politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
So putting a stop, even temporarily, to plainly illegal actions by government official(s) is unreasonable if the illegal actions aren't illegal enough? And "illegal enough" doesn't include "taking one of the biggest ever steps to remove one of the largest barriers to corruption"
And that's... Reasonable?
I think the point is, the plaintiffs are telling the judge "this is of the utmost urgency" 21 days after the fact. The judge feels that, if the plaintiffs really felt that it was that urgent they should have acted with urgency themselves. So the judge is giving their request the same level of urgency that they did themselves.
If they had made a similar motion the day after the firing took place, their motion might have been granted, but this seems like a case of "too little too late".
Fuck the judge's feelings though, "if it really was that important you should have complained harder" is an insane take from the worst kind of bad teacher attitude.
It has nothing to do with the jusldge's feelings.whats the point in issuing a Temporary Restraining Order 21 days after the fact when it is moot 30 days after? A TRO on day 1 would have made sense. A TRO on day 21 does nothing but add to the chaos. They are still going forward with other legal arguments but the TRO served no purpose at this point.
The judge hasn't yet decided whether the actions are illegal. If they are, then they will ultimately be put to a stop.
But for now, the question at hand is whether there is an emergency. That is a completely separate from whether the actions are illegal.
And if you wait three weeks to declare an emergency, then it's not an emergency.
She cites the legal procedure in her comments declining the motion. If that's not an acknowledgement of the illegality of what happened instead, what is?
Everyone agrees IGs can be removed after 30 days notice.
The legal question is whether in some cases they can be removed without 30 days notice. Team Trump argues they can, the IGs argue the only way they can be removed is with 30 days notice.
The judge has to decide who's right. Probably the IGs, but at this point it's too late to reinstate them. So instead the IGs will have to argue for money damages.