Turley On LA Insurrection: Trump Ahead On Law, Politics

Most people tend to react to current events based on gut feelings, then look for legal justifications. If you’re looking for the legal view, Jonathan Turley usually provides a solid source. Today he weighs in on the LA Insurrection, as well as on the institutional response to Trump’s DEI initiatives. First the LA Insurrection:

Always Ready, Always There: Democrats Mobilize Against the National Guard Deployment

As indicated in the title, Turley sees Trump winning on the legal issues—his actions have ample justification in statutory law as well as in practical precedent:

Trump has the authority under Section 12406 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code to deploy the National Guard if the president is “unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.”

The Administration is saying that that is precisely what is unfolding in California, where mobs attack vehicles and trap federal personnel.

Most critics are challenging the deployment on policy grounds, arguing that it is an unnecessary escalation. However, even critics like Berkeley Law Dean Erwin [Chemerinsky, far left] have admitted that “Unfortunately, President Trump likely has the legal authority to do this.”

There is a fair debate over whether this is needed at this time, but the President is allowed to reach a different conclusion. Trump wants the violence to end now as opposed to escalating as it did in the Rodney King riots or the later riots after the George Floyd killings, causing billions in property damage and many deaths.

Courts will be asked to halt the order because it did not technically go through Newsom to formally call out the National Guard.

Section 12406 grants Trump the authority to call out the Guard and employs a mandatory term for governors, who “shall” issue the President’s order. In the memo, Trump also instructed federal officials “to coordinate with the Governors of the States and the National Guard Bureau.”

Newsom is clearly refusing to issue the orders or coordinate the deployment.

Just as important in the real world, Trump appears to be well ahead in terms of politics—public support. Addressing our border security issue to put a stop to basically open borders and free cross border migration of whomever was a major winning issue for Trump across virtually all demographics except the far left. It’s still a winning issue. After reviewing past precedents for Trump’s actions—starting with Eisenhower’s deployment of troops to Arkansas to enforce SCOTUS decisions—he continues:

There appears little interest in deescalation on either side. For the Trump Administration, images of rioters riding in celebration around burning cars with Mexican flags are only likely to reinforce the support of the majority of Americans for the enforcement of immigration laws.

I think he means first burning cars with inflammables of one sort or another and then celebrating with Mexican flags.

For Democrats, they have gone “all in” on opposing ICE and these enforcement operations despite support from roughly 30 percent of the public.

Some democrats are now playing directly to the mob. A Los Angeles City Council member, Eunisses Hernandez, reportedly urged anti-law enforcement protesters to “escalate” their tactics against ICE officers: …

So, L.A. officials are maintaining the sanctuary status of the city, barring the cooperation of local police, and calling on citizens to escalate their resistance after a weekend of violent attacks. Others have posted the locations of ICE facilities to allow better tracking of operations while cities like Glendale are closing facilities.

In Washington, Jeffries has pledged to unmask the identities of individual ICE officers who have been covering their faces to protect themselves and their families from growing threats.

While Democrats have not succeeded in making a convincing political case for opposing immigration enforcement, they may be making a stronger case for federal deployment in increasingly hostile blue cities.

Turley has also weighed in on the DEI issue, taking note that, rather than resisting, many corporations and educational institutions are eagerly deploying the “Trump made us do it” excuse to do what they really want to do:

Trump Did It: Executives and Administrators Are Increasingly Using TDI to Fight DEI

“Trump made me do it.”

Across the country, this is a virtual mantra being mouthed everywhere from businesses to higher education. Corporations are eliminating woke programs. Why? Trump did it. Universities are eliminating DEI offices and cracking down on campus extremism. Trump did it. Democratic politicians are abandoning far-left policies. Trump did it.

For those who lack both courage or conviction, the claim of coercion is often the next best thing. The “TDI defense” is born.

Of course, they did not invent Trump, but they needed him.

…

Administrators are now cracking down on extreme elements on campuses.

At the same time, hundreds of schools are closing DEI offices around the country. Again, most are not challenging the Trump administration’s orders on DEI or seeking to adopt more limited responses. They are all in with the move, while professing that they have little choice.

In other words, schools are increasingly turning to TDI to end DEI.

The legal landscape has changed with an administration committed to opposing many DEI programs as discriminatory and unlawful. However, it is the speed and general lack of resistance that is so notable. In most cases, the Trump administration did not have to ask twice. Trump seemed to “have them at hello,” as if they were longing for a reason to reverse these trends.

Now, Turley lumps all of this in with “campus extremism” and “anti-semitism”. The courts will have their say, and the offenses to free speech will be challenged—just yesterday a federal judge tossed a lawsuit by Jewish groups claiming they felt “unsafe” at UPenn. The decision was made on First Amendment grounds.

Still, this is real progress:

The same pattern is playing out in businesses. Over the last few weeks, companies ranging from Amazon to IBM have removed references to DEI programs or policies. Bank of America explained, “We evaluate and adjust our programs in light of new laws, court decisions, and, more recently, executive orders from the new administration.”

Once established, these DEI offices tended to expand as an irresistible force within their institutions and companies. Full-time diversity experts demanded additional hirings and policies on hiring, promotion, and public campaigns. Since these experts were tasked with finding areas for “reform,” their proposals were treated as extensions of that mandate. To oppose the reforms was to oppose the cause.

While some executives and administrators supported such efforts, others simply lacked the courage to oppose them. No one wanted to be accused of being opposed to “equity” or being racist, sexist, or homophobic. The results were continually expanding programs impacting every level of businesses and institutions.

Then Trump showed up. Suddenly, these executives and administrators had an excuse to reverse this trend. They could also rely on court decisions that have undermined long-standing claims of advocates that favoring certain groups at the expense of others was entirely lawful.

This week, the Supreme Court added to these cases with its unanimous ruling in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, to remove impediments to lawsuits by members of majority groups who are discriminated against.