Who do you think is governing right now?

[Deluge]

On 2/19/2025 at 3:26 PM, Matthew said:

By governing I am specifically referring to shaping government policy. Even on a good day this is not often clear in the US.

This isn't like the Biden administration where flag burning homosexuals are calling the shots.

Trump is in full control. In fact, This is the best presidency/cabinet in God knows how long. 

Edited February 27 by Deluge

[Matthew]

On 2/27/2025 at 9:03 AM, User said:

No, it has not, as their request was initially rejected.

Absolutely using existing law and the courts has worked. Because trump is trying to operate outside of the law. 

Within hours of trumps birthright citizenship EO, these AGs had filed cases. Notice how birthright citizenship still exists?

Within hours of Trumps Jan 27th spending freeze memo these AGs had filed a case against. Which is why most of it wasn't implemented.

A lot of this DOGE stuff is a clear violation of labor laws. There of course is a legal way to do a mass reduction of workforce but trump people are sloppy and don't know how to follow the law.

Edited February 28 by Matthew

[User]

7 minutes ago, Matthew said:

Absolutely using existing law and the courts has worked. Because trump is trying to operate outside of the law. 

No, he is operating within the law and the left is engaged in an unprecedented amount of lawfare right now targeting leftist Judges who are enacting unheard of TRO's.

Imagine if the Executive branch showed up at a courthouse with some Federal agents and started telling a Judge what to do. 

As these TRO's actually turn into injunctions, the administration is starting to win on appeals and the Supreme Court has finally started stepping in to quash these TRO's as well, because some lower level federal judge has no authority to tell the sitting President how to run the Executive branch as they are doing right now through TRO's. 

Birthright citizenship was always going to be a SCOTUS play on challenging the longstanding legal theory and president presumed. 

 

[Matthew]

2 minutes ago, User said:

he is operating within the law

When an agency, program, and appropriated funding are created by statute, there is no legal way for the Presidency to eliminate it without doing so through Congress.

When you mass fire people without following reduction in force procedures, you're violating the law.

Trump 1.0 was sloppy too. They are literally using the same effective arguments in court to quash the same sloppy illegal actions.  Resting on the idea that using the courts to call out legal violations is automatically "lAwFaRe" is just a right wing concession that they aren't able to do their dumb stuff within the bounds of the law nor effectively make new laws of the sort they would want.

[User]

2 minutes ago, Matthew said:

When you mass fire people without following reduction in force procedures, you're violating the law.

If you want to start a specific legal argument, then cite the specific case you think has merit here. 

You already tried that once and I pointed out how the challenge failed. 

[Matthew]

2 hours ago, User said:

You already tried that once and I pointed out how the challenge failed. 

One attempt to request a blanket restraining order against Musk was rejected on Feb 12th, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Ezell.

But a more recent case succeeded, New York v. Trump, resulting in a Feb 21 injunction against DOGE accessing Treasury data.

There are many other DOGE cases sailing along:

Project On Government Oversight, Inc. v. Trump

New Mexico v. Musk

Alliance for Retired Americans v. Bessent

American Federation of State v. Social Security Administartion

Citizens For Responsibility and Ethics In Washington v. U.S. Doge Service

Center For Taxpayer Rights v. Internal Revenue Service

Does v. Musk

Gribbon v. Musk

Nemeth-Greenleaf v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management

American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management

American Federation of Teachers v. Bessent

Electronic Privacy Information Center v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management

National Treasury Employees Union v. Vought

University of California Student Association v. Carter

American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations v. Department of Labor

Doe v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management

Burns v. Trump

Public Citizen v. Trump

American Public Health Association v. Office of Management and Budget

Lentini v. DOGE

And this is just one area.  There are perhaps hundreds of cases filed so far night and day. As of yesterday, 34 cases so far have resulted in current rulings and injunctions against Trump.

[Deluge]

On 2/20/2025 at 9:40 PM, Hodad said:

1. I couldn't pick two, but policy is definitely the project 2025 playbook (behind the scenes operatives) while Musk is serving his own interests. 

2. Trump does not read or understand policy in the slightest. He couldn't even tell you what these agencies and actions do. 

1. democrats are always serving some weird purpose, so it's good we voted their asses out of the WH.

2. Nobody really understood what those agencies were doing. It's why DOGE has been blowing out the debris. 

Edited February 28 by Deluge

[User]

24 minutes ago, Matthew said:

And this is just one area.  There are perhaps hundreds of cases filed so far night and day. As of yesterday, 34 cases so far have resulted in current rulings and injunctions against Trump.

Yeah, I am well aware there are lots of cases, but thanks for the spam. I pointed this out to you already in this being a level of lawfare unseen before. 

As far as New York v Trump on DOGE access to the treasury, again, it is a TRO that keeps getting extended. There is no appeal process on TRO's like this, which makes these and their use quite unprecedented in that a lower level Judge is in effect able to dictate to the Executive Branch what they can and can't do with no appeal process. 

Trump administration is fighting these things and as we are starting to see, SCOTUS just now is stepping in on at least one so far. 

As soon as this moves to an actual injunction, not a TRO, then Trump can start appealing. 

This basically comes down to a stall and delay tactic. DOGE will get access, the only "harm" being called out here is that the States are saying DOGE did not have the appropriate training or clearance to access the data and thus this would cause harm... but, even if this is a hoop they have to jump through... the train goes forward for DOGE still. 

Good job, you slowed them down by a month. This is why I call it lawfare. It has no aim other than to gum up the works and harass but in the end, nothing will be accomplished. 

 

[Matthew]

1 hour ago, User said:

thanks for the spam.

AKA direct proof that your characterization of the issue--that it was challenged once and failed--is false.

1 hour ago, User said:

this being a level of lawfare unseen before.

AKA a coordinated and well-organized effort by 23 states to effectively use existing law and the courts to moderately keep a rouge president in check.

1 hour ago, User said:

As soon as this moves to an actual injunction, not a TRO, then Trump can start appealing

7 cases right now have active appeals. There have even the two preliminary rulings by the Supreme Court. In Dellinger v. Bessent the Court has so far sided with the guy who was fired, and AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition v. Department of State they did get the SCOTUS to remove a payment deadline but not dismiss the actual case or lower court's rationale aagainst the Trump admin.

The appeals courts and Supreme Court are certainly not rushing to strike down these state complaints that have been appealed.

Edited February 28 by Matthew

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, Matthew said:

AKA ....

AKA....

Jeebus Matthew, you're already not coming across as a genus on this forum, the LAST thing you want to do is start channeling Robosmith    You're like one post away from posting in alternating caps and then i'm afraid we'll have to call mental health services to deal with you.   

[User]

42 minutes ago, Matthew said:

AKA direct proof that your characterization of the issue--that it was challenged once and failed--is false.

Um, no. I never claimed there were not a lot of different challenges. What I very specifically said was that the courts rejected your original specific claim. 

43 minutes ago, Matthew said:

AKA a coordinated and well-organized effort by 23 states to effectively use existing law and the courts to moderately keep a rouge president in check.

Not everything you listed is states filing lawsuits. As I already pointed out, you want to discuss a specific case, lets do it, you are 0/2 so far. 

44 minutes ago, Matthew said:

7 cases right now have active appeals. There have even the two preliminary rulings by the Supreme Court. In Dellinger v. Bessent the Court has so far sided with the guy who was fired, and AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition v. Department of State they did get the SCOTUS to remove a payment deadline but not dismiss the actual case or lower court's rationale aagainst the Trump admin.

The appeals courts and Supreme Court are certainly not rushing to strike down these state complaints that have been appealed.

Yes, some do, but not this one we are specifically talking about. 

No, the courts have not sided with the guy who was fired. The only thing that happened was that once again, a TRO was filed saying he had to be rehired, the SCOTUS was like, eh, we can look at that in a few days, nothing bad will happen, then the guy immediately starts causing harm to the executive branch and now they are trying to argue again, that oh well, the TRO is set to expire soon anyhow... no one has sided with the guy being fired in any capacity more than a TRO was entered and once again, we are back to the absurdity of these TRO's. 

 

 

[Matthew]

6 hours ago, User said:

What I very specifically said was that the courts rejected your original specific claim. 

So can DOGE currently access Treasury Department records?

6 hours ago, User said:

you want to discuss a specific case, lets do it

Right. You're obviously unprepared to talk about any specific case, with your three generic and inaccurate talking points.

6 hours ago, User said:

no one has sided with the guy being fired in any capacity

The Supreme Court so far in a preliminary brief has ruled that Trump cannot remove Dellinger until the case is resolved. That's after multiple previous appeals in which Trump has already lost. So yeah courts so far have 3 times sided with Dellinger.

Edited March 1 by Matthew