Judge Chutkan denies Democrat-led effort to block DOGE access, citing lack of proven harm

[NOLA Dude]

its a RULING. find your own if it bothers you

It's just his and others weak transparent message board tactic to avoid talking about a subject that they can't refute. Very juvenile.

 

[ncguy]

Read her ruling. You're adding all your own what if hypotheticals to her ruling.

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.

“Plaintiffs raise a colorable Appointments Clause claim with serious implications. Musk has not been nominated by the President nor confirmed by the U.S. Senate, as constitutionally required for officers who exercise ‘significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States,’” she wrote. “But even a strong merits argument cannot secure a temporary restraining order at this juncture.”

no, YOU should read your ruling, if you dont want your posts to be stupid. The lawsuit isn't over. Just the emergency TRO aspect.

 

[TobyOne]

Faux is not a valid source.

Please find a valid source and try again.

 

[trixare4kids]

What? The legal argument of "We don't like Musk because he supports Trump" didn't work? Shocking.

I guess she doesn't think Elon Musk is a Nazi either.

 

[ncguy]

I guess she doesn't think Elon Musk is a Nazi either.

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.

“Plaintiffs raise a colorable Appointments Clause claim with serious implications. Musk has not been nominated by the President nor confirmed by the U.S. Senate, as constitutionally required for officers who exercise ‘significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States,’” she wrote. “But even a strong merits argument cannot secure a temporary restraining order at this juncture.”

 

[Anthony60]

The only way for these 'blue state' DAs to ultimately win is to make a convincing argument that the Executive of the USA (the president) doesn't have authority over the Executive Dept.
One need only recognize this to realize that no such argument will ever be convincingly made.

There is no way that Congress has any say here. What kind of government do we have if one judge can destroy separation of powers? Not the one set up by the Constitution, but I think leftists would be fine with that.

 

[trixare4kids]

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.

“Plaintiffs raise a colorable Appointments Clause claim with serious implications. Musk has not been nominated by the President nor confirmed by the U.S. Senate, as constitutionally required for officers who exercise ‘significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States,’” she wrote. “But even a strong merits argument cannot secure a temporary restraining order at this juncture.”

no, YOU should read your ruling, if you dont want your posts to be stupid. The lawsuit isn't over. Just the emergency TRO aspect.

So, you won't be reading her ruling then? You are adding your own what if scenarios, things that haven't happened and then calling her ruling wrong. You're wrong.

 

[NOLA Dude]

I think he would rather a "credible" source that gets money from the CIA front USAID like the NYT, Politico and BBC.

 

[trixare4kids]

There is no way that Congress has any say here. What kind of government do we have if one judge can destroy separation of powers? Not the one set up by the Constitution, but I think leftists would be fine with that.

Damn right they would! You can tell by their responses throughout this forum.

 

[JMR]

So then nothing about this thread or her ruling on the topic then?

I've already posted my thoughts.

So nothing further about the judge Truump called "evil person" having common sense?

 

[ncguy]

So, you won't be reading her ruling then? You are adding your own what if scenarios, things that haven't happened and then calling her ruling wrong. You're wrong.

i read the ruling and quoted part of it.

no "what if", i'm quoting her. "But even a strong merits argument"

 

[Luce]

Constant crying about sources. Nobody cares what you think about which sources we should use.

This is why your posts aren't taken seriously.

By anyone.

 

[JMR]

I guess she doesn't think Elon Musk is a Nazi either.

Did she imply that somewhere?

 

[vesper]

The winning just keeps coming! As many have said, what harm comes from curbing waste, fraud and abuse? No irreparable harm comes from discovering it either!

The Democrats are pushing yet another false and dangerous narrative attempting to gain some of their own power they've lost. The good thing, Judge Chutkan has a lot of common sense. There is simply no proof of what the Democrats have alleged.

While I am thrilled that the old gal ruled as she did, I would never claim she possessed a lot of common sense. She's a political activist dressed in a black robe and who Republicans have been eyeing her as a possible impeachment.

 

[VySky]

another victory against waste, fraud and DEI

Judge denies Democrat-led effort to block DOGE access, citing lack of proven harm

A Wasington, D.C.-based federal judge has declined to block billionaire Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from accessing government data or firing federal employees.

www.foxnews.com

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan declined to grant the plaintiffs' request to issue a temporary restraining order, citing what she said was their failure to demonstrate evidence of "irreparable harm" caused by DOGE's access.

"Plaintiffs legitimately call into question what appears to be the unchecked authority of an unelected individual and an entity that was not created by Congress and over which it has no oversight," Judge Chutkan, an Obama appointee, said Tuesday.


"In these circumstances, it must be indisputable that this court acts within the bounds of its authority. Accordingly, it cannot issue a TRO, especially one as wide-ranging as Plaintiffs request, without clear evidence of imminent, irreparable harm to these Plaintiffs. The current record does not meet that standard."

Most unfortunate

 

[Eriech]

where am I wrong? did she rule that no more lawsuits could be filed on the matter? quote me on that from her ruling.

Unfortunately you are not wrong. We were too quick to celebrate. Trump will ultimately win though but not in Chutkin's court.

 

[Deuce]

The winning just keeps coming! As many have said, what harm comes from curbing waste, fraud and abuse?

Oh, cute, is that what you think they are doing?

I remember a time when you people didn't blindly accept everything the government told you.

 

[anatta]

not much of a victory from a judge who said ""Plaintiffs legitimately call into question what appears to be the unchecked authority of an unelected individual and an entity that was not created by Congress and over which it has no oversight," Judge Chutkan, an Obama appointee, said Tuesday."

this doesn't end the lawsuit.

of course not. but the non TRO means DOGE can continue..do you know who this judge is? The same one who was assigned to the Jack Smith psychotic indictment on Trump for Election fraud ( whatever it was).. so it's significant.

all the rulings have been in DC, NY or Mass - by District judges and Blue state Dems ( she is an Obama appointee)

 

[anatta]

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.

“Plaintiffs raise a colorable Appointments Clause claim with serious implications. Musk has not been nominated by the President nor confirmed by the U.S. Senate, as constitutionally required for officers who exercise ‘significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States,’” she wrote. “But even a strong merits argument cannot secure a temporary restraining order at this juncture.”

feel free to read that to educate yourself on the legal argument.

She is saying Musk is a "principle officer" when in fact he is a temporary advisor to POTUS

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C2-3-1/ALDE_00013092/

the Supreme Court has interpreted these requirements as distinguishing between two types of officers: (1) principal officers who must be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate to their position, and (2) inferior officers, whose appointment Congress may place with the President, judiciary, or department heads.2

 

[hecatmoggie]

awesome

 

[phoenix2020]

Good. The American People should experience the full impact of Donald Trump, unfettered and unchecked.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

That is kind of ridiculous. I don't like Fox News, but it is a judicial ruling, its not like they are making it up out of whole cloth.

Faux has repeatedly lied. They cannot be trusted.

The article needs to come from a different source.

 

[Lutherf]

Faux has repeatedly lied. They cannot be trusted.

The article needs to come from a different source.

Yeah. I mean, coming from the judge herself only means so much. Unless we have Maddie explain things to us there can be no truth!!!!!

 

[CaughtInThe]

another victory against waste, fraud and DEI

Judge denies Democrat-led effort to block DOGE access, citing lack of proven harm

A Wasington, D.C.-based federal judge has declined to block billionaire Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from accessing government data or firing federal employees.

www.foxnews.com

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan declined to grant the plaintiffs' request to issue a temporary restraining order, citing what she said was their failure to demonstrate evidence of "irreparable harm" caused by DOGE's access.

"Plaintiffs legitimately call into question what appears to be the unchecked authority of an unelected individual and an entity that was not created by Congress and over which it has no oversight," Judge Chutkan, an Obama appointee, said Tuesday.


"In these circumstances, it must be indisputable that this court acts within the bounds of its authority. Accordingly, it cannot issue a TRO, especially one as wide-ranging as Plaintiffs request, without clear evidence of imminent, irreparable harm to these Plaintiffs. The current record does not meet that standard."

They already have your data and the data for all of your family members. They're just good at hiding it.

There's no way you're this gullible.

 

[anatta]

They already have your data and the data for all of your family members. They're just good at hiding it.

There's no way you're this gullible.

my credit card people have about the same/ other then that im not going to dispute your unsourced claims