Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to proceed with large-scale reductions in staff at many federal government agencies as opponents continue to seek to block those efforts in lower-courts
As an Australian the fact that courts can stop a President from cutting govt expenditure makes no sense. Our Australian govt can cut it any time it wishes, but our problem is, the commie left govt in charge at the moment is growing spending like drunken sailors, growing public servants, and raising taxes, and is averse to cuts.
yes, and our conservative opposition (Liberal/National Party here) are just as bad. Seems it's a disease worldwide. PS: Liberal here is the original meaning of the word, not like in the US.
Well, that's the game, pal. If vast majority works for the government, they will continue to vote for that government. You don't bite the hand that feeds you.
The rulling ONLY allows Trump to use E.O.s to instruct the various Federal agencies to PREPARE to make reduction in forces (RIFs). The RIFs cannot exceed statutory requirements... for example if the law says the State Dept must have a minimum of 1,000 employees and there are currently 12,500, then Trump via executive branch authority can only RIF 11,500 without exceeding Article II powers. Just wait. There will be TROs for every RIF... irrespective if the RIF meets statutory requirements.
Alito and Thomas are THE ONLY real SCOTUS jurists. Their looming retirements will be felt for generations. I have ZERO hopes that Trump will find the same quality jurists to nominate.
Illson's argument is off-base, I think. She says, "“Presidents may set policy priorities for the executive branch, and agency heads may implement them. This much is undisputed. ...
But Congress creates federal agencies, funds them, and gives them duties that — by statute — they must carry out.”
This argument stretches the meaning of "funds them" beyond what Congress' powers actually are. Congress "appropriates money" for the agencies it creates. This does not imply that the executive branch is required to spend that money. In addition, though a Federal agency is required by law to carry out the duties given it by Congress (I'll assume she's right to say that), but is not given the money to do so, they just have to do the same old lousy job they always do with what they have, only moreso, at great savings to the taxpayer.
In the late 19th century, the Democratic Party was the party of free-trade, balanced budgets, and anti-imperialism. Grover Cleveland, the last good Democratic Party president, was resisting the imperialist Republican War Party's agitation to go to war with Spain over Cuba. The Republican leadership approached him declaring that they were going to declare war against Spain; they had the votes for it. Cleveland's answer was that they were free to do so, but having done that, and thereby making him Commander-in-Chief, he would refuse to mobilize the Army and the Navy. Since Spain had neither the power nor the inclination to bring war to America's shores, this would mean there would be no fighting. The Republicans had to back down (and wait to get there own guy in there--McKinley). This is exactly how the separation of powers is supposed to work. Similarly, just because Congress appropriates money for a particular task for a particular agency, it doesn't follow that the Executive must see to it that it is spent.
It could be that Trump should have come at his RIF plans from this angle; it doesn't look like he did. I can't say I'm surprised--what would surprise me is finding out that Trump had ever actually read the Constitution, much less understood it--but his instincts do seem to me to be correct.
As an Australian the fact that courts can stop a President from cutting govt expenditure makes no sense. Our Australian govt can cut it any time it wishes, but our problem is, the commie left govt in charge at the moment is growing spending like drunken sailors, growing public servants, and raising taxes, and is averse to cuts.
drunken sailors, but in US, the republicans are as guilty as democrats
yes, and our conservative opposition (Liberal/National Party here) are just as bad. Seems it's a disease worldwide. PS: Liberal here is the original meaning of the word, not like in the US.
Well, that's the game, pal. If vast majority works for the government, they will continue to vote for that government. You don't bite the hand that feeds you.
The more Ketanji expresses herself, the clearer it becomes that she has been promoted beyond her abilities.
The rulling ONLY allows Trump to use E.O.s to instruct the various Federal agencies to PREPARE to make reduction in forces (RIFs). The RIFs cannot exceed statutory requirements... for example if the law says the State Dept must have a minimum of 1,000 employees and there are currently 12,500, then Trump via executive branch authority can only RIF 11,500 without exceeding Article II powers. Just wait. There will be TROs for every RIF... irrespective if the RIF meets statutory requirements.
thank you for informing us the details, its critical
Alito and Thomas are THE ONLY real SCOTUS jurists. Their looming retirements will be felt for generations. I have ZERO hopes that Trump will find the same quality jurists to nominate.
So what? The FDA has handed moderna another win as it gets to continue its murdering ways.
Illson's argument is off-base, I think. She says, "“Presidents may set policy priorities for the executive branch, and agency heads may implement them. This much is undisputed. ...
But Congress creates federal agencies, funds them, and gives them duties that — by statute — they must carry out.”
This argument stretches the meaning of "funds them" beyond what Congress' powers actually are. Congress "appropriates money" for the agencies it creates. This does not imply that the executive branch is required to spend that money. In addition, though a Federal agency is required by law to carry out the duties given it by Congress (I'll assume she's right to say that), but is not given the money to do so, they just have to do the same old lousy job they always do with what they have, only moreso, at great savings to the taxpayer.
In the late 19th century, the Democratic Party was the party of free-trade, balanced budgets, and anti-imperialism. Grover Cleveland, the last good Democratic Party president, was resisting the imperialist Republican War Party's agitation to go to war with Spain over Cuba. The Republican leadership approached him declaring that they were going to declare war against Spain; they had the votes for it. Cleveland's answer was that they were free to do so, but having done that, and thereby making him Commander-in-Chief, he would refuse to mobilize the Army and the Navy. Since Spain had neither the power nor the inclination to bring war to America's shores, this would mean there would be no fighting. The Republicans had to back down (and wait to get there own guy in there--McKinley). This is exactly how the separation of powers is supposed to work. Similarly, just because Congress appropriates money for a particular task for a particular agency, it doesn't follow that the Executive must see to it that it is spent.
It could be that Trump should have come at his RIF plans from this angle; it doesn't look like he did. I can't say I'm surprised--what would surprise me is finding out that Trump had ever actually read the Constitution, much less understood it--but his instincts do seem to me to be correct.
Love it! Great news! ❤️🇺🇸
boom