23 ms·

That’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 the

That’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 ago
It'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 ago
  This 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".
  - deathanatos 2y ago
    > Additionally, you performed mental gymnastics to use the the terms […] "private party" in place of the "The United States". "private party" in their comment likely refers to the plaintiff in the case, "Doctors for America", which is a private party. But I agree with you, though: of course the plaintiff is a private party. Who else would it be, when the government is violating the Constitution? Is upthread expecting the government to sue itself?

geye1234 2y ago

It'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 ago
This 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".
- deathanatos 2y ago
  > Additionally, you performed mental gymnastics to use the the terms […] "private party" in place of the "The United States". "private party" in their comment likely refers to the plaintiff in the case, "Doctors for America", which is a private party. But I agree with you, though: of course the plaintiff is a private party. Who else would it be, when the government is violating the Constitution? Is upthread expecting the government to sue itself?