2/ Link to declaration: https://t.co/UEgYJqjmR8
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) February 18, 2025
4/4 I'm glad DOJ finally filed this Declaration. While it wasn't DOJ's burden, Court made clear today it wanted government to disprove Plaintiffs' claims--and now they have: Musk/DOGE lack authority states claim they have. https://t.co/VfuOA18djS
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) February 18, 2025
It is obvious, but the Dems are throwing **** at the wall to get something to stick with a friendly judge, even if just temporarily.FireAg said:
But I thought this was already obvious…
DOGE simply finds the weeds…the departments where they grow and/or POTUS are the ones spraying the Roundup…
2/2 Details @FDRLST https://t.co/G0WYu7dDFW
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) February 17, 2025
We'll see what the contemptible Tanya does later today I guess.Quote:
Given on Friday Judge Chutkan had directed the Plaintiff States to submit a narrower TRO, it seems likely she is inclined to grant an injunction. But the government's briefing and further argument later this morning will make it difficult for her to ignore the blatant flaws in the blue states' case. Under these circumstances, she may well see the best option is to enter a TRO that merely enjoins Musk and DOGE from cutting any funding or terminating any personnel something they aren't doing now according to the Trump Administration.
While such a TRO would still be improper because there is no evidence that Musk and DOGE are imminently prepared to exercise such authority, there would be no real harm to the Trump Administration. Conversely, granting the TRO as requested by the Plaintiff States would abruptly halt the administration's agenda and would so severely step on the president's Article II powers that an appellate court would hesitate to let such an order stand even temporarily.
Judge Chutkan likely knows that too, which may well inform her decision later this morning when she hears further argument on Plaintiff States' motion for a TRO.
JUST IN: U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss just declined to block DOGE from accessing Education Department data on student borrowers.
— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) February 18, 2025
He ruled the Student Association, which brought the lawsuit, didn’t show sufficient irreparable harm. pic.twitter.com/tBqIlKJg5v
Logos Stick said:JUST IN: U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss just declined to block DOGE from accessing Education Department data on student borrowers.
— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) February 18, 2025
He ruled the Student Association, which brought the lawsuit, didn’t show sufficient irreparable harm. pic.twitter.com/tBqIlKJg5v
🚨🚨🚨BREAKING(ish): Court denied TRO yesterday in this case brought by student association against Dept of Ed. Case sought to bar DOGE from accessing data. From Order, we see diff. b/c Left's screams & reality of what's going on: 1/ https://t.co/baFN0RasS8 pic.twitter.com/g716JR105I
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) February 18, 2025
3/3 Here's the full order: It appears the judges have realized handing out TROs like mints isn't a good look & they are starting to take motions more seriously. https://t.co/dno3Fw4TlZ
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) February 18, 2025
3/3 Here's the full order: It appears the judges have realized handing out TROs like mints isn't a good look & they are starting to take motions more seriously. https://t.co/dno3Fw4TlZ
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) February 18, 2025
Under Article II, Trump has the authority to fire people within his administration. Makes no difference whether he fires one or one hundred thousand, the authority is the same.MagnumLoad said:
Correct. Personal inconvenience is completely unrelated to harm to the country. People get fired all the time in private enterprise. Government workers are employed by the tax payers, and have no right to their jobs or expectation of insulation from termination. A prominent crat recently railed against the firing of IG's, based on that it was their job to root out fraud and waste and were therefore needed. Well, they obviously had not been doing their job or at least not doing it well. Bye.
He is probably voting democrat and collecting social security checks from the grave, so why can't he still hear SCOTUS cases?Aggie Jurist said:Quote:
it only takes 4 justices to hear an injunction case, so if they don't take it up that means that one of Thomas, Scalia, Gorsuch or Kavanaugh is being funned money.
. . . from the grave?
The Treasury Access Symbol (TAS) is an identification code linking a Treasury payment to a budget line item (standard financial process).
— Department of Government Efficiency (@DOGE) February 17, 2025
In the Federal Government, the TAS field was optional for ~$4.7 Trillion in payments and was often left blank, making traceability almost…
aggiehawg said:
Not to put too fine a point on this but the prohibition on accessing Treasury Records...appears that horse already left the barn.The Treasury Access Symbol (TAS) is an identification code linking a Treasury payment to a budget line item (standard financial process).
— Department of Government Efficiency (@DOGE) February 17, 2025
In the Federal Government, the TAS field was optional for ~$4.7 Trillion in payments and was often left blank, making traceability almost…
Reason number two why these lawsuits are stupid.Quote:
Which alludes to the point I was making previously…they probably already have all of the goods on what has taken place and these TROs are probably being issued to prevent them from continuing to access data that…in all probability, they have already accessed…
Troy91 said:
appears no one anticipated root data access and not send a formal request to agency head and wait for reply in a month.
2/2 https://t.co/bcmPgOfmxf Given that TROs are rarely appealable this confirms how extreme court's order was and important separation of powers issue.
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) February 18, 2025
2/2 https://t.co/bcmPgOfmxf Given that TROs are rarely appealable this confirms how extreme court's order was and important separation of powers issue.
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) February 18, 2025
Well, this indicates Roberts is considering turning the question to the full Court.nortex97 said:
Wow, that's a big one. We might actually get some rules/guidance, shortly.
2/ Finally got in: Judge asking whether parties considered whether resolving on expedited merits basis as some of colleagues have done.
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) February 18, 2025
10/ Gov't: IF you enter TRO then should be limited to union membership, since only injury is dues so limit to members.
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) February 18, 2025
Union/Plaintiff: FLRA/MSPB corrected everyone. "We are threatening an existential threat, if we lose too many dues members we won't be able to do our job." We…
JUST IN: A federal judge has ordered the reinstatement of Cathy Harris atop the Merit Systems Protection Board, ruling that Trump's decision to fire her exceeded his authority. https://t.co/OpEqI6kqFH pic.twitter.com/JbMVXeA290
— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) February 18, 2025
FireAg said:
Chutkan denied the TRO in front of her:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/judge-denies-democrat-led-effort-block-doge-access-citing-lack-proven-harm
SwigAg11 said:
The entire DC circuit and appeals are solidly Democrat, so that doesn't make much sense to me.
They can pretty much do whatever they want.
Play-by-play of hearing below: Bottom line prediction--judge will deny the TRO because unions need to go threw process set up to resolve federal employee disputes. https://t.co/POgvSEZLvw
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) February 18, 2025
Still not sure how the judicial branch has authority to determine who does and does not work for the executive branch.HTownAg98 said:JUST IN: A federal judge has ordered the reinstatement of Cathy Harris atop the Merit Systems Protection Board, ruling that Trump's decision to fire her exceeded his authority. https://t.co/OpEqI6kqFH pic.twitter.com/JbMVXeA290
— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) February 18, 2025
To be fair, it seems that the relevant law, passed by Congress, says the holder of that position can only be fired for cause. The administration fired her without cause, so that would violate the law.Ag with kids said:Still not sure how the judicial branch has authority to determine who does and does not work for the executive branch.HTownAg98 said:JUST IN: A federal judge has ordered the reinstatement of Cathy Harris atop the Merit Systems Protection Board, ruling that Trump's decision to fire her exceeded his authority. https://t.co/OpEqI6kqFH pic.twitter.com/JbMVXeA290
— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) February 18, 2025
Then just change the comment to use legislative instead judicial...waitwhat? said:To be fair, it seems that the relevant law, passed by Congress, says the holder of that position can only be fired for cause. The administration fired her without cause, so that would violate the law.Ag with kids said:Still not sure how the judicial branch has authority to determine who does and does not work for the executive branch.HTownAg98 said:JUST IN: A federal judge has ordered the reinstatement of Cathy Harris atop the Merit Systems Protection Board, ruling that Trump's decision to fire her exceeded his authority. https://t.co/OpEqI6kqFH pic.twitter.com/JbMVXeA290
— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) February 18, 2025
It's not the judicial branch saying he can't fire her without cause, it's the legislative branch.
It is, but the legislature said that officeholder can only be fired for cause. Sure, we have checks and balances, but the legislative is the most powerful branch and can do that.Ag with kids said:Then just change the comment to use legislative instead judicial...waitwhat? said:To be fair, it seems that the relevant law, passed by Congress, says the holder of that position can only be fired for cause. The administration fired her without cause, so that would violate the law.Ag with kids said:Still not sure how the judicial branch has authority to determine who does and does not work for the executive branch.HTownAg98 said:JUST IN: A federal judge has ordered the reinstatement of Cathy Harris atop the Merit Systems Protection Board, ruling that Trump's decision to fire her exceeded his authority. https://t.co/OpEqI6kqFH pic.twitter.com/JbMVXeA290
— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) February 18, 2025
It's not the judicial branch saying he can't fire her without cause, it's the legislative branch.
Either that office is under the executive branch or it's not.
Tailgate88 said:Yes please. If one of you legal eagles could spell this out in English for us IANALs that would be much appreciated. My eyes are glazing over reading some of these Xeets.TheCurl84 said:
I think this thread is gonna need an interpreter.
