All of this just seems like judicial activism. It follows a trend of obstructionism seen in the first Trump administration. Maybe this is a justifiable order based on some legal technicality. But to me and half the country, it seems absurd that the president can’t perform the exec job that he was elected to do, just because a random judge in California appointed by the opposition party wants to undermine the party that was democratically elected to do exactly what they are doing.
> Maybe this is a justifiable order based on some legal technicality.
Not a technicality, there are procedures they have to follow for layoffs and they ignored them. They could do what they wanted, but not this way. This isn't "you didn't dot the I on this page, therefore start over", it's "you completely ignored the law and what any of literally thousands of people in government could have told you was the correct way to do this if you'd asked or cared, start over".
> But to me and half the country, it seems absurd that the president can’t perform the exec job that he was elected to do
He can, but he's not a dictator. He's a servant of the law. In theory, anyway. If the law says "the President must do X and Y to perform layoffs" then the President must do X and Y to perform layoffs or else he isn't doing his job, he's desecrating the office.
> just because a random judge in California appointed by the opposition party wants to undermine the party that was democratically elected to do exactly what they are doing
Fortunately, that's not what's happening here. He even gave the government enormous deference last week when it really, really looked like they were planning not to produce a key witness for cross examination, giving them until this week to sort their shit out, and instead they went "oh we withdraw that person's statement" (which that person had since contradicted, mind you) "and also we won't be producing them". That was kinda key to their case, and now this all looks shady as hell, that is not normal behavior. There are also accusations that at least one administrator was placed on leave for following an earlier order of this court, so there are multiple threads of illegality to track now, because the administration keeps generating them.
The consequence of that breathtaking amount of fucking around is that they're now finding out via the judge granting more-extensive relief for the plaintiffs.
I’m not sure where did you (and half of the country) get the idea that the president is the king (or CEO if you wish) and can do whatever he wants with federal government.
The president’s role is to follow the law and make it happen. President is under the law, and the law covers in great detail how the government suppose to function.
And, fyi, budget is the law too and it originates in congress, not in memecoin named agency. Just like tariffs, which are absolutely abused by Trump at the moment.
It’s all in the constitution.
And if half of the country decides they are above the law we’re going to face extraordinary (and quite bad) times
This is an extraordinarily dumb take. Even if you support the mission of streamlining government, rule of law is still a thing. The president is not a dictator.
The scenario I've been expecting: a judge decides that the actions are illegal, they decide to ignore the judge, and the judge holds them in contempt.
I've heard people calling for impeachment, and I think that's absurd based on what we've seen so far. I don't think these actions have been legal, but we rightly set a pretty high bar for impeachment.
A judge holding the administration in contempt would be a much clearer call for impeachment. And while it's certain not to happen, it would represent a significant change in the overall tone.
They could assuage a lot of concerns by following the judge's order. That would mean that the rule of law was still in effect -- and there is considerable concern that it isn't. Showing that concern to be unjustified would also tamp down a lot of the opposition.
6 comments
[ 11.6 ms ] story [ 145 ms ] threadNot a technicality, there are procedures they have to follow for layoffs and they ignored them. They could do what they wanted, but not this way. This isn't "you didn't dot the I on this page, therefore start over", it's "you completely ignored the law and what any of literally thousands of people in government could have told you was the correct way to do this if you'd asked or cared, start over".
> But to me and half the country, it seems absurd that the president can’t perform the exec job that he was elected to do
He can, but he's not a dictator. He's a servant of the law. In theory, anyway. If the law says "the President must do X and Y to perform layoffs" then the President must do X and Y to perform layoffs or else he isn't doing his job, he's desecrating the office.
> just because a random judge in California appointed by the opposition party wants to undermine the party that was democratically elected to do exactly what they are doing
Fortunately, that's not what's happening here. He even gave the government enormous deference last week when it really, really looked like they were planning not to produce a key witness for cross examination, giving them until this week to sort their shit out, and instead they went "oh we withdraw that person's statement" (which that person had since contradicted, mind you) "and also we won't be producing them". That was kinda key to their case, and now this all looks shady as hell, that is not normal behavior. There are also accusations that at least one administrator was placed on leave for following an earlier order of this court, so there are multiple threads of illegality to track now, because the administration keeps generating them.
The consequence of that breathtaking amount of fucking around is that they're now finding out via the judge granting more-extensive relief for the plaintiffs.
The president’s role is to follow the law and make it happen. President is under the law, and the law covers in great detail how the government suppose to function.
And, fyi, budget is the law too and it originates in congress, not in memecoin named agency. Just like tariffs, which are absolutely abused by Trump at the moment.
It’s all in the constitution.
And if half of the country decides they are above the law we’re going to face extraordinary (and quite bad) times
The scenario I've been expecting: a judge decides that the actions are illegal, they decide to ignore the judge, and the judge holds them in contempt.
I've heard people calling for impeachment, and I think that's absurd based on what we've seen so far. I don't think these actions have been legal, but we rightly set a pretty high bar for impeachment.
A judge holding the administration in contempt would be a much clearer call for impeachment. And while it's certain not to happen, it would represent a significant change in the overall tone.
They could assuage a lot of concerns by following the judge's order. That would mean that the rule of law was still in effect -- and there is considerable concern that it isn't. Showing that concern to be unjustified would also tamp down a lot of the opposition.
Or vice versa.