As you expect from Margot Cleveland, a clear explanation of why 14 States should lose their case vs. DOGE/Trump.
It's also a medium-length essay, so we'll cut to the chase.
...the TRO the Plaintiff States proffered to the Court on Saturday would ban Musk, DOGE, “and their agents, officers, and employees, or anyone acting in active concert with them,” from accessing data systems and information at a variety of federal agencies, including the Office of Personnel Management and the Departments of Education, Labor, Health and Human Services, Energy, Transportation, and Commerce. The proposed TRO would further prohibit Musk, DOGE, “and their agents, officers, and employees, or anyone acting in active concert with them,” from firing, furloughing, or otherwise placing on leave any employees working for those same agencies.
As the Trump Administration stressed in its Saturday night response, the language is so “exceedingly broad” that, as written, it would even ban the President and Senate-confirmed officials from accessing data or terminating federal employees if they collaborate with Musk or DOGE in the decision-making process....
Not only that; the Administration makes clear that the States are trying to run a sleight-of-hand trick right past the judge (Chutkan, a Bitch-in-Black):
...The states alleged two separate counts — one premised on an alleged violation of the Appointments Clause of the Constitution and another that asserted DOGE acted beyond its statutory power.
“Both claims — the constitutional one, and its statutory counterpart,” the Defendants stressed, are premised on Musk and DOGE having the “authority to make decisions for the U.S. government.”
“That premise is of course wrong,” the Trump Administration countered, explaining that the theory “rests entirely on conflating influence and authority.”...
IOW, it's Foo-Foo dust.
Margot repeated something else which you did NOT hear on "the news."
...[L]ast week {...] two different district courts entered TROs that restrained the Trump Administration from freezing or canceling grants, except as allowed by statute, regulation, or the terms of the grants. As I detailed at the time, the exception provided for in the TRO swallowed the rule because federal contracts and grants uniformly provide the government may cancel the funding. Thus, while the headlines from last week create the appearance that the courts were barring the Trump Administration from cutting funding, in reality, the terms of the TROs had little impact on the functioning of the executive branch....
Why didn't you hear that on "the news"?
You know why. Doesn't fit their narrative.
The bigger case is the one we mentioned below. Let's settle the question: does Sentence One of Article II mean what it says, or not?
UPDATE: CHUTKAN REFUSED TO ISSUE THE TRO. (!!!!!!)
No comments:
Post a Comment