Judge to Trump-terminated ethics watchdog: You’re un-fired

[TheDoctorWasIn]

If that holds true I actually don't see this ruling as a bad decision by the judge. If it gets dragged out for weeks or months, that is entirely different.

It's entirely reasonable for the person being fired to exercise their legal rights and get a formal explanation given to them for why they were fired.

The decision on the TRO, which is what will come on Thursday, will determine whether or not Mr. Dellinger will remain in his position while his court case runs out. A decision on the merits of his removal will take longer.

Either way, I expect it to be on a rather tight briefing schedule - weeks, maybe, but months, no.

 

[trouble13]

The decision on the TRO, which is what will come on Thursday, will determine whether or not Mr. Dellinger will remain in his position while his court case runs out.

Either way, I expect it to be on a rather tight briefing schedule - week, maybe, but months, no.

The devil is always in the details but taking it at face value that seems fair. I don't know what the gov position is going to be but they could make the same argument the judge made about it doing irreparable harm keeping him in that position and therefore he must be removed immediately.

 

[Deuce]

Interesting. It looks like instead of an elected Chief Executive we have appointed judges that are now in charge of the government.

Interesting. It looks like you're ****ing lying like you always do.

 

[vesper]

No the actual constitution that I took an oath to defend from all enemies foreign or domestic.

The one Trump keeps violating.

Is not the Executive branch one of the equal branches of government?
And because he seeks to identify waste and fraud of taxpayer dollars in departments and agencies somehow, he is violating his oath?
Because the former administration increased the size of government workers in the past 4 years (to keep his jobs numbers looking better), by ordering them back to the office, the offices taxpayers are paying for the leases, utilities, insurance, security etc. and they remain practically empty is violating his oath? Why it looks to me like he is holding government employees accountable because we the people pay their friggin paychecks. I know all about people who work from home. The majority are not productive. While they are on the clock at 'home' or wherever, they are doing their laundry, preparing dinner, not having to pay for babysitters for their children, or at the gym, or possibly laying poolside while supposedly working all on the taxpayer's dime.
Not that long ago, I had to wait on hold for 45 minutes to speak to someone in government. When I did get through, she had a baby crying in the background and a toddler needing attention. I couldn't help but wonder why I was on hold for so long. Was she feeding them, changing diapers, doing laundry etc.?

 

[Lutherf]

Like clockwork. I've never heard a single republican/conservative/maga compare a judge ruling against the executive branch to a judge running the executive branch until Trump gets in to office. Then all of a sudden judges aren't allowed to limit anything he does.

Just stop all the BS Luther. Admit you want a dictator. Then you won't have to use stale satire and exaggerations in every reply and you can actually just say what you think.

You people REALLY don't get what's going on here.

The precedent these injunctions set is that ANY judge can stop the president from doing absolutely anything at any time just because they feel like it. If Trump discovered that one of his department heads was sending payments to his nephew and Trump fired him then a judge could just say, "Nope. We like the nephew so the president can't do that". Allowing this garbage to go on completely nullifies the office of the president and, in doing so, nullifies the votes of everyone that voted for the president. It's the exact OPPOSITE of democracy.

 

[NolanVoyd]

Is not the Executive branch one of the equal branches of government?

Yes.

take a civics class. Look into the genius three part checks and balances established by our constitution.

specifically how the judicial branch checks the executive branch.

even the president must obey court orders. He can appeal, but he cannot ignore.

No charge for the civics lesson.

And because he seeks to identify waste and fraud of taxpayer dollars in departments and agencies somehow, he is violating his oath?

no, he is violating his oath by his actions against the constitution. Disobeying court orders, firing people in violation of the rules, etc.

 

[NolanVoyd]

You people REALLY don't get what's going on here.

The precedent these injunctions set is that ANY judge can stop the president from doing absolutely anything at any time just because they feel like it. If Trump discovered that one of his department heads was sending payments to his nephew and Trump fired him then a judge could just say, "Nope. We like the nephew so the president can't do that". Allowing this garbage to go on completely nullifies the office of the president and, in doing so, nullifies the votes of everyone that voted for the president. It's the exact OPPOSITE of democracy.

You are either being dishonest about why the judicial branch is blocking Trump or you honestly don't understand it

Not sure which is worse.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

You people REALLY don't get what's going on here.

The precedent these injunctions set is that ANY judge can stop the president from doing absolutely anything at any time just because they feel like it. If Trump discovered that one of his department heads was sending payments to his nephew and Trump fired him then a judge could just say, "Nope. We like the nephew so the president can't do that". Allowing this garbage to go on completely nullifies the office of the president and, in doing so, nullifies the votes of everyone that voted for the president. It's the exact OPPOSITE of democracy.

Judges have been issuing injunctions against Executive Branch actions for a few hundred years now, this isn't some new precedent.

 

[vesper]

Yes.

take a civics class. Look into the genius three part chrcks and balances established by our constitution.

specifically how the judicial branch checks the executive branch.

even the president must obey. Our orders. He can appeal, but he cannot ignore.

No charge for the civics lesson.



no, he is violating his oath by his actions against the constitution. Disobeying court orders, furing people in violation of the rules, etc.

According to your thinking, who checks the judicial branch?

 

[NolanVoyd]

According to your thinking, who checks the judicial branch?

Oh my God dude.

Take a civics class.

Each of the three branches checks the other two.

It's genius.

How did you get through school wothout learning this stuff?

Congress writes laws, the president can veto them, and the judicial branch can overturn them as unconstitutional. Etc.

That is one example.

Seriously dude take a civics class. It's emberassing that you don't understand the most basic concepts of American civics.

 

[trixare4kids]

Just elect law abiding, decent people.

We already have.

 

[Woke MAGA]

We already have.

Few agree. You are in a tiny minority if you believe that.

 

[trixare4kids]

Few agree. You are in a tiny minority if you believe that.

Trump won the WH, the EC vote, the Popular vote, won all seven swing states, and the GOP holds the majority in congress. Methinks you don't agree with the majority of the voters.

 

[beefheart]

 

[Woke MAGA]

Trump won the WH, the EC vote, the Popular vote, won all seven swing states, and the GOP holds the majority in congress. Methinks you don't agree with the majority of the voters.

You pointing out a fact we all saw is not an argument. Me disagreeing/agreeing with voters is not relevant. You stated:

We already have.

I replied: Few agree. You are in a tiny minority if you believe that.

 

[vesper]

Oh my God dude.

Take a civics class.

Each of the three branches checks the other two.

It's genius.

How did you get through school wothout learning this stuff?

Congress writes laws, the president can veto them, and the judicial branch can overturn them as unconstitutional. Etc.

That is one example.

Seriously dude take a civics class. It's emberassing that you don't understand the most basic concepts of American civics.

Oh that is rich! The Republican majority in the legislative branch is already on board on what the Executive branch is doing! Like I stated earlier both houses of the Legislative Branch has set up Doge committees.
I have no doubt they will address the courts if it continues through legislation. Then what will be your excuse?

 

[roughdraft274]

You people REALLY don't get what's going on here.

The precedent these injunctions set is that ANY judge can stop the president from doing absolutely anything at any time just because they feel like it.

Are you suggesting that the judge stopped the firings because the judge felt like it? Or did he stop the firings because the trump administration didn't follow the law?

This guy was confirmed by the senate and by law he is only to be fired under certain circumstances. The judge is following the law.

When you suggest that this is just the judge doing what ever they like you are just clearly laying out that I was correct earlier. No matter the clear facts, you will complain about anyone or anything who doesn't immediately aquiesse to trumps wishes without question. You want a dictator. And you will blatantly lie for that cause.


I strongly encourage you to sit and think about exactly what would make you turn on trump. Draw a big bright red line in your head. Would you support him if he starts locking up Democrat politicians on bogus charges and not allow them their day in court? If he halts the next election? If he uses the military against Americans?


Consider these now. If you wait for them to happen you will be dragged along just as you are being now. You are already on here arguing that trump should be allowed to halt any and all funding even though congress is supposed to co trol the purse and you are arguing that judges should have no checks on the executive. Everything you are arguing for is exactly what someone would argue for if they wanted a dictator.

 

[Lutherf]

Are you suggesting that the judge stopped the firings because the judge felt like it? Or did he stop the firings because the trump administration didn't follow the law?

This guy was confirmed by the senate and by law he is only to be fired under certain circumstances. The judge is following the law.

When you suggest that this is just the judge doing what ever they like you are just clearly laying out that I was correct earlier. No matter the clear facts, you will complain about anyone or anything who doesn't immediately aquiesse to trumps wishes without question. You want a dictator. And you will blatantly lie for that cause.


I strongly encourage you to sit and think about exactly what would make you turn on trump. Draw a big bright red line in your head. Would you support him if he starts locking up Democrat politicians on bogus charges and not allow them their day in court? If he halts the next election? If he uses the military against Americans?


Consider these now. If you wait for them to happen you will be dragged along just as you are being now. You are already on here arguing that trump should be allowed to halt any and all funding even though congress is supposed to co trol the purse and you are arguing that judges should have no checks on the executive. Everything you are arguing for is exactly what someone would argue for if they wanted a dictator.

yes, I think the judge ruled based on personal bias and without regard to the Constitution and the laws derived from it

 

[weaver2]

Interesting. It looks like instead of an elected Chief Executive we have appointed judges that are now in charge of the government.

Thank god someone is in charge!!!!!

 

[NolanVoyd]

Oh that is rich!

that is the US constitution.

That is American civics.

That is genius

how are you unaware?

The Republican majority in the legislative branch is already on board on what the Executive branch is doing!

Irrelevant. If they want to change spending as congress they can. The constitution gives congress that role.

They can not hand over that authority to the president.

That is unconstitutional.

I have no doubt they will address the courts if it continues through legislation. Then what will be your excuse?

If it continues through. Legislation there is no issue.

The problem is that what the president is doing is unconstitutional.

That is the issue.

How do you not already know that??....

You never took an oath to defend the constitution did you?

 

[NolanVoyd]

yes, I think the judge ruled based on personal bias and without regard to the Constitution and the laws derived from it

That silly answer reflects your personal bias and lack of regard for the constitution and the laws derived from it.

Reagan would despise MAGA.

 

[hecatmoggie]

This is just more reich-wing bullshit.

The only reason he wasn't removed the last two times is because the corrupt GQP refused to uphold the oath they took.

You need to turn the Faux off.

just to be clear, you fully expect Trump to be impeached again and removed - right? that's what you believe ?

 

[gbg3]

.....and many others who disagree that Trump's actions are lawful. The courts are the place to debate that. However, I think it likely Trump will disobey the lawful court orders and the likes of Turley will tell you why that's OK

Turley isn't talking about disobeying court orders. He's talking about how it's baffling that some within the co-equal judicial branch are trying to interfere with and delay executive actions which properly and solidly fall within the purview of the Executive branch.

 

[Greenbeard]

Turley isn't talking about disobeying court orders.

Alas, that's exactly what this administration has been doing.

Judge finds White House violated order to stop funding freeze

The Trump administration said it intended to appeal the judeg's decision and asked the order to be paused.

www.bbc.com

 

[snakestretcher]

Dump stopped again.

Another Dump order has been blocked by the courts.

MSN

One thing Trump excels at; losing court cases.

Trump loses 93% of cases in court. We know, because we sue Trump and win. - Democracy Forward

democracyforward.org

Trump fraud ruling adds to his string of legal losses in New York

Former President Donald Trump and his company have been winless in a series of costly, cascading high-profile legal battles in New York in the last 14 months.

www.cbsnews.com