The case that may break the Constitution

/

Alan Dershowitz Predicts Gavin Newsom’s National Guard Lawsuit Against Trump Will Go Down In Flames

Constitutional scholar Alan Dershowitz said on Monday that Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom of California’s lawsuit seeking to halt President Donald Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles would eventually fail.

Newsom and Democratic Attorney General Rob Bonta of California announced the lawsuit Monday, claiming Trump’s Saturday order to deploy the National Guard to respond to the riots in Los Angeles following a raid by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) at a Home Depot was illegal. Dershowitz, on “The Dershow,” expressed doubt that the Supreme Court would “second-guess” Trump’s decision to call out the National Guard. 

“The Supreme Court will not second guess the President of the United States on this issue,” Dershowitz said. “They will say, whether right or wrong, the president had the authority to make this decision and he had the authority to make it over the lack of consent of the governor,” Dershowitz continued. “Let’s be clear, there was violence. You can see it on television, there were bombings, fire bombings and burnings of Teslas and other self-driving cars. There were rocks being thrown at ICE officers. There were threats against ICE officers, threats against their families. Was it a full-blown insurrection? No.”

…..

Dershowitz said the Supreme Court would not have much choice but to rule against Newsom, pointing to cases where the National Guard was federalized to protect civil rights.

FWIW:

This is where things could get interesting: what if a federal judge issues an injunction and refuses to stay his order? So far, Trump has obeyed every judicial injunction while appealing them, even those that weren’t stayed during appeal. Wil he do so in this case, if the riots are still going on? People on both ends of the political spectrum have been waiting for Trump to have his Andrew Jackson moment: “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.” This could do it.

“My prediction is: the lawsuits will fail. They’ll work in the federal district court,” Dershowitz said. “You’ll get, you know, the governor of California will find a federal district judge probably one he was involved in appointing and you’ll get some district court judge saying, maybe even issuing an injunction saying, the president of the United States can’t do this.” 

“It’ll be appealed immediately, but when the case gets to the Supreme Court in the United States, they would have no choice or little choice, but to hold that the judiciary cannot interfere with the discretionary judgment of the executive head of the executive branch. the president, about the necessity for sending in troops,” Dershowitz added.

A wise judge would go cautiously here and not force Trump to choose between obeying a ruling that will be overruled as soon as it hits the Supreme Court but would let cities burn for the days or weeks during that period, or ignoring the claimed authority of a federal judge. A wise judge would stay his ruling, but the judiciary is not exclusively comprised of such people, and Newsom and the other leftists will select their vessel carefully.

Interesting times.

Deporter in Chief? That title belongs to others

/

“Nice try, barry, but not even close”

Snopes:

Claim:

During the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama, immigration authorities deported more than 3 million people, 75% to 83% of whom did not see a judge or have the opportunity to plead their case.

In short, according to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) data from fiscal years 2009 to 2016, more than 3 million individuals were formally removed during the Obama administration. Including returns, cases in which noncitizens left the U.S. voluntarily or after withdrawing their application for admission without undergoing formal removal proceedings, the total number of departures exceeded 5 million.

Claims that 75% to 83% of those deported "never saw a judge or had a chance to plead their case" are based on statistics from individual years, particularly 2012 and 2013. These percentages refer to so-called "summary removals" carried out through legal procedures such as "expedited removal" and "reinstatement of removal," which do not involve a hearing before an immigration judge. From 2009 to 2016, these two categories combined made up anywhere between 58% and 84% of all formal removals annually, averaging about 74% over the entire period. 

Here’s neutral summery of the Obama — Trump records from an organization I’d never heard of, The Voices Heard Foundation:

Deportations and Due Process: Comparing Obama and Trump Policies

Obama’s Deportation Record

From 2009 to 2016, Obama’s administration deported around 3.2 million immigrants through formal removal orders, with a total of 5.24 million removals and voluntary returns. The focus was on criminals and recent border crossers, earning Obama the nickname “deporter-in-chief” from critics like the ACLU. In 2013 alone, 438,421 deportations occurred, per the Migration Policy Institute. Supporters said this targeted dangerous individuals, but critics argued it tore apart families and ignored immigrants’ rights.

….

Due Process Under Obama

A major issue was the lack of due process. About 75–83% of deportations were nonjudicial, meaning they skipped immigration court. In 2012, roughly 313,000 of 419,000 deportations happened without a judge’s review, according to ACLU data. These “expedited removals” often left immigrants without lawyers or a chance to appeal. For example, many long-term U.S. residents were deported after minor offenses, with no opportunity to argue their case. Critics said this violated fairness, while defenders claimed it was efficient for border security.

…..

Trump’s Deportation Policies

As of April 2025, Trump’s second term has ramped up deportation plans, aiming to remove millions, including criminals and undocumented immigrants. His 2017–2021 term saw about 1 million deportations, far fewer than Obama’s, but his current rhetoric promises a larger scale. ICE operations have expanded, targeting workplaces and communities, per recent web reports. Like Obama, Trump prioritizes criminals but also casts a wider net, raising fears of mass deportations.
….

Due Process Concerns with Trump

Trump’s policies face backlash for bypassing due process, much like Obama’s. Web sources, including NPR, note that expedited removals remain common, with many immigrants detained and deported without hearings. In 2019, 64% of deportations were nonjudicial, per the Migration Policy Institute. Critics argue Trump’s aggressive ICE raids and proposed “deportation camps” risk deporting people with U.S. ties without fair trials. Supporters say it’s necessary for law enforcement, but groups like the ACLU warn of human rights violations.
….

Conclusion

Obama’s 3.2 million deportations, with 75–83% lacking due process, set a precedent for efficient but controversial immigration enforcement. Trump’s ongoing policies, echoing this approach, face similar scrutiny for prioritizing speed over fairness. The debate remains heated: how should the U.S. balance security and justice? Understanding these facts helps clarify the challenges both administrations faced.

FWIW:

Trump v Obama is a fun debate, but neither the Light Bringer nor Orange Man is the all-time Depo King: that title belongs to Bill Clinton, followed closely by Bush II, and finishing the trifecta, Sleepy Joe’s handlers.

Between Scylla and Charybdis? He may stall by veto now, but Ned Lamont is, after all, a Democrat, so this bill will be back, soon

/

CT Mirror:

Lamont seeking revisions to controversial housing bill (House Bill 5002)

The General Assembly’s 2025 session ended last week, but the debate continues outside Hartford over a controversial housing bill that is prompting Gov. Ned Lamont to consider calling lawmakers into special session for revisions before he must sign or veto the legislation.

…. Options under consideration in talks with lawmakers include Lamont signing the bill on the promise that objectionable sections be revised before they take effect, or insisting on immediate changes in special session while he still has the leverage of a possible veto.

“So the question is: you sign it, fix the bill. Or don’t sign it, and get a new bill that works, takes down the temperature,” Lamont said Monday.

Lamont, a Democratic governor from Greenwich who won reelection in a landslide in 2022 with surprisingly deep suburban support, has heard complaints about the bill from elected mayors, first selectmen and voters from many of those same suburbs.

Some of the complaints involved “a lot of really gross misrepresentation, which I think is no help at all,” Lamont said.

“They say, ‘You’re taking away local authority. It’s the heavy hand of the state government.’ I think just the opposite. We’re trying to give towns the incentives to speed things up, get more housing where they need it,” Lamont said. “I want them to take the lead. That’s why we’re here.”

One piece of the bill known as “Towns Take the Lead” divides housing need among towns and assigns each town a set number of units to plan and zone for. That means every five years, towns would have a certain number of units they need to plan for, and some of those units will have to be for families or set aside for certain income levels.

“I thought it was an unnecessary provocation,” Lamont said. “You know, people are taking those numbers, they’re making it sound like a dictate. All it is is, these are some needs you may have, and how would you get there? It’s up to you to take the lead on that. But I think it was a problem.”

Other provisions generating opposition would require communities to allow developers to convert commercial buildings to residential with nine or fewer units without a special hearing before the planning and zoning commission. Another would ban minimum off-street parking requirements for certain residential developments.

“I don’t worry as much about the commercial piece. I hear back and forth a lot about the parking piece, but it’s just for the very smallest units,” Lamont said.

…. House Speaker Matt Ritter, D-Hartford, who spoke to the governor over the weekend, said in an interview he was under the impression that Lamont was inclined to veto the bill if there are no changes.

“We have not gotten to that specific level of detail, if that’s the option,” Ritter said.

Time is short: The governor is leaving at the end of the week for the Paris Air Show, and he estimates he has about 14 days before he must sign or veto the bill.

House Majority Leader Jason Rojas, D-East Hartford, a primary mover behind the bill, said crafting revisions addressing opposition may be difficult, since some of it is inaccurate in his view. The definition of what a “fair share” is for each community is an example, he said.

“There is a desire for great clarity about what fair share is and isn’t,” he said.

Fred Camillo, the Republican first selectman of Greenwich, is among those who have spoken to the governor. Camillo said there is a widespread perception that the bill as written would empower developers at the expense of local zoning.

He said some of the provisions were too broadly written, such as a matter of right to convert commercial buildings without review. The ban on a parking requirement would be problematic in Greenwich, where narrow streets often mean on-street parking is unsafe, he said.

Camillo, a former state representative, said he was hardly alone in lobbying Lamont.

“He is getting swamped,” Camillo said.

….

House Minority Leader Vincent J. Candelora, R-North Branford, said the housing issue controversy had primarily been focused in Fairfield County. But no longer.

“My community never cared about it. Now that it has passed, my community is blowing up,” Candelora said.

Surely there are easier, softer ways to end a naval career than this

/

Riverside NoPo Sale

/

7 Griffith Road, listed at $1.995 million, sold to Stamford buyers for $2.150.

History:

Purchased from an estate February 2022 to a local contractor for $1,020,000 (asking price was $995,000.) Renovated and resold to a Colorado buyer on July 22 2022 for $1.875 (asking price was $1.775 million).

Here’s what the house looked like pre-renovation:

Griffith Road is a perfectly decent neighborhood, but I’m not sure I’d agree with the listing agent’s description of it in that original estate sale: “This fantastic single-family home is located in one of the best neighborhoods in Riverside on a quiet cul-de-sac.”

But whatever.

Wind power? What was that all about?

/

Governor murphy has the sads

“OoopS! My bad — sorry!”

Offshore wind power company asks to cancel its New Jersey project

  • Atlantic Shores Offshore Wind has filed a request to cancel its 1.5-gigawatt wind turbine project off the coast of Atlantic City, citing economic and political challenges.

  • The company cited economic turmoil, including inflation and supply chain disruptions, as well as a federal permitting freeze under the Trump administration, as reasons for the cancellation.

See if you can find anytghing that’s true about this statement from a New Jersey Green Idiot — I can’t:

Ed Potosnak, executive director of the New Jersey League of Conservation Voters, an environmental advocacy organization, said offshore wind energy is important for improving air quality and generating new jobs.

"At a time when New Jersey families are concerned about energy affordability and rising utility prices, we need to be building clean energy to lower costs, create good jobs in the state, lessen our dependence on dirty and expensive oil and gas, and protect our communities from the dangers of climate change," Potosnak said in a statement.

"In New Jersey we lead, and we’re not giving up on offshore wind due to a temporary setback," he said. "We’ll continue to fight to save lives."

Another Massive NJ Wind Project Blows Off Construction to Wait Trump Out

Beege Wellborne, HotAir:

This has been so delicious. Sitting here watching all of rodential New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy's Green grifting schemes flutter to earth in little flaming, fluttering, fragile wisps of so much worthless detritus like tiny pieces of canvas falling to earth after the Hindenburg went boom.

His climate cult fantasies are all blowed up.

Atlantic Shores, the cornerstone of the verminous Murphy's renewable energy plans for the state, has been struggling along in what sailors would call 'being in irons' - where the prevailing wind is so stiff in your face, a ship makes no progress and might even be driven backward a little.

That's what has happened to the Atlantic Shores offshore wind farm since Trump's election and especially post-inauguration.

In February, their biggest partner, Shell, walked away from the project. 

Shortly thereafter, the New Jersey Economic Development Authority and the Public Utilities Board delivered their own one-two punches which left the project reeling.

In a sign of the struggling times for the offshore wind industry in the state and the country, ROI-NJ has learned that N.J. Economic Development Authority CEO Tim Sullivan Monday said the organization is exploring alternative uses for the New Jersey Wind Port currently being built in Lower Alloways Creek in Salem County.

“In light of the significant uncertainties in the offshore wind market, we have decided to accelerate our strategic review of options and alternatives for the New Jersey Wind Port,” Sullivan said in a statement.

The Board of Public Utilities, heavily influenced by Gov. Phil Murphy, added a second crippling blow later Monday, saying the state would not accept any of the bids for the fourth solicitation of offshore wind, essentially ending any hope of the Atlantic Shores project 

The governor was about beaten into submission to economic reality by the time he finally yanked state funding from all new offshore wind developments.

And today we learned the Atlantic Shores development had officially requested on the 4th of June to pull the plug on the entire project. 

The company filed a request to cancel its plans and to terminate its Offshore Renewable Energy Certificate (OREC) order.

Atlantic Shores Offshore Wind, a joint venture between Shell and EDF Renewables, is seeking to withdraw from its flagship New Jersey offshore wind project just months after publicly reaffirming its dedication to the state’s clean energy goals.

On June 4, the company filed a formal petition with the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities requesting to terminate its Offshore Renewable Energy Certificate (OREC) order. The request, if granted, would effectively halt development of the 1.5-gigawatt wind farm located east of Atlantic City that was expected to power roughly 700,000 homes.

The withdrawl request is a major gut punch to New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy as the embattled offshore wind architect enters his final months in office.

Earlier this year, Atlantic Shores issued statements positioning itself as a key contributor to New Jersey’s clean energy future. In a February 3 press release, the company said it “stands ready to deliver on the promise of offshore wind” and called its Project 1 “the most competitive and deliverable project proposed in NJ4.” At the time, the firm expressed disappointment after the fourth offshore wind solicitation concluded without awarding any projects.

…. In the meantime, Murphy is trying to paper over the pain that his policies are going to cost New Jersey utility rate payers by cleverly disguising  a scheduled July rate hike as something entirely different. He's managing to put it off until after this fall's elections.

From a different source, here’s a history of electricity price increases, cents per kWh

  • CT 2024: 33.01 2013: 17.58 2003: 11.31

  • ME 2024: 26.22 2013: 14.56 2003: 12.37

  • NJ: 2024: 19.58 2013; 15.67 2003:10.67

It’s no coincidence that the huge jump in prices the past 10 years also marked the global warming kooks’ accelerated drive to ban new gas pipelines and electrical transmission projects, closing nuclear plants, shutting off hydro-power generation, and passing out huge subsidies to their political allies to build out huge solar and wind facilities. “The wind and the sun are free”, these liars assure a gullible public, but they never mention the infrastructure costs incurred in harnessing and distributing that power. This is deliberate.