• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Federal judge Blocks 14 A.G.s Attempt To Block DOGE's Access to Gov't Data

SkyChief

USN Veteran
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2019
Messages
8,261
Reaction score
5,578
Location
SoCal
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Yesterday, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan swatted down a temporary block from a lawsuit from 14 democrat Attorney Generals, citing that there isn't sufficient evidence of grave legal harm with DoGE's work on identifying and eliminating waste and fraud within federal government agencies.

So far DoGE has identified $55 Billion in government waste and fraud, and they have cancelled 1127 wasteful contracts.

DoGE's ultimate goal is to save $1 Trillion of taxpayers' money, so they have a ways to go.

Most Americans want to know where their hard-earned tax dollars are being squandered, and for that reason most Americans support the mission of DOGE.

source: https://apnews.com/article/elon-musk-doge-layoffs-government-data-13653c59c1f6fa0c5ae551f821faafb7
 
Last edited:
At least be honest about this, the decision had nothing to do with support for DOGE or an assertion on the public wanting to know where money went, the decision was entirely about the AGs that brought the challenge could not substantiate "grave legal harm" to justify a temporary restraining order.

No where in the decisions was some support for DOGE, just a legal decision on the case as presented.
 
One lunatic judge...
 

This will be appealed, as it should be.
 
She did NOT rule that the access was appropriate, in fact she said it was worrisome. Her ruling was clear...it was based on the fact the request for an EMERGENCY injunction was not supported by any evidence of imminent, irreparable harm.
She only ruled on an emergency temporary injunction not on the access issue in its whole
 
Isidore said:
One lunatic judge...
Click to expand...
Appointed by Obama; one of the most anti-Trump judges on the bench who has previously ruled against Trump motions many times. The fact that she nuked the TRO is proof the case is meritless.

Plus, there's this little gem: SEAN M. SPICER et al., Plaintiffs, v. JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., President of the United States, et al., Defendants.

Spicer and a handful of other Trump appointees were dropped kicked out the back door after Biden was sworn in - in Spicer's case, just 60 days before his term expired at the Naval Academy post Trump had appointed him to. Spicer was persuaded to file the suit by a RW group called America First, knowing full well they'd lose. The administration argued POTUS has the absolute authority to fire anybody in the executive branch, which the court upheld. The benefits of that decision now redound to Orange Man Bad.

Ain't no fun when the rabbit's got the gun.
 

@Callen, why did you quote this particular paragraph from the OP and respond with the strongly worded comment below? Your emotionally argumentative response ("She did NOT", "In fact, she said", "Her ruling was clear") has nothing to do with SkyChief's accurate summary of Chutkan's refusal to uphold the temporary block. SkyChief didn't type anything about Chutkan feeling the access was or wasn't appropriate. What in the paragraph above (the one you quoted to respond to) generated your (unrelated) response below?

 
gbg3 said:
, why did you quote this particular paragraph from the OP and respond with the strongly worded comment below?
Click to expand...
Because it's true....
 
No, most Americans do not. MAGA members do.
 
Callen said:
Because it's true....
Click to expand...
Why specifically quote a portion of someone else's comment - to then just post an independent comment of your own, having nothing to do with what you chose to quote? Why not just post your comment without the quote. I read it a couple times to try to identify what it was you were arguing with, but your comment had nothing to do with what you specifically quoted. That's weird.
 
If I understood what you are trying to say.....I might respond.
 
Anti-Trump. Laughable.
 
Callen said:
If I understood what you are trying to say.....I might respond.
Click to expand...
You specifically quoted the first paragraph of comment 1, clearly to respond to it with comment 5. But your comment 5 response had nothing at all to do with what you quoted.

I am trying to figure out why you quoted something and then responded with something unrelated to what you quoted. I read your comment 5 a couple times to figure out the link from what you typed in comment 5 to the quote you chose. There was no link.
 
Im sure all this is making sense in your mind .......
 
Callen said:
Im sure all this is making sense in your mind .......
Click to expand...
That's certainly one way of flouncing or not answering a simple question.
 
gbg3 said:
That's certainly one way of flouncing or not answering a simple question.
Click to expand...
Your question was anything but simple, it was incredibly convoluted. Just ask it.......
 
OK.....after spending way too much time figuring out what you were trying to ask , I think I have it.

I quoted the OP because I felt it needed some clarification as to what the ruling actually was. It wasn't about there not being "sufficient evidence of grave legal harm with DoGE's work on identifying and eliminating waste and fraud within federal government agencies", It was that there was no evidence of imminent and irreparable harm requiring an emergency injunction. Two different things.

"Chutkan said that the states hadn’t shown “that they will suffer imminent, irreparable harm absent a temporary restraining order.
Chutkan went on to say that even though the states’ larger case against Musk is “strong,” their arguments at this stage in the litigation were not good enough to satisfy the standard that must be met to warrant emergency action by the court."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…