- 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
re: Judge orders Dept. of Education employees to be reinstated
Posted on 5/22/25 at 9:42 pm to atlgamecockman
Posted on 5/22/25 at 9:42 pm to atlgamecockman
quote:
am pro-rule of law
I’ll repeat this again slowly.
This judge has established some arbitrary level of “efficiency” that he says the department is unable to operate at with the dismissed employees.
That’s not a “rule of law.”
That’s a “rule of made up bullshite.”
They don’t make the IRS hire more employees even though it’s less efficient than a Rube Goldberg machine. They don’t make State Department hire more people to process passports.
You’re just mouthing the same words this activist judge said because you like his position. There’s no law behind his ruling.
1
Posted on 5/22/25 at 9:45 pm to atlgamecockman
quote:
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 what he’s saying. But he is really incapable of determining if that’s the case. So are you.
Did he list any statutory requirements of the Dept of Ed that weren’t being accomplished? He did not. Did he demonstrate how D of E isn’t doing what it is required to do? He did not. He threw some words into the ether and chumps like you run to the message board to go “Guys! He’s just following the law.”
He isn’t. He’s going to have his ruling overturned. And it’s just a giant waste of my money and your time.
Posted on 5/22/25 at 9:46 pm to atlgamecockman
Oh bullshite. You’re not going to solve any legal issues on a talk board. Your TDS peaks through your long-winded arguments.
Question for you to see if you can give a one word answer: Do you think there is legal warfare being waged against this administration considering the rash of district judges blockage of Trump’s agenda?
Question for you to see if you can give a one word answer: Do you think there is legal warfare being waged against this administration considering the rash of district judges blockage of Trump’s agenda?
Posted on 5/22/25 at 9:46 pm to atlgamecockman
quote:
Because I am pro-rule of law,
I find it interesting that you lefties parrot this phrase when you support lawfare. SammyTiger said this exact thing when he was supporting the “bring illegal predators back from their home country” before he was embarrassed.
Posted on 5/22/25 at 9:48 pm to the808bass
quote:
This judge has established some arbitrary level of “efficiency” that he says the department is unable to operate at with the dismissed employees.
It's based on the evidence presented to him. By plaintiffs. Which should be countered by evidence to the contrary presented by the defense. Yet there has been none, and defense has presented contradictory arguments as to the reasoning for the RIF.
That's the "arbitrary" decision. It's made on evidence. This guy didn't just wake up one day with no case and say, "I'm gonna file an injunction". That's not how this works.
Posted on 5/22/25 at 9:49 pm to the808bass
quote:
That’s what he’s saying. But he is really incapable of determining if that’s the case. So are you.
Ok so you're making a judgement call on what he's capable of determining. So you don't know shite is what you're saying ha
quote:
Did he list any statutory requirements of the Dept of Ed that weren’t being accomplished? He did not. Did he demonstrate how D of E isn’t doing what it is required to do? He did not.
There's plenty of this context in the injunction but I'm not going to read it to you. I've read the document. There's examples. Because you're too lazy to go find it isn't my problem.
This post was edited on 5/22/25 at 9:52 pm
Posted on 5/22/25 at 9:53 pm to minister of truth
quote:
Question for you to see if you can give a one word answer: Do you think there is legal warfare being waged against this administration considering the rash of district judges blockage of Trump’s agenda?
Short answer: no.
Long answer: no because trump is doing things in stupid ways that are obviously in violation of statutes like this one. If he actually was smart and had smart people around him, don't you think they'd be able to craft policy and arguments that got around these obstacles without getting mired in injunctions and lawsuits?
Bill Clinton managed to cut over 400k jobs from the government without getting his feet caught in the wire. Why? Because he did it in a legal way not like a fricking bull in a china shop.
This post was edited on 5/22/25 at 9:57 pm
Posted on 5/22/25 at 9:54 pm to the808bass
quote:
He isn’t. He’s going to have his ruling overturned. And it’s just a giant waste of my money and your time.
As you know, this is all an attempt to thwart President Trump at every move.
Same strategy as during his 1st term
Posted on 5/22/25 at 9:55 pm to atlgamecockman
quote:
This guy didn't just wake up one day with no case and say, "I'm gonna file an injunction". That's not how this works.
Sweet summer child...
Posted on 5/22/25 at 9:56 pm to atlgamecockman
So Biden was a genius in your eyes because we certainly didn't see this level of obstruction during his 4 years.
Posted on 5/22/25 at 10:00 pm to minister of truth
quote:
So Biden was a genius in your eyes because we certainly didn't see this level of obstruction during his 4 years.
I never said Biden was a genius. He's senile and should've never sniffed the presidency. There was plenty of obstruction of his agenda, student loans for example since we're talking about DoEd.
Great comp here because what he did there was arguably against the statute congress had created and the supreme court agreed. But it was still fought out in the courts.
Posted on 5/22/25 at 10:02 pm to atlgamecockman
LINK
Supreme Court is going to continue to overrule lower courts
“Because the Constitution vests the executive power in the President ... he may remove without cause executive officers who exercise that power on his behalf, subject to narrow exceptions recognized by our precedents,” the majority said in the opinion.
Supreme Court is going to continue to overrule lower courts
“Because the Constitution vests the executive power in the President ... he may remove without cause executive officers who exercise that power on his behalf, subject to narrow exceptions recognized by our precedents,” the majority said in the opinion.
This post was edited on 5/22/25 at 10:06 pm
Posted on 5/22/25 at 10:03 pm to atlgamecockman
quote:
Ok so you're making a judgement call on what he's capable of determining.
I am. And I’m right.
No judge is making the FedGov hire more employees to get to a certain level of efficiency. Why wouldn’t they do that if that’s the argument this judge is making? Because it’s a bullshite argument.
And the next efficient department in DC will be the first.
Posted on 5/22/25 at 10:04 pm to atlgamecockman
quote:
Bill Clinton managed to cut over 400k jobs from the government without getting his feet caught in the wire. Why? Because he did it in a legal way not like a fricking bull in a china shop.
Lololololololololoololololol
Foh
Posted on 5/22/25 at 10:08 pm to atlgamecockman
quote:
Great comp here
No, it's not.
Posted on 5/22/25 at 10:09 pm to minister of truth
Ok that's fine? That's how it's supposed to work.
Here's what's happened:
Plaintiffs filed a motion for injunction on the RIF. The court has to respond to this filing they can't just ignore it.
The judge looking at the evidence presented by both sides (Defense again, little to none and contradictory arguments) grants injunction.
Supreme court will ultimately rule on this case once it's over and DoEd leadership appeals.
You guys are screaming about activist judges, but guess what, judges don't act on shite (except Supreme) unless there is a case before them.
So you live in a country where some people don't think the Executive should be able to do something like this and brought that issue to court with evidence.
What do you expect the court to do? Ignore it?
Here's what's happened:
Plaintiffs filed a motion for injunction on the RIF. The court has to respond to this filing they can't just ignore it.
The judge looking at the evidence presented by both sides (Defense again, little to none and contradictory arguments) grants injunction.
Supreme court will ultimately rule on this case once it's over and DoEd leadership appeals.
You guys are screaming about activist judges, but guess what, judges don't act on shite (except Supreme) unless there is a case before them.
So you live in a country where some people don't think the Executive should be able to do something like this and brought that issue to court with evidence.
What do you expect the court to do? Ignore it?
Posted on 5/22/25 at 10:11 pm to atlgamecockman
The majority also said their stay “reflects our judgment that the Government faces greater risk of harm from an order allowing a removed officer to continue exercising the executive power than a wrongfully removed officer faces from being unable to perform her statutory duty.”
Posted on 5/22/25 at 10:14 pm to minister of truth
Yeah I can read I saw that bit. Great, just saying this is how the legal process is supposed to work.
The whole reason that stay was granted was because people brought the issue to court in the first place.
If lots of people on this board had their way, there'd be no avenue to correct potential wrongs in the court which is re-tar-ded.
The whole reason that stay was granted was because people brought the issue to court in the first place.
If lots of people on this board had their way, there'd be no avenue to correct potential wrongs in the court which is re-tar-ded.
Posted on 5/22/25 at 10:15 pm to atlgamecockman
quote:
You guys are screaming about activist judges, but guess what, judges don't act on shite
You live in a fantasy world if you believe activist judges are not carrying out a political agenda.
Posted on 5/23/25 at 1:15 am to bigjoe1
I guess these clowns missed the SCOTUS ruling on this.
Page 9 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News