Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
Reply to "Elon Musk’s role leading DOGE qualifies as ‘continuing and permanent,’ federal judge says"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous]Time for Elon Musk to be held responsibility for his poorly executed and unfeeling actions. [quote]In its bid to have a lawsuit against Elon Musk, the Department of Government Efficiency and President Donald Trump dismissed, the White House had “unsuccessfully” tried to define Musk’s role in the federal government as temporary, a district court judge in Washington, D.C., said in an order out Tuesday. A group of 14 states, led by New Mexico, had sued Musk, DOGE and Trump in February for allegedly violating the Constitution. The states’ attorneys general argued that Musk lacked the legal authority to make sweeping cuts and other changes to the federal government because he is not a Senate-confirmed officer of the government, and DOGE was never authorized by Congress. Attorneys for the White House, in a motion they filed hoping to have the case dismissed, characterized Musk as holding an advisory and temporary job in the Trump administration only. The judge in the federal court, Tanya Chutkan, found that Musk’s reach extendS throughout the executive branch without any known limits, even though the White House had tried to “minimize Musk’s role, framing him as a mere advisor without any formal authority.” Judge Chutkan wrote that the 14 states made a credible argument that the tech billionaire and Trump megadonor now “occupies a continuing position” and “exercises significant authority,” all without “proper appointment” by Congress. She also wrote that the states’ allegations that DOGE had gained “unauthorized access” to “private and proprietary information” were “sufficient to allege an injury,” and that the case can move forward.[/quote][/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics