this post was submitted on 15 Feb 2025
116 points (97.5% liked)

politics

20378 readers
3719 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The judge threatened to sanction the IG lawyers if they didn't immediately rescind the request for an emergency hearing because she's so busy with other cases caused by Trump.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 week ago (25 children)

The inspectors general in this case had argued that a judge’s order this week to temporarily reinstate another government watchdog — Hampton Dellinger, the head of the Office of Special Counsel — while that court challenge progresses had supported their own request to have the inspectors general immediately reinstated while their case proceeds.

But Reyes deemed that argument flimsy and scolded the plaintiffs for making it. Dellinger, Reyes said, leads an independent agency, and Trump needs a strong reason to remove him. In comparison, Reyes said, Trump needs only to provide Congress with 30 days’ notice and a written explanation to remove an inspector general. She added that even if she had immediately reinstated the watchdogs Friday, the president could simply move to have them fired again after 30 days.

So the IGs didn't make a strong argument...

In particular, Reyes admonished the plaintiffs for waiting 21 days after the inspectors general were fired to request a temporary restraining order, an emergency motion that requires the court to move immediately to hear the case because the matter is so urgent.

Using the legal parlance for a temporary restraining order, she continued, “Are we really here right now on the sixth hearing of this day for me to decide whether to grant a TRO given the circumstances that you guys could not even bother filing a TRO for 21 days?”

And they waited 3 weeks to do it. The judge making them take the slower route seems reasonable.

[–] spankmonkey 6 points 1 week ago (6 children)

Guess they should have just rushed a half baked arguement faster instead of spending the time trying to make sure the case would set a solid precedent.

[–] FlowVoid 2 points 1 week ago

When you ask for a TRO, you are asking for temporary measures due to an emergency. They aren't your last word, you are expected to follow up later with your full argument.

This is equivalent to asking your teacher for an extension three weeks after the assignment was due. A complete fail.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (23 replies)