- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 5/22/25 at 6:14 pm to atlgamecockman
Were positions created? Or was a department created? When Congress created the DOE, did they attach a list of mandatory positions that had to be permanently filled?
Posted on 5/22/25 at 6:17 pm to bigjoe1
Gee judge. How did Jimmy establish it?
Like how did Biden bring in all those illegals.
Like how did Biden bring in all those illegals.
Posted on 5/22/25 at 6:17 pm to bigjoe1
Imagine a judge telling an employer that it can't fire its employees.
Posted on 5/22/25 at 6:31 pm to TrueTiger
quote:
Bring them back and reassign as janitors.
Nah, frick that. I don’t want them cleaning federal buildings that most of us will never even enter. Put them to work doing something that benefits the people who pay their salaries, namely the American taxpayer …
Posted on 5/22/25 at 8:59 pm to Jack Carter
quote:
Imagine a judge telling an employer that it can't fire its employees.
Ever heard of wrongful termination? Lol you can't be this stupid...
Posted on 5/22/25 at 9:02 pm to atlgamecockman
Is that what the judge said? They were wrongfully terminated?
Posted on 5/22/25 at 9:03 pm to Ponchy Tiger
quote:
Judge doesn't have the authority to do this
Correct.
Posted on 5/22/25 at 9:12 pm to the808bass
Ok your honor we have positions available in Point Barrow Alaska..
Posted on 5/22/25 at 9:12 pm to the808bass
No I was answering his hypothetical. In this particular case Trump's lawers are arguing that it is, but have provided no evidence. Injunction Text
the key factors are thus:
the key factors are thus:
quote:
Defendants do acknowledge, as they must, that the Department cannot be shut down without Congress’s approval, yet they simultaneously claim that their legislative goals (obtaining Congressional approval to shut down the Department) are distinct from their administrative goals (improving efficiency). There is nothing in the record to support these contradictory positions. Not only is there no evidence that Defendants are pursuing a “legislative goal” or otherwise working with Congress to reach a resolution, but there is also no evidence that the reduction in force has actually made the Department more efficient. Rather, the record is replete with evidence of the opposite. Consolidated Plaintiffs have demonstrated that the Department will not be able to carry out its statutory functions—and in some cases, is already unable to do so—and Defendants have proffered no evidence to the contrary. Defendants fail to understand Plaintiffs’ claims which is evident by their attempt to frame this case as an unlawful terminations employment action. As fully explained below, a preliminary injunction is warranted to return the Department to the status quo such that it can comply with its statutory obligations.
This post was edited on 5/22/25 at 9:14 pm
Posted on 5/22/25 at 9:14 pm to atlgamecockman
Right. You’re constantly and continually making arguments that that judge isn’t making.
Why don’t you just defend the judge’s argument explicitly rather than making up hypotheticals about it. You’ll sound even more retarded. Bit that will be fun for us.
Why don’t you just defend the judge’s argument explicitly rather than making up hypotheticals about it. You’ll sound even more retarded. Bit that will be fun for us.
This post was edited on 5/22/25 at 9:15 pm
Posted on 5/22/25 at 9:15 pm to LawyerBillboards
quote:
I'm legitimately curious if these judges are able to do this because the departments are carrying out functions EXPLICITLY laid out and funded by congress.
This is correct.
There is an entire process laid out in law regarding RIF and reorganization. The Executive Branch doesn't just get to do whatever they want. They must work with Congress, get public comments, etc.
Judicial Branch is just holding the Executive Branch accountable in following the process. I don't have an issue with that. Checks and balances.
The pendulum will swing the other way and there will be a Democrat as the POTUS someday and I'll be glad their powers are also limited and there are checks and balances in place.
Posted on 5/22/25 at 9:16 pm to SoDakHawk
quote:
This is correct.
No. It isn’t.
Posted on 5/22/25 at 9:21 pm to the808bass
I mean I just posted the judge's injunction... it's there for you to read... it even references the same laws I mentioned before...
ETA: This is separation of powers made manifest. It's like a textbook example. I think there should be checks and balances. I believe in that as a person. I am defending the judge's position that the reduction in force was unlawful according to the facts of the motion, made by plaintiffs against the government. Do you disagree?
ETA 2: Here's the other thing. It's not even the judge's position! His hands are tied! The defendant aka McMahon has provided no evidence and has made contradictory arguments. Like what do you want him to do? He was assigned this case at random and the arguments and facts have been laid out by both sides. There's been no meaningful defense from Trump's own people!
ETA: This is separation of powers made manifest. It's like a textbook example. I think there should be checks and balances. I believe in that as a person. I am defending the judge's position that the reduction in force was unlawful according to the facts of the motion, made by plaintiffs against the government. Do you disagree?
ETA 2: Here's the other thing. It's not even the judge's position! His hands are tied! The defendant aka McMahon has provided no evidence and has made contradictory arguments. Like what do you want him to do? He was assigned this case at random and the arguments and facts have been laid out by both sides. There's been no meaningful defense from Trump's own people!
This post was edited on 5/22/25 at 9:27 pm
Posted on 5/22/25 at 9:26 pm to atlgamecockman
The judge is making a determination as to the efficiency of the department.
There is no statutory number of employees (past the eight or so you listed) the department has to maintain.
You’re not looking smarter advancing this argument (but at least you’ve read it now).
There is no statutory number of employees (past the eight or so you listed) the department has to maintain.
You’re not looking smarter advancing this argument (but at least you’ve read it now).
Posted on 5/22/25 at 9:27 pm to atlgamecockman
quote:
It's not even the judge's position! His hands are tied!
You’re high on crack cocaine.
Posted on 5/22/25 at 9:31 pm to bigjoe1
No
Posted on 5/22/25 at 9:35 pm to the808bass
quote:
You’re high on crack cocaine.
It's at this point I know you're beyond help and I should save the rest of my braincells but I'm going to try to get through once more.
quote:
The judge is making a determination as to the efficiency of the department.
This is incorrect. He is making a determination on whether or not the elimination of these roles violates the statutory duties assigned by Congress to the DoE. That's it.
Congress has said via law, Executive branch, do xyz. Well guess what, you need to actually hire people to do shite. If you fire all the people in an office that do that thing, then no one is doing it and the Executive is in violation of the law.
That is the issue at hand.
Congress must make these changes. And I'm not sure if you've noticed, but beyond pushing up the debt ceiling every once in a while, they don't do a lot. So I wouldn't hold my breath on eliminating the DoEd anytime soon.
This post was edited on 5/22/25 at 9:38 pm
Posted on 5/22/25 at 9:37 pm to atlgamecockman
you’re determined to win this debate. why are you so invested in it? Just admit that you are pro-legal warfare as long as the Orange Man is in the executive office. You sure desire a win for your team.
And can you point out a previous instance in another administration where Congress dictated to the President that they couldn’t reduce the size of an executive department?
And can you point out a previous instance in another administration where Congress dictated to the President that they couldn’t reduce the size of an executive department?
This post was edited on 5/22/25 at 9:39 pm
Posted on 5/22/25 at 9:39 pm to minister of truth
quote:
you’re determined to win this debate. why are you so invested in it? Just admit that you are pro-legal warfare as long as the Orange Man is in the executive office. You sure desire a win for your team.
Because I am pro-rule of law, not pro-do whatever the frick Trump thinks is good. that's what separates us from the Turkeys, Hungarys and North Koreas of the world.
I can assure you also that if such a RIF ocurred unlawfully under any president, I would be against it. If Biden came around and said "hey I'm just gonna fire half of ICE because I feel like it", I wouldn't blindly support that because it's against the law.
This post was edited on 5/22/25 at 9:41 pm
Page 8 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News