Gotta love the way they wreck the system in a matter of days, maybe even hours, and the only recourse is to grind slowly through the overworked court system after the damage is done.
this post was submitted on 15 Feb 2025
116 points (97.5% liked)
politics
20365 readers
3104 users here now
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
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
As our democracy teeters on the brink, what's important is following decorum and protocol.
As our democracy teeters on the brink, what's important is following decorum and protocol.
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.
So putting a stop, even temporarily, to plainly illegal actions by government official(s) is unreasonable if the illegal actions aren't illegal enough? And "illegal enough" doesn't include "taking one of the biggest ever steps to remove one of the largest barriers to corruption"
And that's... Reasonable?
I think the point is, the plaintiffs are telling the judge "this is of the utmost urgency" 21 days after the fact. The judge feels that, if the plaintiffs really felt that it was that urgent they should have acted with urgency themselves. So the judge is giving their request the same level of urgency that they did themselves.
If they had made a similar motion the day after the firing took place, their motion might have been granted, but this seems like a case of "too little too late".
Fuck the judge's feelings though, "if it really was that important you should have complained harder" is an insane take from the worst kind of bad teacher attitude.
It has nothing to do with the jusldge's feelings.whats the point in issuing a Temporary Restraining Order 21 days after the fact when it is moot 30 days after? A TRO on day 1 would have made sense. A TRO on day 21 does nothing but add to the chaos. They are still going forward with other legal arguments but the TRO served no purpose at this point.
The judge hasn't yet decided whether the actions are illegal. If they are, then they will ultimately be put to a stop.
But for now, the question at hand is whether there is an emergency. That is a completely separate from whether the actions are illegal.
And if you wait three weeks to declare an emergency, then it's not an emergency.
In comparison, Reyes said, Trump needs only to provide Congress with 30 days’ notice and a written explanation to remove an inspector general.
She cites the legal procedure in her comments declining the motion. If that's not an acknowledgement of the illegality of what happened instead, what is?
Everyone agrees IGs can be removed after 30 days notice.
The legal question is whether in some cases they can be removed without 30 days notice. Team Trump argues they can, the IGs argue the only way they can be removed is with 30 days notice.
The judge has to decide who's right. Probably the IGs, but at this point it's too late to reinstate them. So instead the IGs will have to argue for money damages.
All those things can be true and it's still an argument on procedural grounds that loses the forest for the trees. Why were they fired? Was that firing legal? For example, the firings prima facie did not follow the statute that she cites about 30 days' notice. This slow judicial response has resulted in an almost complete inability for the system to effectively respond to internal threats over the last 8 years.
The judge needs a motion in front of them to consider. Waiting 21 days to ask for a temporary restraining order in an action that would take effect after 30 days shows a lack of urgency on the part of the plaintiffs and the burden was on the plaintiffs to show urgency in the case.
This is like a little kid watching their brother eat their candy for five minutes, then complaining to their parents when the candy is almost gone.
Don't get me wrong, Trump's actions here were illegal, but the plaintiffs needed to bring their motion for a TRO fast enough that it wasn't nearly moot by the time they did.
I don’t believe such a reason has been given. The 30 day timer hasn’t started yet
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that when we're dealing with unprecedented attacks on democracy maybe people are slow moving at figuring out how they can legally fight back and perhaps it took them that long to put together a legal argument.
Lawyers don't always instantly know the way to fight back or what the best legal route to take is. Maybe they had to consult a bunch of other lawyers over the course of two weeks and then a week to draw up the paperwork?
The courts take for fucking ever, so of all people you'd think they'd understand that legal stuff isn't a fast moving process.
I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that when we’re dealing with unprecedented attacks on democracy maybe people are slow moving at figuring out how they can legally fight back and perhaps it took them that long to put together a legal argument.
Part of the judge's issue was that the court has bigger attacks to deal with than Trump firing these guys faster than he was supposed to.
"We have bigger things to deal with" is not why the judge ruled as she did.
"We have bigger things to deal with" is why she decided not to punish the lawyer who waited three weeks to ask for a TRO.
That isn't actual a legal argument. If a certain recourse is legal, then it is legal no matter how busy the courts may be.
A court saying they are too busy to enforce the law is declaring themselves useless.
Damage is being done every single day this continues, but the judge berated and threatened those asking for the law to be enforced, because they are busy
She said she was too busy to sanction the lawyer who wasted her time. Not too busy to enforce the law.
She declined to fast track the case like the IGs wanted. It will still be handled in due time. Trump fired the IGs without the required 30 day noticed, and if they were reinstated there'd be nothing to stop him from firing them properly, so fast tracking the case wouldn't really accomplish much.
Justice delayed is justice denied
Fair enough to the judge, then.
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.
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.
Look at the first section I quoted - they presented a half baked argument even moving at that pace.
Imagine how much worse it would have been if they rushed it!
Honestly the judge ~~dismissing~~ being dismissive of the case because Trump could just fire them in 30 days is fucking stupid. Like, it was a cut and dried case to begin with and the judge doesn't care because they have other cases.
She didn't dismiss the case, she just refused their request to be reinstated while the case proceeds. And it was an emergency request, where the IGs not filing quickly makes it look less like an emergency.
Sorry, her being dismissive of the case. As in talking down to them about.
She was being dismissive because they were extremely unprofessional. That doesn't mean they will lose in the end. But they failed to show that this is an emergency.