs, v. DONALD TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States; PETE HEGSETH, in his official capacity as Secretary of Defense; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; KRISTI NOEM, in her official capacity as Secretary of Homeland Security; and U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Defendants. IMMERGUT, District Judge. INTRODUCTION On September 27, 2025, the President of the United States federalized 200 members of the Oregon National Guard over the objection of Oregon's governor and deployed them to a single federal building in Portland, Oregon. In the ensuing days, the President ordered the deployment of 400 federalized members of the Texas and California National Guards, all to the same federal building in Oregon. The mission of these deployments of military troops was ostensibly to quell violent protests outside the one-block Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") building in Portland. But after a three-day trial that included the testimony of federal, state, and local law enforcement officials and hundreds of exhibits describing protest activity outside the Portland ICE building, the evidence demonstrates that these deployments, which were objected to by Oregon's governor and not requested by the federal officials in charge of protection of the ICE building, exceeded the President's authority. While violent protests did occur in June, they quickly abated due to the efforts of civil law enforcement officers. And since that brief span of a few days in June, the protests outside the Portland ICE facility have been predominately peaceful, with only isolated and sporadic instances of relatively low-level violence, largely between protesters and counter-protesters. When considering these conditions that persisted for months before the President's federalization of the National Guard, this Court concludes that even giving great deference to the President's determination, the President did not have a lawful basis to federalize the National Guard under 10 U.S.C. § 12406…. Unless and until the President lawfully federalizes National Guardsmen under a statute such as 10 U.S.C. § 12406, "National Guard members serve solely as members of the State militia under the command of a state governor." Stirling v. Minasian, 955 F.3d 795, 799 (9th Cir. 2020) (internal quotations omitted). Therefore, the President's unlawful federalization of the National Guard violates the Tenth Amendment, which "reserves to the States" any powers not expressly delegated to the federal government in the Constitution. U.S. Const. amend. X. In Newsom v. Trump, 141 F.4th 1032 (9th Cir. 2025), the Ninth Circuit interpreted the provision permitting the President to call up the National Guard when he "is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States." 10 U.S.C. § 12406(3). This Court is bound to apply Newsom. However, this case presents novel issues not addressed in Newsom. Newsom did not discuss Section 12406(2), which permits the President to call up the National Guard when "there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States," nor did it fully delve into the meaning of "to execute the laws of the United States," contained in Section 12406(3). In resolving these issues, this Court draws on both Newsom's reasoning and the constitutional scope of Congress's calling forth power, which defines the outer boundaries of the President's power under 10 U.S.C. § 12406. Indeed, this Court, "as in all cases, [must] interpret the Constitution in light of its text, purposes, and 'our whole experience' as a Nation." NRB v. Noel Canning, 573 U.S. 513, 557 (2014) (quoting Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416, 433 (1920)). After analyzing these statutory provisions, as applied to the facts in this case, this Court arrives at the necessary conclusion that there was neither "a rebellion or danger of a rebellion" nor was the President "unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States" in Oregon when he ordered the federalization and deployment of the National Guard. 10 U.S.C. § 12406(2)-(3). This Court acknowledges that some citizens may support these deployments as a helpful military supplement to effectuate the President's immigration agenda. But the Founders "embodied their profound fear and distrust of military power... in the Constitution and its Amendments," Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 29 (1957) (plurality op.), which has lived on through the decades as "a traditional and strong resistance of Americans to any military intrusion into civilian affairs." Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1, 15 (1972). In the Supreme Court's words, "[s]light encroachments create new boundaries from which legions of power can seek new territory to capture." Reid, 354 U.S. at 39 (1957). This principle has been foundational to the safeguarding of our fundamental liberties under the Constitution. See New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 271-72 (1964) (noting that under the First Amendment, "freedoms of expression are to have the breathing space that they need to survive" (ellipses and internal quotations omitted)); Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505, 512(1961) (noting in the Fourth Amendment context that illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing... by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure" (internal quotations omitted)). The "precise standard" to demarcate the line past which conditions would satisfy the statutory standard to deploy the military in the streets of American cities is ultimately a question for a higher court to decide. Newsom, 141 F.4th at 1051. But based on this Court's application of Newsom to the factual findings at trial and the meaning of 10 U.S.C. § 12406 in light of history and tradition, this Court finds that wherever this line precisely is, Defendants have failed to clear it. Therefore, for all the reasons stated below, this Court permanently enjoins Defendants' orders to deploy federalized members of the National Guard to Oregon.
November 8, 2025 at 1:28 AM
Reposted by Chris Kaiser
matthew.flux.community
She spent the majority of her ad budget lying about trans people, in fact. Total failure: plus.flux.community/p/flailing-v...
Flailing Virginia governor candidate spends most of her money fearmongering about trans people
Religious extremist Winsome Earle-Sears has spent more than half of her advertising lying about less than 50 children
plus.flux.community
November 5, 2025 at 1:30 AM
Reposted by Chris Kaiser
jamellebouie.net
one last observation: donald trump has never won a majority of the vote and yet the political press treats him like the embodied spirit of the american people. will be interesting to see how they discount mamdani as representing new york if he wins less than a majority.
November 4, 2025 at 11:32 AM
chriskaiserva.bsky.social
tangent, but i’ve been noodling on this point in context of Money In Politics and am not sure what to think. as in, how should we evaluate the influence of huge campaign spending when a lot of people seem primarily influenced by pervasive/continuous info ecosystems that are discrete from campaigns?
November 1, 2025 at 6:27 PM
Reposted by Chris Kaiser
reichlinmelnick.bsky.social
Trump’s approval rating on immigration CRATERED in 2018-2019 as he enacted family separation in 2018, and then as people saw the appalling conditions in Border Patrol custody in 2019.

Biden’s efforts to provide expanded pathways for refugees and asylum seekers was arguably the popularist position!
November 1, 2025 at 4:13 PM