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

[CO. Hoosier]

Isn't OMB?

Here is what google ai says . . .

Yes, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is considered subject to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to a certain extent, meaning it must follow certain procedural requirements when issuing regulations, particularly regarding the review process of other agencies' rules which are subject to the APA; however, the OMB itself is not typically directly regulated by the APA in its own internal operations.

 

[The Original Happy Goat]

Here is what google ai says

@BradStevens

 

[BradStevens]

Here is what google ai says . . .

Yes, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is considered subject to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to a certain extent, meaning it must follow certain procedural requirements when issuing regulations, particularly regarding the review process of other agencies' rules which are subject to the APA; however, the OMB itself is not typically directly regulated by the APA in its own internal operations.

I think you should read the opinion.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I think you should read the opinion.

I read the salient parts.

 

[The Original Happy Goat]

I read the salient parts.

You didn't realize "irrational and imprudent" was in the same paragraph as "arbitrary and capricious." In fact, you didn't realize "arbitrary and capricious" appeared in the order at all. So, no, you did not read the salient parts. You probably didn't read any of the parts.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

You didn't realize "irrational and imprudent" was in the same paragraph as "arbitrary and capricious." In fact, you didn't realize "arbitrary and capricious" appeared in the order at all. So, no, you did not read the salient parts. You probably didn't read any of the parts.

Don’t tell me what I did. I word searched the order and read everything pertaining to those four words plus more. The judge, for al, practical purposes, has ruled the action is arbitrary and capricious because it is not prudent and is irrational. In other words she disagreed with it. Fair enough, but it isn’t her call.

 

[BradStevens]

Don’t tell me what I did. I word searched the order and read everything pertaining to those four words plus more. The judge, for al, practical purposes, has ruled the action is arbitrary and capricious because it is not prudent and is irrational. In other words she disagreed with it. Fair enough, but it isn’t her call.

The APA and SCt precedent say it is her call. She cites it in the order. I copied it here.

And, at least from her order, it doesn't appear the Defendants disputed that it was her call if she found it arbitrary and capricious.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

The APA and SCt precedent say it is her call. She cites it in the order. I copied it here.

And, at least from her order, it doesn't appear the Defendants disputed that it was her call if she found it arbitrary and capricious.

The argument seems to be that an executive order can be thwarted for improper reasons by enjoining the agency tasked with implementing the order which is subject to those reasons.

I agree to the extent that the agency went beyond the EO.

 

[Cortez88]

Murt, looks like we got ourselves a new professor on the board. School was in session.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Murt, looks like we got ourselves a new professor on the board. School was in session.

like that one prof our rip friend and i had whose RAs projects all revolved around organizing his pills

 

[GooglyMooglyWooglyBoogly]

Justice Roberts slapping down some of these miscreant judges

 

[Mark Milton]

Justice Roberts slapping down some of these miscreant judges

View embedded media

There was literally nothing of substance in the Supreme Court Order. It was a temporary stay to the district court's order until the Supreme Court could receive full briefing--or as much as they can within a less than 2 day window. The Supremes may ultimately rule on the merits, but it is not guaranteed. Typically TROs are not appealable pending a determination as to whether a preliminary injunction will issue.

 

[Mark Milton]

The argument seems to be that an executive order can be thwarted for improper reasons by enjoining the agency tasked with implementing the order which is subject to those reasons.

I agree to the extent that the agency went beyond the EO.

I read the opinion twice now--I see no reference at all that the United States argued that an executive order cannot be a point of contention or thwarted.

 

[UncleMark]

I read the opinion twice now--I see no reference at all that the United States argued that an executive order cannot be a point of contention or thwarted.

COH will never concede any point, no matter how trivial.