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.

 

[hoot1]

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.

Agree Congressional statutes cannot limit Article II authority, but Presidential powers under Article II are limited as this article in part explains ...

The powers of the president of the United States include those explicitly granted by Article II of the United States Constitution as well as those granted by Acts of Congress, implied powers, and also a great deal of soft power that is attached to the presidency.[1]

The Constitution explicitly assigns the president the power to sign or veto legislation, command the armed forces, ask for the written opinion of their Cabinet, convene or adjourn Congress, grant reprieves and pardons, and receive ambassadors. The president shall take care that the laws are faithfully executed and the president has the power to appoint and remove executive officers. The president may make treaties, which need to be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate, and is accorded those foreign-affairs functions not otherwise granted to Congress or shared with the Senate. Thus, the president can control the formation and communication of foreign policy and can direct the nation's diplomatic corps. The president may also appoint Article III judges and some officers with the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate. In the condition of a Senate recess, the president may make a temporary appointment.

Is reducing the number of employees required to execute a Congressional statute (the so-called Reduction in Force RIF) a power granted to the President under Article II?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Is reducing the number of employees required to execute a Congressional statute (the so-called Reduction in Force RIF) a power granted to the President under Article II?

Yes.

Presidential powers under Article II are limited as this article in part explains ...

Of course they are limited. The powers of the whole of government are limited. The problem is that too many, both inside and out Of government, and in every branch, believe the federal government has unlimited power to govern. It most definitely does not. But those in power are constantly pushing the limits and sadly many people actually want that. This notion necessarily affects how we look at the powers of the president.

Now along comes Trump who is taking significant measures to limit that expansion and curtail the power scope and authority of the federal government and many call him a dictator.

Sigh.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

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.

Seriously, why is DOGE meeting so much resistance. Cutting waste fraud and abuse has been the guide post for both parties for decades, but nothing ever happens. This elaborate review and action plan will produce screw ups. So what? There would be fewer with even a modicum of bipartisan Support.

It’s a minor matter, but when I read that we are paying for software and licenses for various computer programs throughout government that are never installed or used I wonder wtf? Doesn’t anybody in government give a damn about efficiency and effectiveness. Isn’t anybody taking care of business? Crap like this wouldn’t even be noticed but for Musk and his whiz kids.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Yes.

Of course they are limited. The powers of the whole of government are limited. The problem is that too many, both inside and out Of government, and in every branch, believe the federal government has unlimited power to govern. It most definitely does not. But those in power are constantly pushing the limits and sadly many people actually want that. This notion necessarily affects how we look at the powers of the president.

Now along comes Trump who is taking significant measures to limit that expansion and curtail the power scope and authority of the federal government and many call him a dictator.

Sigh.

Early in this thread I asked, "If Congress allocated a million for cancer research, can the prez say, "nope, not spending a penny". If he can, what good is the power of the purse?"

That still stands. The executive branch certainly has a role to play. largely speaking it has had wide latitude in interpreting congress. But I am not personally sure that it is decided that the legislative branch can fund something like USAID and the president can say, "no", other than through a veto. Otherwise I don't know what power there is to "power of the purse".

In political discussion terms I see the debate being framed around King Louis the XIV saying, "L'etat c'est moi". Is the president the state? For well over a generation the state has been the bureaucracy created in some partnership between president and congress. If we are moving to the state being the president, we need to have that discussion. Should congress just say, "here's $7 trillion, spend it as you will"?

When is the last time a president fired a very large percentage of the government workforce? Since no president, since the jobs were patronage, has exercised such a power isn't it logical there is a debate if such a power exists?

 

[twenty02]

Seriously, why is DOGE meeting so much resistance. Cutting waste fraud and abuse has been the guide post for both parties for decades, but nothing ever happens. This elaborate review and action plan will produce screw ups. So what? There would be fewer with even a modicum of bipartisan Support.

It’s a minor matter, but when I read that we are paying for software and licenses for various computer programs throughout government that are never installed or used I wonder wtf? Doesn’t anybody in government give a damn about efficiency and effectiveness. Isn’t anybody taking care of business? Crap like this wouldn’t even be noticed but for Musk and his whiz kids.

Because it's havoc and chaos. Top down nanomanging is the bane of every person that's ever worked in a large organization. Firing every single probationary employee in the govt is not the action of someone serious about efficiency. They are just looking for skulls and quick wins to post onto X


GAO puts out reports annually for actual waste, fraud and abuse. DOGE hasn't even bothered to talk with them.

 

[Mark Milton]

Yes.

Of course they are limited. The powers of the whole of government are limited. The problem is that too many, both inside and out Of government, and in every branch, believe the federal government has unlimited power to govern. It most definitely does not. But those in power are constantly pushing the limits and sadly many people actually want that. This notion necessarily affects how we look at the powers of the president.

Now along comes Trump who is taking significant measures to limit that expansion and curtail the power scope and authority of the federal government and many call him a dictator.

Sigh.

I guess that would be the both eyes shut viewpoint.

The reality is, even under your hypothetical, Trump isn't limiting expansion of the federal government--he's consolidating it into one person/one branch--his. Whatever label you want to put on Trump is irrelevant. What is relevant is what he is doing. He isn't doing this because he is some benevolent guy.

What's odd is that you took a completely opposite position when Obama issued executive orders.....

Remember the words of JFK where he talked about thinking he would have power in the house of representatives, and he didn't. So he ran for senate and thought he'd have power--then discovered he he didn't. When he was elected president he thought "well now I will have power", and he discovered he didn't and thought about it and said I get it now.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

This elaborate review and action plan will produce screw ups.

Are you sure it is elaborate? The amount they claim to be saving isn't meeting up with any reality to what experts are coming up with. Musk is finding 150 year olds on Social Security, if this were "elaborate" wouldn't his whiz kids have known that is how COBOL was designed and Social Security cuts checks at 115? If it were elaborate, whouldn't they have worked out the "5 things this week" email with the agencies? Would they have cut the nuclear weapons people?

This seems more like a bonzai charge than an elaborate plan.

 

[Mark Milton]

Because it's havoc and chaos. Top down nanomanging is the bane of every person that's ever worked in a large organization. Firing every single probationary employee in the govt is not the action of someone serious about efficiency. They are just looking for skulls and quick wins to post onto X


GAO puts out reports annually for actual waste, fraud and abuse. DOGE hasn't even bothered to talk with them.

When should we talk about the grift Elon is pulling with Starlink? He canceled the verizon contract with the FAA and said "nah, we gotta get starlink in here to fix this. Who would have guessed that would happen? An egregious conflict of interest.

 

[twenty02]

When should we talk about the grift Elon is pulling with Starlink? He canceled the verizon contract with the FAA and said "nah, we gotta get starlink in here to fix this. Who would have guessed that would happen? An egregious conflict of interest.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I guess that would be the both eyes shut viewpoint.

The reality is, even under your hypothetical, Trump isn't limiting expansion of the federal government--he's consolidating it into one person/one branch--his. Whatever label you want to put on Trump is irrelevant. What is relevant is what he is doing. He isn't doing this because he is some benevolent guy.

What's odd is that you took a completely opposite position when Obama issued executive orders.....

Remember the words of JFK where he talked about thinking he would have power in the house of representatives, and he didn't. So he ran for senate and thought he'd have power--then discovered he he didn't. When he was elected president he thought "well now I will have power", and he discovered he didn't and thought about it and said I get it now.

Eh. Most, if not all of what Trump is doing limits the power of government. Take his Ukraine plan as an example. If that works out, American commercial interests will be at the forefront, not government.

Taking the bureaucracy from no or passive management to active aggressive management is not seizing power. It’s just exercising power that is there. The issue about government software I think is a canary in the coal mine signal of how piss poor government management has been.

Don’t have time to get into Obama.

 

[Mark Milton]

It’s a minor matter, but when I read that we are paying for software and licenses for various computer programs throughout government that are never installed or used I wonder wtf? Doesn’t anybody in government give a damn about efficiency and effectiveness. Isn’t anybody taking care of business? Crap like this wouldn’t even be noticed but for Musk and his whiz kids.

Actually Musk and his whiz kids didn't do shit. The GAO already prepared a report in 2024, taking data that existed as of fiscal year 2021.

Federal Software Licenses: Agencies Need to Take Action to Achieve Additional Savings

Federal agencies buy thousands of software licenses annually. Across the 24 agencies we examined, 10 vendors accounted for the majority of the most...

www.gao.gov

It is a little more complicated than what you think, and not quite exactly what you are saying