6 ms·
Judge tells agencies to restore webpages and data
- talldayo 2y agoThe idea that it's a burden to taxpayers hosting a static site with paid-for research was silly anyways.
- DrDeadCrash 2y agoThat's a strange way to spell "criminal".
- talldayo 2y agoBy all means, challenge the research if you find it offensive. It might get conservatives to sponsor a public works project for once. Removing the data (particularly when it can be archived and served at zero cost to the government) is the only way you can waste taxpayer dollars in this situation. The research has been paid for, taxpaying Americans should be able to access it.
- jsbisviewtiful 2y agoNo reason for this post to be flagged other than conservatives not being happy for the coup being called out.
- foobarian 2y agoWhat happens if the agencies refuse. Guess we'll find out?
- Arnt 2y agoSome people will be in contempt of court. Trump will issue some pardons, but will he issue pardons for his small helpers? Small helpers will have to worry about the next election.
- rchaud 2y agoIt's not about that. It's about drowning the federal government agencies in mounds of paperwork from malicious EOs and the resultant legal cases. Stop the work from getting done for long enough, and the right people will resign, paving the way for new, openly-politicized loyalists to take over.
- antasvara 2y agoThe ultimate outcome is one that wasn't really anticipated by the Constitution. The general order of how things are supposed to go is: 1. A US court orders something. 2. The Executive Branch enforces that order, as it is responsible for the DOJ which is in turn responsible for the US Marshals (who enforce court rulings). 3. If those people do not enforce the rulings, Congress brings articles of impeachment and impeaches the President or others responsible. 4. Elect/appoint/elevate a new person to carry out the court order. The Constitution doesn't really account for the possibility that 1/3 of the Senate would disagree with an ignored court order. So hard to say where it goes from there.
- foobarian 2y agoThis sounds kind of like a majority attack with blockchains. If most of the government officials are against a court order, seems like it just won't happen i.e. even steps 3 and 4. Conversely, presumably this is by design since a rogue judge could issue a bad court order and presumably there are mechanisms to deal with these that perhaps involve a large enough quorum disagreeing with and ignoring it.
- unsnap_biceps 2y agorogue judges are handled by appeals, which is why there are multiple levels of courts, with the idea that if it went all the way to SCOTUS, it's no longer a rogue judge.
- Volundr 2y agoIn addition to appeals there is also impeachment. There are plenty of ways to check a rogue judge without having to weaken the judicial branch itself.
- jaredklewis 2y agoIf the executive is ok ignoring the courts, why would they respect the impeachment verdict from congress? The constitution is premised on leaders respecting laws and norms.
- kergonath 2y agoOne of these agencies is not going to comply. And then what? Trump is already pushing the legal “theory” that the judiciary cannot check the executive. This is bound to end up in front of the Supreme Court, and who knows what those guys will do?
- NickC25 2y ago> and who knows what those guys will do? I think we all know, it's been choreographed for decades now. The supreme court exists as a means of rubber-stamping republican legislation.
- kergonath 2y agoYeah, it was mostly a rhetorical question.
- fzeroracer 2y agoWe already have a few cases like that where judges are ruling that the executive is not complying with court orders. So good question, what enforcement mechanism does the judicial have if the executive simply does not comply?
- unsnap_biceps 2y agoIn theory, Congress should impeach. And if congress failed, the final option would be "We the People" with the second amendment. That said, in reality, I don't expect there will be any real pushback. It'll be people attempting to work in the constrains of a new system and life will largely still be mostly normal for folks.
- artificialLimbs 2y ago[flagged]
- AnimalMuppet 2y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43000640 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43000640 is an article about Vance saying it, like, two days ago. (You're going to have to have showdead on to see the link, though.) And he didn't quite say that the judiciary can't check the executive. He said that the judiciary can't check the "legitimate power" of the executive. (Of course, that completely misses that the judiciary checks the executive precisely by ruling that something is outside the legitimate power of the executive...)
- lwansbrough 2y agoI think Americans are going to find out pretty quickly that the courts are no longer in charge.
- bdangubic 2y agoonce that happens, present-day Americans should stop calling themselves that as to not share names with actual Americans who lived free :) Like since we are renaming Gulfs and Greenlands perhaps American people need a new name too...
- quickslowdown 2y agoAmerica, Land of the Gullible, Home of the Grift
- CableNinja 2y agoLand of the thief, home of the slave - Brother Ali (in Uncle Sam Goddamn)
- tmaly 2y agoWhat are the boundaries here regarding judicial and executive power? Is the federal judge correct here or is he overstepping some of his power or is the executive branch truly overstepping some of their power? I think this has to be settled quickly or things are going to turn more chaotic than they already are.
- voisin 2y agoWho is correct is less important than who can enforce an action. Sounds like the DOJ controls the Marshalls that enforce decisions by the judiciary, and the DOJ is controlled by sycophants now that will do Trump’s bidding.
- Volundr 2y ago> Is the federal judge correct here or is he overstepping some of his power If the judge is overstepping the resolution rests with the legislature (either changing the law, or if the judge is truly ignoring it, impeachment). Or the decision can be appealed. It's not an excuse to ignore the order.
- geye1234 2y agoIf I were Trump or Vought I'd be over the moon about this ruling. A lowly district judge telling the president what to put on a federal agency's website. No idea about the legal side, but the optics are great for Trump.
- alphabettsy 2y agoThat’s an interesting way to reframe what happened, no doubt how it will be portrayed on Fox News. Telling them to restore the information that was already there temporarily is hardly telling the president what to put on an agency site. It’s a temporary injunction. Extremely common legal procedure pending a real decision in the case.
- geye1234 2y agoIt's hardly a reframe. Whether the content was there before is irrelevant. A judge is dictating the contents of an agency site, at the behest of a private party. A temporary injunction may well be common, but it doesn't mean it isn't a bizarre-sounding decision in this case. Removing the info, at least much of it, was a crap decision. But this feels like a massive win for Trump.
- fzeroracer 2y agoThis is still a strange way to reframe things. America is supposed to be a nation of laws. The Judiciary is one of our checks on the executive, and the executive is supposed to behave in good faith and execute what Congress has passed. You're essentially saying the executive should have no checks on it.
- Reubachi 2y ago"A judge is dictating the contents of an agency site, at the behest of a private party." No, a judge is undoing an executive order from a federal agency that did not pass judicial scrutinty for legalitybased on 200+ years of judicial framework and precidence. Nothing to do with information, politics, etc. this is exactly what the framework of the constitution allows for and happens dozens of times a day every day in every locale. Additionally, you performed mental gymnastics to use the the terms "Agency Site" in place of the term "Agency Operating under the Executive Privilege of the Federal Government" and "private party" in place of the "The United States". This is IMO very cut and dry, will get very little media coverage, and I struggle to think how one falls on "This looks good for person X".
- gsibble 2y ago[flagged]
- Reubachi 2y ago[flagged]
- marklubi 2y ago[flagged]
- pmyteh 2y agoThe federal courts' powers of judicial review have been established for over 200 years since Marbury v Madison. The inferior courts are also organised pursuant to the constitution and have full judicial powers (though can be abolished or rearranged by Congress should they decide): > The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. (Start of Art. 3). It is good to not GAF about down votes, but do consider the possibility it is because you are confidently incorrect, not because the voters are ill-informed or angry. Source: PhD in political science.
- marklubi 2y ago[flagged]
- eesmith 2y agoIt now seems that you do agree that Federal judges actually have the ability to order the Executive branch on matters which are not at the President's discretion, yes? Your thesis is that only the Supreme Court gets to decide what is and is not part of the President's discretion? So for the three months with the Supreme Court is out of session, there's no constraint on the President, except by having an emergency session? Is it part of the President's discretion to imprison Supreme Court judges at Guantanamo? If he does that, I believe your view is that no Federal judge has the ability to order the Executive branch to stop. Sounds like you've listened to too many anti-democractic activists for the unitary executive theory - a view common among the rich and powerful, and their sycophants.
- pmyteh 2y agoThe limits of judicial review are absolutely contested, and there's a perfectly respectable argument that Marbury v Madison was a wrongly-decided power grab by the judicial branch (albeit now settled law). But it's a long way from there to the idea that district courts have no JR power. They are fully constitutional and exercise the 'judicial Power of the United States' as does the Supreme Court. Subject to being overturned on appeal, of course.