A federal judge in Illinois declined to immediately block the Trump administration from deploying National Guard troops in the state, giving the administration until Wednesday night to respond to the lawsuit filed by Illinois and Chicago.
...
But U.S. District Judge April Perry allowed the Trump administration until 11:59 p.m. on Wednesday to respond to the lawsuit and set a date for oral arguments to take place, at 11 a.m. Thursday.
https://www.opb.org/article/2025/10/06/f...-illinois/
Two conflicting district court rulings would tee it up for SCOTUS to hear.
Trump's got his panties all in a wad since a judge HE appointed blocked him twice from sending ANY National Guard troops to Portland. Today he denounced Portland as "a burning hellhole." Meanwhile temps are in the 60's here with fragrant autumn breezes and baby blue skies. Trump should come visit us instead of watching Fox News video clips all the time. I'm sure we can stitch together an XXXL flame retardant suit that would fit him snugly.
![[Image: T5k7goc.jpeg]](https://i.imgur.com/T5k7goc.jpeg)
LOL Digging up that article about that old lady who couldn't sleep again. If you'd been watching the news, there's no Antifa to be seen. These are just anti ice protesters, many of them just aging hippies participating in an activity totally protected under the law. In other words, you got nuthin.
I'm just taking the word of an eyewitness.
And? Portlandians are largely not attacking each other. So that's a false dilemma. Two things can be true at the same time. They can be in peaceful solidarity with each other and still be threatening violence to federal agents. In war zones, there is always a front, where the actual fighting occurs. Just because the fighting isn't in your neighborhood, doesn't mean no fighting is happening.
Periodically attacking the ICE building and attempting daily to prevent government vehicles from arriving and leaving, would seem to me to go far beyond activities protected by law.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/111
To say nothing of unlawful assembly, failure to disperse, assault on individuals who aren't federal law enforcement officers and all that.
Quote:Periodically attacking the ICE building and attempting daily to prevent government vehicles from arriving and leaving, would seem to me to go far beyond activities protected by law.
And yet it doesn't rise to the level of an insurrection against the Federal Government requiring troop deployment, which is exactly what we saw at the Capitol on Jan 6. Funny how MAGA wasn't complaining about that then..I actually watch the local news here on the ICE protest every night. Maybe 20 protestors playing music and carrying signs. No sign of bldg destruction at all. MAGA counterprotesters are coming in from out of town as far as Texas. They love this shit, making protesters look like rioters. All it's doing in creating a more volatile situation.
EDIT: Breaking news..DHS secretary and MAGA bimbo Kristi Noem to arrive here soon. They now have the street taped off. Probably to play up the need to troop deployment.
(Oct 7, 2025 07:29 PM)Yazata Wrote: [ -> ]Periodically attacking the ICE building and attempting daily to prevent government vehicles from arriving and leaving, would seem to me to go far beyond activities protected by law.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/111
To say nothing of unlawful assembly, failure to disperse, assault on individuals who aren't federal law enforcement officers and all that.
There's no getting around that blue state and blue city governments are doing whatever they can to hinder ICE activity (and even put ICE agents at risk). So if the local police aren't reliable, then there is arguably more justification for resorting to military reserves to protect and facilitate ICE than there is for the other reason of "deterring general crime in those areas". Trump might also be exploiting either reason for public perception gains, but the ICE purpose seems to carry more vindication.
![[Image: mgguYo9.jpeg]](https://i.imgur.com/mgguYo9.jpeg)