politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
She.
Also, yes, she blocked it for a week. She blocked it immediately because it has a significant chance of causing harm if it were to take effect immediately. This gives her time to consider the issue and give a real ruling. The fact that she blocked the order from going into effect so quickly indicates that she thinks that she is likely to block the order altogether.
You're right, it's not a "major loss" for Trump yet, but it is shaping up to be one. I expect she will block this, it will get appealed to the DC Court of Appeals who will affirm, then SCOTUS will decline to hear the subsequent appeal.
You have more faith in them than I do.
Also, likelihood of success on the merits. It's a flag that the judge is pretty confident that the order will be struck down after going through all the procedures. Those take times, which is why chance of causing harm is also considered. If it's both likely to succeed on the merits, and would hurt if not blocked right now (and a few other things), then it shouldn't be allowed to play out while all the procedure is being done.
Thanks, yes. This is what I was trying to say but didn't quite manage to state correctly.
I think OP meant that trump blocked the funding for a week, which is a win for him.
It had been set to begin Jan 28 at 5pm, so no, it hasn't had any effect yet.
Trump's order never went into effect. The judge blocked his order before it could take effect.
It's unlikely that it will ever take effect either as evidenced by the injunction. The judge wouldn't have issued an injunction if she didn't think there was: