If you thought the President ran the executive department . . .

[CO. Hoosier]

. . . You would be wrong.

Yesterday, Judge Alikhan decided she can supersede the executive decisions of a President if she determines said decisions are “irrational or imprudent”. In other words, Presidential discretionary decisions are subject to whether a federal judge would agree. The judge did not rule based upon such mundane constitutional standards such as due process, scope of presidential authority, or the commerce clause. No she went to a new and broader standard of whether she thought the presidential decision was prudent or irrational. She used her personal political views, expressed as being rational and prudent to overrule the President. At issue was Trumps spending pause.

Oh, here she is denying she would use her personal beliefs to decide cases.



See

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-administration-news-02-25-25?Date=20250225&Profile=cnnbrk&utm_content=1740515906&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter#cm7ksr5as00003b6qo37x2dw3

 

[HurryingHoosiers]

hmm. so now it's an issue when it happens to Trump but celebrated when it happened to Biden.

interesting.

I wonder if we can build a statue of her for being a hero.

 

[GooglyMooglyWooglyBoogly]

Obama/ Biden nominees are a threat to the rule of law.

 

[hookyIU1990]

hmm. so now it's an issue when it happens to Trump but celebrated when it happened to Biden.

interesting.

I wonder if we can build a statue of her for being a hero.

When did this happen to Biden? I'm interested to know of a similar incident.

 

[HurryingHoosiers]

When did this happen to Biden? I'm interested to know of a similar incident.

I seem to recall all of Biden's student loan assistance attempts thwarted by judges.

 

[HurryingHoosiers]

Obama/ Biden nominees are a threat to the rule of law.

I think you meant they are a threat to dictator Trump

 

[hookyIU1990]

I seem to recall all of Biden's student loan assistance attempts thwarted by judges.

I think you misspelled the Constitution. It doesn't start with a J.

I haven't read the opinion, but the CNN article makes no mention of legal reasoning.

 

[UncleMark]

I think you misspelled the Constitution. It doesn't start with a J.

I haven't read the opinion, but the CNN article makes no mention of legal reasoning.

I doubt the ruling was Constitutionally based. In fact, very few are until they get to the Supremes.

 

[mcmurtry66]

COH UNIVERSITY
CLASS IS IN SESSION!!!!!!!! 2:00 2/26/25
432: The Presidency and Executive Power

 

[hookyIU1990]

I doubt the ruling was Constitutionally based. In fact, very few are until they get to the Supremes.

I glanced through the ruling, but I'm not a lawyer and tapped out pretty quickly. I suppose since it's a temp restraining order, it doesn't matter as long as the judge has reason to believe that there's a chance it can be won. The idea that it was similar to Biden's student loan fiasco is kind of funny though. That went all the way to SCOTUS and was shot down, then he still looked for ways to get it done. Both sides are off the rails with this stuff.

 

[The Original Happy Goat]

I glanced through the ruling, but I'm not a lawyer and tapped out pretty quickly. I suppose since it's a temp restraining order, it doesn't matter as long as the judge has reason to believe that there's a chance it can be won. The idea that it was similar to Biden's student loan fiasco is kind of funny though. That went all the way to SCOTUS and was shot down, then he still looked for ways to get it done. Both sides are off the rails with this stuff.

It doesn't say what OP claims it says. It's just saying that the plaintiffs meet the requirements for an injunction.

 

[UncleMark]

It doesn't say what OP claims it says. It's just saying that the plaintiffs meet the requirements for an injunction.

OP? As in COH? Tell me you're not suggesting he could be posting bullshit.

 

[HurryingHoosiers]

OP? As in COH? Tell me you're not suggesting he could be posting bullshit.

 

[mcmurtry66]

It doesn't say what OP claims it says. It's just saying that the plaintiffs meet the requirements for an injunction.

Stretch your legs young man. In the lead for the A star. 45 minutes left still.

 

[The Original Happy Goat]

OP? As in COH? Tell me you're not suggesting he could be posting bullshit.

Let's just say he's getting out a little bit over his skis.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

It doesn't say what OP claims it says. It's just saying that the plaintiffs meet the requirements for an injunction.

That is what it looks like, the petitioners had a claim of immediate adversity without an injunction and the court made it. She hasn't said the president cannot do it, just that he can't do it yet. Am I wrong?

In TV shows judges always seem to reference "capricious and arbitrary". It turns out that wasn't "Capri Suns and arbitrary" who knew? I assume what she said is her speech for "capricious and arbitrary".

 

[snarlcakes]

Let's just say he's getting out a little bit over his skis.

Over his skis? Son, you just crashed and rolled all the way down the mountain. Hopefully, CO, lets you live.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Over his skis? Son, you just crashed and rolled all the way down the mountain. Hopefully, CO, lets you live.

Just an exercise from COH

 

[snarlcakes]

Just an exercise from COH

I can see him now, shaking his head as he devours his Grand Slam. The only time he looks up is to wink at Mrs. CO. She’s a lucky lady.