Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These are the types of rulings that just have people ignoring judges. You had your fun and did your damage, now you're going to get pushed aside.

These are the types of posts that confirm MAGA are morons.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Apparently Democrats feel they should run the executive branch regardless of election results.

Agencies are funded by Congress.

Agencies fall under the Executive branch of government. Who created the Department of Edumacation? Jimmy Carter.

Do you find cabinet positions in Congress? No.

Was Carter in Congress when he created it?

The judge best review the Constitution. He's out of his lane (again).

You spouting "rule of law" and "democracy" every 15 minutes shows just how clueless you are.

The Department of Education was created by Congress in a law called the Department of Education Organization Act. Several other laws have mandated it perform certain functions and spend certain money for certain purposes. The president is required to follow those laws whether he likes it or not. The judicial branch has the power to decide when he’s not following the law and correct it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Apparently Democrats feel they should run the executive branch regardless of election results.

Apparently the Trump administration doesn’t understand they share power with two other branches. OH, and they clear don’t understand that when you win you are representing and governing for the ENTIRE COUNTRY not just those who voted for you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So now they're just going to be put on administrative leave...and paid to do nothing? This is really sad - he is personally turning government into the waste of money he's always said it was.

What were they doing when they showed up (besides protecting school violence)?

Very little--except, occasionally requiring paperwork by school systems. "Make work."

About half of us were involved in running what is, by outstanding loan balance, the 5th largest lender in the US.

But do go on with your “knowledge”.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So now they're just going to be put on administrative leave...and paid to do nothing? This is really sad - he is personally turning government into the waste of money he's always said it was.

What were they doing when they showed up (besides protecting school violence)?

Very little--except, occasionally requiring paperwork by school systems. "Make work."

About half of us were involved in running what is, by outstanding loan balance, the 5th largest lender in the US.

But do go on with your “knowledge”.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So now they're just going to be put on administrative leave...and paid to do nothing? This is really sad - he is personally turning government into the waste of money he's always said it was.

What were they doing when they showed up (besides protecting school violence)?

Very little--except, occasionally requiring paperwork by school systems. "Make work."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So now they're just going to be put on administrative leave...and paid to do nothing? This is really sad - he is personally turning government into the waste of money he's always said it was.

What were they doing when they showed up (besides protecting school violence)?

Anonymous wrote:So now they're just going to be put on administrative leave...and paid to do nothing? This is really sad - he is personally turning government into the waste of money he's always said it was.

Anonymous wrote:The first sentence of Article II of the U.S. Constitution is "The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America".

Anonymous wrote:Apparently Democrats feel they should run the executive branch regardless of election results.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another Trump failure.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-blocks-trump-bid-dismantle-152410785.html

From the article:

"A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from firing thousands of workers at the Department of Education, ruling that the announced terminations were a thinly veiled effort to dismantle the entire department without congressional approval."

Does the judge have the right to rule this way?
We still have a Department of Education. We still have a Secretary of Education.
Does the executive branch not decide when to staff and destaff?

Their entire argument seems to be that the Executive has to spend all the money Congress appropriates. But there is a long history of agencies returning unspent money to the Treasury. So this is probably a losing argument. The budget is a maximum, not a minimum.

And their entire argument is 100% correct. And you really can’t seem to just google impoundment. So here. This is why they are right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_and_Impoundment_Control_Act_of_1974?wprov=sfti1#

This isn't impoundment though, so I don't know what your point is. This is about appropriate staffing levels. The fact that fewer staff spend less than more staff doesn't make this impoundment. This is something entirely new, and you don't have the judges to make your broad interpretation stick.

Did the administration provide an analysis to support this reduced staffing level?

It doesn't have to. If you think they should have to do so before hiring freezes/VERA/RIFs/RTO then call your Congresscritter.

So a future President can reduce Department of Defense personnel to 0?

The next Democratic candidate should run on that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another Trump failure.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-blocks-trump-bid-dismantle-152410785.html

From the article:

"A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from firing thousands of workers at the Department of Education, ruling that the announced terminations were a thinly veiled effort to dismantle the entire department without congressional approval."

Does the judge have the right to rule this way?
We still have a Department of Education. We still have a Secretary of Education.
Does the executive branch not decide when to staff and destaff?

Their entire argument seems to be that the Executive has to spend all the money Congress appropriates. But there is a long history of agencies returning unspent money to the Treasury. So this is probably a losing argument. The budget is a maximum, not a minimum.

And their entire argument is 100% correct. And you really can’t seem to just google impoundment. So here. This is why they are right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_and_Impoundment_Control_Act_of_1974?wprov=sfti1#

This isn't impoundment though, so I don't know what your point is. This is about appropriate staffing levels. The fact that fewer staff spend less than more staff doesn't make this impoundment. This is something entirely new, and you don't have the judges to make your broad interpretation stick.

Did the administration provide an analysis to support this reduced staffing level?

It doesn't have to. If you think they should have to do so before hiring freezes/VERA/RIFs/RTO then call your Congresscritter.

So a future President can reduce Department of Defense personnel to 0?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another Trump failure.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-blocks-trump-bid-dismantle-152410785.html

From the article:

"A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from firing thousands of workers at the Department of Education, ruling that the announced terminations were a thinly veiled effort to dismantle the entire department without congressional approval."

Does the judge have the right to rule this way?
We still have a Department of Education. We still have a Secretary of Education.
Does the executive branch not decide when to staff and destaff?

Their entire argument seems to be that the Executive has to spend all the money Congress appropriates. But there is a long history of agencies returning unspent money to the Treasury. So this is probably a losing argument. The budget is a maximum, not a minimum.

And their entire argument is 100% correct. And you really can’t seem to just google impoundment. So here. This is why they are right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_and_Impoundment_Control_Act_of_1974?wprov=sfti1#

This isn't impoundment though, so I don't know what your point is. This is about appropriate staffing levels. The fact that fewer staff spend less than more staff doesn't make this impoundment. This is something entirely new, and you don't have the judges to make your broad interpretation stick.

Did the administration provide an analysis to support this reduced staffing level?

It doesn't have to. If you think they should have to do so before hiring freezes/VERA/RIFs/RTO then call your Congresscritter.

So a future President can reduce Department of Defense personnel to 0?

Even better: can a Dem president RIF every ICE agent and move their funding to shelter their undocumented immigrants? The answer is no, and we all know that if a Dem president did that, MAGA would lose their minds.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another Trump failure.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-blocks-trump-bid-dismantle-152410785.html

From the article:

"A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from firing thousands of workers at the Department of Education, ruling that the announced terminations were a thinly veiled effort to dismantle the entire department without congressional approval."

Does the judge have the right to rule this way?
We still have a Department of Education. We still have a Secretary of Education.
Does the executive branch not decide when to staff and destaff?

Their entire argument seems to be that the Executive has to spend all the money Congress appropriates. But there is a long history of agencies returning unspent money to the Treasury. So this is probably a losing argument. The budget is a maximum, not a minimum.

And their entire argument is 100% correct. And you really can’t seem to just google impoundment. So here. This is why they are right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_and_Impoundment_Control_Act_of_1974?wprov=sfti1#

This isn't impoundment though, so I don't know what your point is. This is about appropriate staffing levels. The fact that fewer staff spend less than more staff doesn't make this impoundment. This is something entirely new, and you don't have the judges to make your broad interpretation stick.

Did the administration provide an analysis to support this reduced staffing level?

It doesn't have to. If you think they should have to do so before hiring freezes/VERA/RIFs/RTO then call your Congresscritter.

So a future President can reduce Department of Defense personnel to 0?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another Trump failure.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-blocks-trump-bid-dismantle-152410785.html

From the article:

"A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from firing thousands of workers at the Department of Education, ruling that the announced terminations were a thinly veiled effort to dismantle the entire department without congressional approval."

Does the judge have the right to rule this way?
We still have a Department of Education. We still have a Secretary of Education.
Does the executive branch not decide when to staff and destaff?

Their entire argument seems to be that the Executive has to spend all the money Congress appropriates. But there is a long history of agencies returning unspent money to the Treasury. So this is probably a losing argument. The budget is a maximum, not a minimum.

And their entire argument is 100% correct. And you really can’t seem to just google impoundment. So here. This is why they are right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_and_Impoundment_Control_Act_of_1974?wprov=sfti1#

This isn't impoundment though, so I don't know what your point is. This is about appropriate staffing levels. The fact that fewer staff spend less than more staff doesn't make this impoundment. This is something entirely new, and you don't have the judges to make your broad interpretation stick.

Did the administration provide an analysis to support this reduced staffing level?

It doesn't have to. If you think they should have to do so before hiring freezes/VERA/RIFs/RTO then call your Congresscritter.