- 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: Non Profits and others file lawsuit against Trump "We want our MONEY!"
Posted on 1/28/25 at 4:07 pm to BCreed1
Posted on 1/28/25 at 4:07 pm to BCreed1
The Arizona AG is suing for the same reason. I get it if the funding was specifically earmarked for X program or X organization for Y reason then they have an argument but if it was just “X is appropriated for generic Y” without specific earmarking then the executive has leeway in how to dole that out.
0
Posted on 1/28/25 at 4:08 pm to BCreed1
Why not investigate how much NGO money was kicked back to the Dims?
Posted on 1/28/25 at 4:09 pm to SlowFlowPro
you sir are full of it
Posted on 1/28/25 at 4:10 pm to JellyRoll
quote:
All I know is, I have been in the wrong area of earning money. I could have been 1 of 55-60,000 "non-profits" making millions each year.
I've thought the same. Looking at the money they've been pulling down especially during the Biden administration, I've told myself that I'm in the wrong business. Many of these NGO contracts are also no-bid meaning they did not have to bid against anyone. They were just awarded the contract.
Posted on 1/28/25 at 4:10 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
But you could do this without going to court.
Let's go to court and have the issues of who has the power. Then, we are done with it.
You should be happy as much as you have defended the lawfare against Trump over the years.
This post was edited on 1/28/25 at 4:14 pm
Posted on 1/28/25 at 4:22 pm to canyon
quote:
The government doesn’t owe any handouts to anyone. They can pull Fed money any time they wish.
“They”? Who is they? That’s the bone of contention, not what you posted. The plaintiffs are contending that the President can’t do it, not that the government can’t do it.
Posted on 1/28/25 at 4:26 pm to BCreed1
quote:
Let's go to court and have the issues of who has the power.
Congress, via the APA. We don't need to go to court again to decide this. It's well-settled law with many USSC cases discussing it (again, go read the DACA decision for the last big one).
The APA regulates the procedure over the vast majority of executive actions (including things like EOs and regulatory policy changes).
Posted on 1/28/25 at 4:31 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The APA regulates the procedure over the vast majority of executive actions
Isn't the argument that the APA has become disconnected from oversight/the law?
Posted on 1/28/25 at 4:34 pm to David_DJS
I don't think anyone has sincerely tried to make that argument at the appellate level.
The USSC ruling on the DACA repeal is from late 2020, IIRC, and no major case has occurred since then that I can remember (but if someone has a case feel free to post).
The USSC ruling on the DACA repeal is from late 2020, IIRC, and no major case has occurred since then that I can remember (but if someone has a case feel free to post).
Posted on 1/28/25 at 4:48 pm to jizzle6609
quote:
I didnt know every single AG was black in this country. Kind of amazing.
There's been an aggressive DEI hiring frenzy in this country over the last several years. Black women were benefitting disproportionately well from it.
Posted on 1/28/25 at 4:49 pm to Cleary Rebels
quote:
Why is it illegal?
Because it's Trump and OMB and he's "Literally Hitler."
Posted on 1/28/25 at 5:32 pm to SlowFlowPro
How, exactly, would the APA limit what Trump is doing because I'm not seeing it in reading the act
Posted on 1/28/25 at 6:32 pm to dafif
quote:
How, exactly, would the APA limit what Trump is doing because I'm not seeing it in reading the act
The USSC ruled that there are certain steps that have to be taken in order for his actions to be lawful. The DACA ruling spells it out.
Posted on 1/28/25 at 6:57 pm to 2 Jugs
Does anyone have the actual order I've looked for it but only see slanted articles
Posted on 1/28/25 at 7:06 pm to dafif
Posted on 1/28/25 at 7:07 pm to dafif
Any body notice that the activists all over the news this evening were about 350 pounds no where near starving to death. I saw a note that medicade has about 70 million folks signed up. Does that mean 25%. of the US population is below poverty level.
Posted on 1/28/25 at 7:08 pm to 2 Jugs
Ha ha - I just re-read SCOTUS on DACA - I'm asking about this judge opinion / written order
What I have gathered is that the stay is until Monday when the other side must show actual harm to support continuing the injunction
My reading and analysis of DACA is that it does not appear to apply to this specific case because of many factors - primarily because a program is not being terminated
What I have gathered is that the stay is until Monday when the other side must show actual harm to support continuing the injunction
My reading and analysis of DACA is that it does not appear to apply to this specific case because of many factors - primarily because a program is not being terminated
Posted on 1/28/25 at 7:09 pm to BCreed1
frick. How will we learn if Goats can train donkeys to sort tiny screws?????
Posted on 1/28/25 at 7:22 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
But executive fiat is typically regulated by the APA. There are certain limited actions that may not require any oversight, and others that require Senate oversight, etc., but 95%+ of executive actions are regulated by the APA.
If they just do it right the first time, all the unnecessary drama is eliminated. The admin runs the risk of having the whole executive action invalidated, as well (like the DACA repeal from Trump's first admin).
H/T MFnGIMP
quote:
5 U.S.C § 553 (a) This section applies, according to the provisions thereof, except to the extent that there is involved— …
(2) a matter relating to agency management or personnel or to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts
Posted on 1/29/25 at 6:22 am to Tigers0918
quote:
no, but funding is done by congress. The president can't just decide what to spend money on all by himself. If congress wants to get rid of all of these programs, they just need to pass a spending bill that gets rid of it.
Now this is where those omnibus spending bills come back to bite you in the arse. The vast administrative staff cant "decide" broadly defined funding intended to help the needy, is defined as giving to non profits who then participate in the largest human smuggling operation known to man.
The Office of Management and Budget decides that. It has just never been challenged before, execpt with Ross Vought moved, successfully, money from defense to build the wall. Expect a lot more pulling of purse strings to prevent wasteful spending in this administration, a lot more.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News