A federal judge has temporarily blocked a push from President Donald Trump to pause federal funding while his administration conducts an across-the-board ideological review to uproot progressive initiatives.
Good, but Trump is gonna do it anyway and fire whoever doesnt comply. The SCOTUS has guaranteed he can do whatever he wants with impunity, and the only remedy is impeachment.
Interesting idea here. Give the president so much rope to hang himself with that all but the brownest of the brown-nosers find his actions reprehensible. And thus impeachment becomes a valuable tool again.
SCOTUS playing 4D chess? Not so much, they’re probably right up there with the lot of them, but one can dream.
The Trump/Elon administration will file a poop emoji response and request expedited review from the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court will rubber stamp it 6-3 with Thomas filing a concurring opinion that’s a poop emoji.
The order from U.S. District Judge Loren L. AliKhan came minutes before the funding freeze was scheduled to go into effect. The administrative stay, prompted by a lawsuit brought by nonprofit groups, lasts until Monday afternoon and applies only to existing programs.
See Worcester v. Georgia essentially two states attempted to secede and the federal government stepped in (after first defying the court) to save the union. Does not bode well for the union at this point in history.
Telling the Trump administration to stop doing stuff to undermine federal funding now seems like closing the barn door after the horses have already been taken out and put on a trailer that's currently speeding towards the glue factory.
The full scope of the administration’s review was spelled out in a 51-page spreadsheet sent to federal agencies and viewed by The Associated Press. Each line was a different government initiative, from pool safety to tribal workforce development to special education.
Officials were directed to answer a series of yes or no questions for every item on the list, including “does this program promote gender ideology?” or “does this program promote or support in any way abortion?” Responses are due by Feb. 7.
This is where my heart sank. This article is so long but this blip and the conclusion points to what is really going down.
Justice Department attorney Daniel Schwei argued that the freeze shouldn’t be put on hold because the plaintiffs hadn’t specified anyone who would immediately lose funding if it does go into effect.
I'm imagining the plaintiffs countered by motioning vaguely at the entire country.
Also fuck this guy. "It doesn't count unless you specifically identify all the people we'd be victimizing," is straight up bully logic.