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

[Anthony60]

These courts have no authority to tell the executive branch how to run the executive branch. Telling them to restore web pages, rehire people, etc...

If they can do that, then executive can reach into their branch and force them to make changes. Executive could decide that the court's ruling is wrong and overturn the ruling (pardons don't work here). What, he isn't a judge? Well, the judge isn't the POTUS.
You say there is a Constitutional crisis? It's coming from these judges, trying to overstep their authority and destroy separation of powers.

 

[Athanasius68]

its over..says random anonymous internet poster. lol.

You are always free to argue how, in our constitutional system, the Executive does not have authority over the Executive dept.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

You are always free to argue how, in our constitutional system, the Executive does not have authority over the Executive dept.

Trump is required to follow the law.

The court has the right to stop him from deliberately violating the law through the use of EOs.

 

[Athanasius68]

Trump is required to follow the law.

The court has the right to stop him from deliberately violating the law through the use of EOs.

Sure-- and if somebody can go to court and make a convincing explanation to them of how the Executive is not allowed to have authority over the Executive dept, then I guess the court will strike down the EO or whatever the actual issue is.

But Is suspect that would be a very difficult argument to make...

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

This one, which reiterated that the Executive is allowed to actually control the Executive Dept.

You didn't read the decision, did you?

It ends it. That quotation is just Chutkans sour grapes.
An appeals court will not overturn.

And that Is because it is an absurdity to suggest that the Executive does not have the authority to examine expenditures within the very department he has been elected to oversee.

Yeah, you definitely didn't read the decision.

The case isn't over. It won't need to be appealed, because it's still in front of Judge Chutkin. No ruling on the merits has been made.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

Sure-- and if somebody can go to court and make a convincing explanation to them of how the Executive is not allowed to have authority over the Executive dept, then I guess the court will strike down the EO or whatever the actual issue is.

But Is suspect that would be a very difficult argument to make...

As usual, you fail to understand.

Trump IS NOT allowed to violate the law when he issues EOs. He has done that on at least NINE OCCASIONS.

None of his EOs are legal. He CANNOT issue an EO that overrides a constitutional amendment. That IS NOT in the scope of his authority and can only be done by CONGRESS.

Trump violated the law and a judge told him to stop.

It is legal judicial oversight.

Accept it and move on.

 

[GIJane]

Faux is not a valid source.

Please find a valid source and try again.

LMAO Like MSNBC is? Even IF FOX was "not valid" why would they announce this if it weren't factual?

But, since it appears to be hard for some of you

https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/18/politics/doge-temporary-restraining-order-chutkan/index.html

Judge denies request to temporarily block DOGE's mass firings, access to data

A federal judge denied an urgent request to temporarily block Elon Musk and DOGE from firing employees or accessing records from a half a dozen government agencies.

abcnews.go.com

MSN

Your hero MSNBC is simply too ****ing lazy/incompetent to report it.

 

[MTAtech]

Well I really don't think there was any doubt about Trump getting sued for absolutely everything. That's been the standard for the past 8 years so it would be naive for anyone to believe that would change.

Because he does things to warrant suing.

 

[dobieg]

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 the end result is we won first place and you got a participation trophy.


I'll take that.

 

[Athanasius68]

You didn't read the decision, did you?



Yeah, you definitely didn't read the decision.

The case isn't over. It won't need to be appealed, because it's still in front of Judge Chutkin. No ruling on the merits has been made.

Its over. Chutkan isn't going to rule that the president can't control the executive dept.

At best, the blue state DAs might be able to make a successful argument that Musk should have received a Senate confirmation.
But a president is absolutely allowed to seek advice from whomever he pleases.

 

[Atomic Kid]

You didn't read the decision, did you?



Yeah, you definitely didn't read the decision.

The case isn't over. It won't need to be appealed, because it's still in front of Judge Chutkin. No ruling on the merits has been made.

Of course, he didn't read it. You can lead a MAGA to documentary evidence but you can't make him read or understand it.

 

[Athanasius68]

As usual, you fail to understand.

Trump IS NOT allowed to violate the law when he issues EOs. He has done that on at least NINE OCCASIONS.

None of his EOs are legal. He CANNOT issue an EO that overrides a constitutional amendment. That IS NOT in the scope of his authority and can only be done by CONGRESS.

Trump violated the law and a judge told him to stop.

It is legal judicial oversight.

Accept it and move on.

Congress cant override-- by statute- an amnedment.

As for the rest, a president has power that he is allowed to exercise.

 

[ncguy]

Congress cant override-- by statute- an amnedment.

As for the rest, a president has power that he is allowed to exercise.

and a president is bound by the constitution and laws.

see, its easy to make vague, general sweeping statements lol

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

Its over. Chutkan isn't going to rule that the president can't control the executive dept.

If you'd actually read the decision, you'd know Judge Chutkin actually signalled pretty strongly that the plaintiff's argument has significant legal merit, and she even invited the plaintiffs to move for a preliminary injunction in her conclusion.

 

[ncguy]

Its over. Chutkan isn't going to rule that the president can't control the executive dept.

At best, the blue state DAs might be able to make a successful argument that Musk should have received a Senate confirmation.
But a president is absolutely allowed to seek advice from whomever he pleases.

why do you think the ruling would be "a president can't control the executive department".
you keep repeating that as if that's exactly and only what is charged. lol.

 

[MTAtech]

You are always free to argue how, in our constitutional system, the Executive does not have authority over the Executive dept.

Why weren't you making tht rgument here?

Supreme Court strikes down Biden student-loan forgiveness program

This article was updated on June 30 at 4:00 p.m. By a vote of 6-3, the justices ruled that the Biden administration overstepped its authority last year when it announced […]

www.scotusblog.com

Judge Halts Obama's Immigration Order

Gov. Greg Abbott hailed a federal judge's decision Monday to halt President Obama’s executive action on immigration — a decision that gave the state of Texas an initial victory in its battle against what state leaders call federal overreach.

www.texastribune.org

 

[Athanasius68]

why do you think the ruling would be "a president can't control the executive department".
you keep repeating that as if that's exactly and only what is charged. lol.

Because that is what Musk is doing-- he is acting as an advisor to the president in his review of the Executive department agencies.

 

[ncguy]

Because that is what Musk is doing-- he is acting as an advisor to the president in his review of the Executive department agencies.

so you have no reason to believe that would be the exact ruling.
did you even read her ruling?

“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,”

these are the legal issues, nothing as general as you keep repeating endlessly. lol.

 

[Atomic Kid]

What? You folks are against an "unelected individual" running things?

If you have unelected individuals running things you no longer have a constitutional democratic republic. You have an autocracy/oligarchy. If that's your preference then move to Russia. Remember Benjamin Franklin's reply to a question posed to him after leaving the 1787 Constitutional Convention? "Well, doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" "A republic. If you can keep it. "

Count you in then for the overturning of Humphrey Executor then?

Meteors could come crashing from the skies because of DOGE, and that wouldn't change anything--- the Judiciary will never ultimately rule that the Executive cannot review operations within the Executive Dept.

Leave it to you to post a piece of case law that does nothing to support your argument but also pretty much destroys it.

{{meta.fullTitle}}

Facts of the case​

President Hoover appointed, and the Senate confirmed, Humphrey as a commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). In 1933, President Roosevelt asked for Humphrey's resignation since the latter was a conservative and had jurisdiction over many of Roosevelt's New Deal policies. When Humphrey refused to resign, Roosevelt fired him because of his policy positions. However, the FTC Act only allowed a president to remove a commissioner for "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office." Since Humphrey died shortly after being dismissed, his executor sued to recover Humphrey's lost salary.

Question​

Did section 1 of the Federal Trade Commission Act unconstitutionally interfere with the executive power of the President?

Conclusion​

The unanimous Court found that the FTC Act was constitutional and that Humphrey's dismissal on policy grounds was unjustified. The Court reasoned that the Constitution had never given "illimitable power of removal" to the president. Justice Sutherland dismissed the government's main line of defense in this case which relied heavily on the Court's decision in Myers v. United States (1926). In that case the Court upheld the president's right to remove officers who were "units of the executive department." The FTC was different, argued Sutherland, because it was a body created by Congress to perform quasi-legislative and judicial functions. The Myers precedent, therefore, did not apply in this situation.

 

[ElChupacabra]

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

That wasn't the legal argument, and she clearly stated she too was concerned about what was happening. What she ruled was the plaintiffs failed to prove the harm, and not that any of this was ok or their concerns unwarranted.

 

[ElChupacabra]

These courts have no authority to tell the executive branch how to run the executive branch. Telling them to restore web pages, rehire people, etc...

If they can do that, then executive can reach into their branch and force them to make changes. Executive could decide that the court's ruling is wrong and overturn the ruling (pardons don't work here). What, he isn't a judge? Well, the judge isn't the POTUS.
You say there is a Constitutional crisis? It's coming from these judges, trying to overstep their authority and destroy separation of powers.

They do based on the legality of the executive's actions. It's not like that branch of government is somehow above the law as much as some would like it to be.

 

[ncguy]

That wasn't the legal argument, and she clearly stated she too was concerned about what was happening. What she ruled was the plaintiffs failed to prove the harm, and not that any of this was ok or their concerns unwarranted.

and technically they failed to prove the harm was immediate and material and irreversible, not that no harm was happening.

 

[primaryKey]

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.

Just because the political activities of MAGA strain the definition of “legal” according to our laws doesn’t mean she’s a political activist. This argument is projection, on its face. Republicans can eye anything they want, she’s not going anywhere.

 

[ElChupacabra]

Just because the political activities of MAGA strain the definition of “legal” according to our laws doesn’t mean she’s a political activist. This argument is projection, on its face. Republicans can eye anything they want, she’s not going anywhere.

The post you responded to is a great example of why I feel we're on a downward spiral. What we hear more and more of are moral absolutes ascribed to political parties by the other, which inevitably leads to the erosion of governance. There is no way a political system survives if the two main parties see each other as enemies to destroy. The role of these parties is to then destroy what each one does rather than working towards common goals.

 

[Atomic Kid]

Well I really don't think there was any doubt about Trump getting sued for absolutely everything. That's been the standard for the past 8 years so it would be naive for anyone to believe that would change.

Trump was a crook and fraudster before becoming President in 2016. The only change from then to 2024 is that he is now an officially convicted crook and fraudster. Given his penchant for engaging in behavior that seeks to circumvent the law, the wisest advice given to those seeking to join his Administration in 2024 was to purchase legal insurance.

Former Trump aides are warning newbies: Buy legal insurance or risk a hefty bill

Many staffers who worked in Trump’s first administration saw the need for an attorney when many were dragged before congressional committees and grand juries.

www.nbcnews.com