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.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

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

That’s not an insult.

 

[UncleMark]

That’s not an insult.

I get that it's a point of pride for you.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

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.

We know the judge thwarted an EO using a standard not applicable to an EO.

She obviously wrote a result oriented opinion. No way to know what the government argued. The case is not about an organic OMB action.

 

[Mark Milton]

We know the judge thwarted an EO using a standard not applicable to an EO.

She obviously wrote a result oriented opinion. No way to know what the government argued. The case is not about an organic OMB action.

Of course there’s a way to know that the government didn’t make that argument go look on pacer. They did not make that argument.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Of course there’s a way to know that the government didn’t make that argument go look on pacer. They did not make that argument.

I don’t have access to pacer

They should have argued it.

What did they argue? Just what the judge said about OMB? Did they argue this OMB decision wasn’t subject to APA?

I bet you a six-pack SCOTUS. Wil address President’s authority.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

We know the judge thwarted an EO using a standard not applicable to an EO.

She obviously wrote a result oriented opinion. No way to know what the government argued. The case is not about an organic OMB action.

A federal court just ordered the office of personnel management to rescind its order to carry out the presidents layoff order.

This work around on attacking Article II authority will be in the Supreme Court quickly.

 

[GooglyMooglyWooglyBoogly]

A federal court just ordered the office of personnel management to rescind its order to carry out the presidents layoff order.

This work around on attacking Article II authority will be in the Supreme Court quickly.

Thank god. Maybe the Supremes can finally put to rest the age old question that has confounded generations of Democratic jurists.

“Who runs the executive branch?”

Perhaps in lieu of majority opinion they could offer a link to school house rock.

 

[Joe_Hoopsier]

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

It's almost like we can all hear CoH's belt being ripped out and slapping against each belt loop, as he is giving an education. 56 yrs old and it still makes the hairs on my neck stand up.

 

[hookyIU1990]

It's almost like we can all hear CoH's belt being ripped out and slapping against each belt loop, as he is giving an education. 56 yrs old and it still makes the hairs on my neck stand up.

This hurts me more than it hurts you.

 

[Joe_Hoopsier]

This hurts me more than it hurts you.

Dad, that proved to be total B#$$shit!

 

[hoot1]

Thank god. Maybe the Supremes can finally put to rest the age old question that has confounded generations of Democratic jurists.

“Who runs the executive branch?”

Perhaps in lieu of majority opinion they could offer a link to school house rock.

The President heads the Executive branch, but the Constitution limits his powers along with giving Congress important powers.

Since the Founders, some 30,000 statutes have been passed by Congress. Some of these statutes which the bureaucrats in the 15 Executive Departments have administered for years are now being challenged by the current Trump administration.

Trump and Company take the position they were elected to rewrite the statutes which the bureaucratrats have interpreted to suit a leftist ideology.

 

[UncleMark]

I don’t have access to pacer

They should have argued it.

What did they argue? Just what the judge said about OMB? Did they argue this OMB decision wasn’t subject to APA?

I bet you a six-pack SCOTUS. Wil address President’s authority.

I'm confused. First it was a bad judge. Now it's bad lawyering.

Maybe they're in cahoots. Deep State and all that.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

The President heads the Executive branch, but the Constitution limits his powers along with giving Congress important powers.

Since the Founders, some 30,000 statutes have been passed by Congress. Some of these statutes which the bureaucrats in the 15 Executive Departments have administered for years are now being challenged by the current Trump administration.

Trump and Company take the position they were elected to rewrite the statutes which the bureaucratrats have interpreted to suit a leftist ideology.

Statutes cannot limit Article II authority.

But your point has some merit. Agencies created by law have the authority specified in the statute. The president can’t modify that even though that agency is in the executive department. That said, none of that can diminish the Presidents constitutional authority. Today’s California decision regarding the office of personal management Is a clearer example of the court problem than yesterday’s OMB decision. In my view both decisions have the same problem.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I'm confused.

Agreed.

 

[twenty02]

A federal court just ordered the office of personnel management to rescind its order to carry out the presidents layoff order.

This work around on attacking Article II authority will be in the Supreme Court quickly.

Because they screwed up. OPM can't order any other agency to do shit. For some reason Musk and DOGE thought they could just issue demands for agencies to fire people via OPM memos. Same as the email demands. OPM is not in any chain of command, other than firing their own employees


Trump has since put out an EO to agency heads to begin a RIF process. Which is totally legitimate. But a completely different process.