I'm pro Leafs. But if I re post the actual score of a Leafs game like Leafs 5 - Oilers 3, then that actually took place even though I prefer the Leafs to the Oilers.
You seem be challenged by the concept of real life events.
fresh judicial ass-kickings for the vile orange whoopee-weasel
- Thread starter mandrill
- Start date
You seem be challenged by the concept of real life events.
Or maybe just Musk is doing that because Trump is too senile and lazy to follow the play?
Let's play with this.
Isn't the apex of what he can achieve just a few years of Huey Long style corrupt parody-democracy that reverts back to a more complete - albeit damaged - democratic state when the "Great Leader" dies or is somehow unseated???
Musk might have been, sure.
I think it more likely that either of both of them actually just wanted the IGs gone because IGs actually investigate shit in general and they don't want the law around.
He got just under 50% of the vote. (49.8%)
NEW: Federal Judge James Boasberg has blocked the Department of Justice from removing January 6th videos from a public database.
RETWEET to thank Judge Boasberg for standing up for our democracy!
x.com
RETWEET to thank Judge Boasberg for standing up for our democracy!
x.com
x.com
x.com
x.com
NEW: Veterans Affairs Inspector General Michael Missal and 7 other federal watchdogs are suing the Trump Administration for being illegally fired and violating federal laws.
RETWEET if you stand with Missal against Trump!
Great set of posts Mandy.x.com
BREAKING: President Trump has fired USAID’s inspector general Paul Martin via an email, just one day after the office released a report critical of the administration’s efforts to weaken the agency.
Removing an IG immediately after a critical report undermines that independence and sends a chilling message to other oversight officials: challenge the administration, and you may lose your job. Actions like this erode trust in government institutions and set a dangerous precedent for retaliatory firings against those tasked with holding power accountable.
The Demo-rats haven't anything to stand on so they are running to sympathetic courts in a desperate attempt to derail democracy in action.
Perhaps the biggest legal test of President Trump’s term so far turns on a basic question: Can the president override Congress and cancel federal funding? Because he disagrees with spending goals already set by law, Trump’s administration has nixed grants and closed agencies that were doing work the legislative branch authorized. The Constitution says only Congress can make those calls.
By Emily Bazelon
I cover legal issues.
In a couple of cases, federal judges have told the administration to release the money. One suit, brought by Democratic state attorneys general, will probably land at the Supreme Court. Today’s newsletter will guide you through the dispute over “impoundment,” or efforts by the executive branch to hold back money Congress wants to spend.
What the founders wanted
According to Article I of the Constitution, Congress passes laws to spend money — appropriations bills. Some of these let the president decide how and when to spend the funds through executive agencies. But a lot of funding comes with specific instructions. Presidents generally can’t cancel such spending unilaterally — that’s fundamental to the separation of powers. “Where the purse is lodged in one branch, and the sword in another, there can be no danger” of an all-powerful president, Alexander Hamilton said at the convention to ratify the Constitution in New York.
Presidents have generally respected the line the framers drew. When they spent less than Congress allotted, it was often because Congress set a ceiling (“a sum not exceeding”) rather than requiring the whole amount to be spent. In 1803, for instance, Thomas Jefferson saved money when he didn’t need all of a $50,000 appropriation for gun boats. In other instances, presidents impounded funds to save money and effectively reached an agreement with Congress.
The exception to the rule is Richard Nixon, who had a sharp confrontation with Congress. He impounded billions appropriated to build waste treatment plants that would reduce pollution. Both Congress and the Supreme Court rejected Nixon’s gambit. Congress passed the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which forbade future impoundments with only narrow exceptions. And the court unanimously ruled that Nixon had no authority to spend less than Congress had allotted.
A rising revolt
Over the years, conservative frustration mounted over the ballooning federal budget. Congress tried to give the president a line-item veto to cancel specific programs out of a bill, but the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional.
An opposing view of executive power, argued in an article co-written by the lawyer who is now counsel for the White House budget office, holds that presidents have always impounded funds in the way that Nixon did because they sometimes spend less than authorized. In this view, it doesn’t matter whether they did it to save money or to scrap a reviled program. As a result, the Trump administration lawyer Mark Paoletta and his co-authors argue, the Impoundment Control Act is unconstitutional.
Legal scholars point out that these were not examples of presidential actions that defy Congress. They mostly involved presidents and Congress accommodating each other, often to save money, muddling through rather than a president cutting off funds over a policy disagreement, as Trump apparently did with educational research that Elon Musk’s team said it canceled this week, for instance.
The Supreme Court
But that’s probably not the point. The Trump administration seems intent on outcomes, not theories — on asserting broad executive authority and expecting Congress to roll over. The state attorneys general who have sued to unfreeze funds are checking Trump’s power from outside Washington.
How would the Supreme Court rule on an impoundment challenge? The justices decided a relevant case last spring. In a 7-to-2 ruling, the court rejected a challenge to the funding Congress provided for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (which Trump has just unilaterally closed, the subject of another lawsuit).
Justice Clarence Thomas opened his majority opinion by declaring that “our Constitution gives Congress control over the public fisc.” He added later that by the time of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, “the principle of legislative supremacy over fiscal matters engendered little debate and created no disagreement.”
Related: What happens when Elon Musk comes to your door? The New York Times On Politics newsletter will focus on Musk for the coming weeks.
NYT article
Did losing 66 cases in a row about electoral fraud convince MAGA it didn't happen?
Fourth federal judge blocks Trump’s birthright citizenship order
BOSTON (AP) — A federal judge in Boston on Thursday blocked an executive order from President Donald Trump that would end birthright citizenship for the children of parents who are in the U.S. illegally, becoming the fourth judge to do so.
The ruling from U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin came three days after U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante in New Hampshire blocked the executive order and follows similar rulings in Seattle and Maryland.
Sorokin said in a 31-page ruling that the “Constitution confers birthright citizenship broadly, including to persons within the categories described” in the president’s executive order.
The Boston case was filed by the Democratic attorneys general of 18 states and is one of at least nine lawsuits challenging the birthright citizenship order.
“President Trump may believe that he is above the law, but today’s preliminary injunction sends a clear message: He is not a king, and he cannot rewrite the Constitution with the stroke of a pen," the attorneys general said in a statement.
In the case filed by four states in Seattle, U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour said the Trump administration was attempting to ignore the Constitution, with the president trying to change it with an executive order.
A federal judge in Maryland issued a nationwide pause on the order in a separate but similar case involving immigrants rights groups and pregnant women whose soon-to-be-born children could be affected. The Trump administration said Tuesday that it would appeal that ruling to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.
In the Boston case, the attorneys general from 18 states, along with the cities of San Francisco and Washington, D.C., asked Sorokin to issue a preliminary injunction. That means the injunction will likely remain in place while the lawsuit plays out.
They argue that the principle of birthright citizenship is “enshrined in the Constitution,” and that Trump does not have the authority to issue the order, which they called a “flagrantly unlawful attempt to strip hundreds of thousands of American-born children of their citizenship based on their parentage.”
They also argue that Trump’s order would cost states funding they rely on to “provide essential services” — from foster care to health care for low-income children, to “early interventions for infants, toddlers, and students with disabilities.”
At the heart of the lawsuits is the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified in 1868 after the Civil War and the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision. That decision found that Scott, an enslaved man, wasn’t a citizen despite having lived in a state where slavery was outlawed.
The Trump administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore not entitled to citizenship.
Attorneys for the states argue that it does and that it has been recognized since the amendment’s adoption, notably in an 1898 U.S. Supreme Court decision. That decision, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, held that the only children who did not automatically receive U.S. citizenship upon being born on U.S. soil were the children of diplomats, who have allegiance to another government; enemies present in the U.S. during hostile occupation; those born on foreign ships; and those born to members of sovereign Native American tribes.
The U.S. is among about 30 countries where birthright citizenship — the principle of jus soli or “right of the soil” — is applied. Most are in the Americas, and Canada and Mexico are among them.
___ Catalini contributed from Trenton, New Jersey.
BOSTON (AP) — A federal judge in Boston on Thursday blocked an executive order from President Donald Trump that would end birthright citizenship for the children of parents who are in the U.S. illegally, becoming the fourth judge to do so.
The ruling from U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin came three days after U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante in New Hampshire blocked the executive order and follows similar rulings in Seattle and Maryland.
Sorokin said in a 31-page ruling that the “Constitution confers birthright citizenship broadly, including to persons within the categories described” in the president’s executive order.
The Boston case was filed by the Democratic attorneys general of 18 states and is one of at least nine lawsuits challenging the birthright citizenship order.
“President Trump may believe that he is above the law, but today’s preliminary injunction sends a clear message: He is not a king, and he cannot rewrite the Constitution with the stroke of a pen," the attorneys general said in a statement.
In the case filed by four states in Seattle, U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour said the Trump administration was attempting to ignore the Constitution, with the president trying to change it with an executive order.
A federal judge in Maryland issued a nationwide pause on the order in a separate but similar case involving immigrants rights groups and pregnant women whose soon-to-be-born children could be affected. The Trump administration said Tuesday that it would appeal that ruling to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.
In the Boston case, the attorneys general from 18 states, along with the cities of San Francisco and Washington, D.C., asked Sorokin to issue a preliminary injunction. That means the injunction will likely remain in place while the lawsuit plays out.
They argue that the principle of birthright citizenship is “enshrined in the Constitution,” and that Trump does not have the authority to issue the order, which they called a “flagrantly unlawful attempt to strip hundreds of thousands of American-born children of their citizenship based on their parentage.”
They also argue that Trump’s order would cost states funding they rely on to “provide essential services” — from foster care to health care for low-income children, to “early interventions for infants, toddlers, and students with disabilities.”
At the heart of the lawsuits is the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified in 1868 after the Civil War and the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision. That decision found that Scott, an enslaved man, wasn’t a citizen despite having lived in a state where slavery was outlawed.
The Trump administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore not entitled to citizenship.
Attorneys for the states argue that it does and that it has been recognized since the amendment’s adoption, notably in an 1898 U.S. Supreme Court decision. That decision, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, held that the only children who did not automatically receive U.S. citizenship upon being born on U.S. soil were the children of diplomats, who have allegiance to another government; enemies present in the U.S. during hostile occupation; those born on foreign ships; and those born to members of sovereign Native American tribes.
The U.S. is among about 30 countries where birthright citizenship — the principle of jus soli or “right of the soil” — is applied. Most are in the Americas, and Canada and Mexico are among them.
___ Catalini contributed from Trenton, New Jersey.
Judge makes shock reversal on Trump 'buyout' offer to federal workers
Judge makes shock reversal on Trump's 'buyout' offer to federal workers amid DOGE's quest to downsize bloated bureaucracies | Daily Mail Online
Judge makes shock reversal on Trump's 'buyout' offer to federal workers amid DOGE's quest to downsize bloated bureaucracies
A federal judge on Wednesday lifted the temporary freeze on President Trump's 'buyout' offer to federal workers as the administration looks to shrink the workforce.
A union which represents hundreds of thousands of federal workers and others sued last week to stop the deferred buyout offer's February 6 deadline.
But Massachusetts District Judge George O’Toole ruled the unions lack standing to challenge the directive and are not directly impacted by it.
O'Toole, a President Clinton appointee, lifted the temporary restraining order on Tuesday.
'Aggrieved employees can bring claims through the administrative process,' he also wrote.
The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) and other unions sued ahead of the February 6 deadline for federal workers to accept the Trump administration's 'deferred resignation' offer last week.
The deadline was placed on hold temporarily while a hearing was held on Monday.
The ruling on Wednesday comes as billionaire Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) team are trying to cut down the federal workforce as part of their directive to save $2 trillion in federal spending. But their effort may prove difficult.
A federal judge on Wednesday lifted the temporary freeze on President Trump's 'buyout' offer to federal workers
A union which represents hundreds of thousands of federal workers and others sued last week to stop the deferred buyout offer's February 6 deadline
75,000 workers had accepted the offer as of Wednesday, according to an administration official familiar with the matter.
That's less than four percent of the two million workers who had been given the offer and short of the target.
DOGE estimated between five and 10 percent of government workers would take the offer and that it would save an estimated $100 billion a year.
After the court lifted the pause on Wednesday, federal workers reported another email which said the program was officially closed, and any resignations received after the 7:20pm ET deadline Wednesday would not be accepted.
The offer as presented by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) gave all federal workers the option to resign from their current position but remain on the payroll with all benefits until September 30.
The email gave notice that most federal employees were to return to work at offices five days a week. For those who took the offer, they would be exempted from in-person work requirements.
Federal workers were first sent an email with the 'buyout' offer on January 28.
But many federal workers and some Democratic lawmakers have raised concerns over the validity of the offer.
Workers were directed to simply send an email from their government accounts with the word 'Resign' in the subject line to accept the offer.
Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) team are trying to cut down the federal workforce
Just over three percent of workers had taken the administration up on the as the deadline was paused
At the same time, those who opted to stay in their positions were informed by OPM that they could not be given 'full assurance' that their position or agency would not be eliminated.
Last week, the AFGE sued to stop the directive's February 6 deadline claiming the plan is to remove career public service workers and replace them with partisan loyalists. They argued the offer amounts to a threat to employees to resign or face losing their job in the future without compensation.
AFGE's National President Everett Kelley called Wednesday's ruling lifting the freeze a 'setback' but argued the fight continues and the union's lawyers would evaluate the decision and determine next steps.
'Importantly, this decision did not address the underlying lawfulness of the program,' Kelley said in a statement.
'We continue to maintain it is illegal to force American citizens who have dedicated their careers to public service to make a decision, in a few short days, without adequate information, about whether to uproot their families and leave their careers for what amounts to an unfunded IOU from Elon Musk,' he continued.
The offer gave all federal workers the option to resign from their current position but remain on the payroll with all benefits until September 30
More than 65,000 federal workers had accepted the 'buyout' deal as of last week as billionaire Elon Musk's team attempts to cut down the federal workforce
Anti-Donald Trump and Elon Musk protests pop up across the country
Federal workers reported that the original 'buyout' offer was followed up by a series of other emails as the administration increases pressure on workers to take the deal.
But thousands of federal workers have signaled they plan to remain in their positions as long as possible.
Some have been using the offer as a rallying cry to 'hold the line' and have warned fellow federal workers not to give in.
Judge makes shock reversal on Trump's 'buyout' offer to federal workers amid DOGE's quest to downsize bloated bureaucracies | Daily Mail Online
Judge makes shock reversal on Trump's 'buyout' offer to federal workers amid DOGE's quest to downsize bloated bureaucracies
A federal judge on Wednesday lifted the temporary freeze on President Trump's 'buyout' offer to federal workers as the administration looks to shrink the workforce.
A union which represents hundreds of thousands of federal workers and others sued last week to stop the deferred buyout offer's February 6 deadline.
But Massachusetts District Judge George O’Toole ruled the unions lack standing to challenge the directive and are not directly impacted by it.
O'Toole, a President Clinton appointee, lifted the temporary restraining order on Tuesday.
'Aggrieved employees can bring claims through the administrative process,' he also wrote.
The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) and other unions sued ahead of the February 6 deadline for federal workers to accept the Trump administration's 'deferred resignation' offer last week.
The deadline was placed on hold temporarily while a hearing was held on Monday.
The ruling on Wednesday comes as billionaire Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) team are trying to cut down the federal workforce as part of their directive to save $2 trillion in federal spending. But their effort may prove difficult.
A federal judge on Wednesday lifted the temporary freeze on President Trump's 'buyout' offer to federal workers
A union which represents hundreds of thousands of federal workers and others sued last week to stop the deferred buyout offer's February 6 deadline
75,000 workers had accepted the offer as of Wednesday, according to an administration official familiar with the matter.
That's less than four percent of the two million workers who had been given the offer and short of the target.
DOGE estimated between five and 10 percent of government workers would take the offer and that it would save an estimated $100 billion a year.
After the court lifted the pause on Wednesday, federal workers reported another email which said the program was officially closed, and any resignations received after the 7:20pm ET deadline Wednesday would not be accepted.
The offer as presented by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) gave all federal workers the option to resign from their current position but remain on the payroll with all benefits until September 30.
The email gave notice that most federal employees were to return to work at offices five days a week. For those who took the offer, they would be exempted from in-person work requirements.
Federal workers were first sent an email with the 'buyout' offer on January 28.
But many federal workers and some Democratic lawmakers have raised concerns over the validity of the offer.
Workers were directed to simply send an email from their government accounts with the word 'Resign' in the subject line to accept the offer.
Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) team are trying to cut down the federal workforce
Just over three percent of workers had taken the administration up on the as the deadline was paused
At the same time, those who opted to stay in their positions were informed by OPM that they could not be given 'full assurance' that their position or agency would not be eliminated.
Last week, the AFGE sued to stop the directive's February 6 deadline claiming the plan is to remove career public service workers and replace them with partisan loyalists. They argued the offer amounts to a threat to employees to resign or face losing their job in the future without compensation.
AFGE's National President Everett Kelley called Wednesday's ruling lifting the freeze a 'setback' but argued the fight continues and the union's lawyers would evaluate the decision and determine next steps.
'Importantly, this decision did not address the underlying lawfulness of the program,' Kelley said in a statement.
'We continue to maintain it is illegal to force American citizens who have dedicated their careers to public service to make a decision, in a few short days, without adequate information, about whether to uproot their families and leave their careers for what amounts to an unfunded IOU from Elon Musk,' he continued.
The offer gave all federal workers the option to resign from their current position but remain on the payroll with all benefits until September 30
More than 65,000 federal workers had accepted the 'buyout' deal as of last week as billionaire Elon Musk's team attempts to cut down the federal workforce
Anti-Donald Trump and Elon Musk protests pop up across the country
Federal workers reported that the original 'buyout' offer was followed up by a series of other emails as the administration increases pressure on workers to take the deal.
But thousands of federal workers have signaled they plan to remain in their positions as long as possible.
Some have been using the offer as a rallying cry to 'hold the line' and have warned fellow federal workers not to give in.
x.com
x.com
NEW: New York Attorney General Letitia James has won her lawsuit against Donald Trump, blocking his unconstitutional birthright citizenship executive order.
RETWEET if you stand with @TishJames against Donald Trump!
‘Enormous harm’: Federal judge deals Trump another court loss
President Donald Trump’s blanket freeze on foreign aid programs has reportedly been halted by a federal judge who slammed the administration’s failure to adequately weigh the devastation its effects could have on hundreds of businesses and nonprofits across the country.
In an order released Thursday, U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, a Biden appointee, ruled that the 90-day blanket freeze issued by executive order as Trump returned to the White House last month was an illegal overreach of his power, Politico reported.
The Washington D.C.-based federal judge ordered Trump to reinstate funding for the foreign aid contractors, many of which have had to cut programs, trim employees or cease operations altogether because of the sudden freeze, according to the publication.
“At least to date, Defendants have not offered any explanation for why a blanket suspension of all congressionally appropriated foreign aid, which set off a shockwave and upended reliance interests for thousands of agreements with businesses, nonprofits, and organizations around the country, was a rational precursor to reviewing programs,” Ali wrote in the 15-page order.
“Absent temporary injunctive relief, therefore, the scale of the enormous harm that has already occurred will almost certainly increase,” the judge added.
Ali seemed to acknowledge the chaos and uncertainty swirling around the freeze, which reportedly shocked State Department officials and sent organizations scrambling to figure out what their next move would be.
His order also prohibited senior State Department and budget officials – including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought – from enforcing any “contract cancelations or stop-work orders” established after Trump took office.
“There is nothing arbitrary and capricious about executive agencies conducting a review of programs,” Ali said in his ruling. “But there has been no explanation offered … as to why reviewing programs — many longstanding and taking place pursuant to contractual terms — required an immediate and wholesale suspension of appropriated foreign aid.”
The Trump administration was ordered to file a report with the court by Tuesday informing the judge of the status of their compliance.
President Donald Trump’s blanket freeze on foreign aid programs has reportedly been halted by a federal judge who slammed the administration’s failure to adequately weigh the devastation its effects could have on hundreds of businesses and nonprofits across the country.
In an order released Thursday, U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, a Biden appointee, ruled that the 90-day blanket freeze issued by executive order as Trump returned to the White House last month was an illegal overreach of his power, Politico reported.
The Washington D.C.-based federal judge ordered Trump to reinstate funding for the foreign aid contractors, many of which have had to cut programs, trim employees or cease operations altogether because of the sudden freeze, according to the publication.
“At least to date, Defendants have not offered any explanation for why a blanket suspension of all congressionally appropriated foreign aid, which set off a shockwave and upended reliance interests for thousands of agreements with businesses, nonprofits, and organizations around the country, was a rational precursor to reviewing programs,” Ali wrote in the 15-page order.
“Absent temporary injunctive relief, therefore, the scale of the enormous harm that has already occurred will almost certainly increase,” the judge added.
Ali seemed to acknowledge the chaos and uncertainty swirling around the freeze, which reportedly shocked State Department officials and sent organizations scrambling to figure out what their next move would be.
His order also prohibited senior State Department and budget officials – including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought – from enforcing any “contract cancelations or stop-work orders” established after Trump took office.
“There is nothing arbitrary and capricious about executive agencies conducting a review of programs,” Ali said in his ruling. “But there has been no explanation offered … as to why reviewing programs — many longstanding and taking place pursuant to contractual terms — required an immediate and wholesale suspension of appropriated foreign aid.”
The Trump administration was ordered to file a report with the court by Tuesday informing the judge of the status of their compliance.
x.com
x.com
BREAKING: Federal Judge Amy Berman Jackson has just issued an order saying Trump “Can Not delete, destroy, remove or impair any data or other CFPB records [and] shall not terminate any CFPB employee”
NEW: Federal Judge Amy Behrman Jackson has blocked the Trump Administration from firing Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, deleting data, and cutting reserve funding.
RETWEET to thank Judge Jackson for standing up for our democracy!
x.com
x.com
Last edited:
