Quote:

---

It is, but the legislature said that officeholder can only be fired for cause. Sure, we have checks and balances, but the legislative is the most powerful branch and can do that.

---

Not really. Three branches are co-equal. POTUS can veto or courts can strike down statutes passed by the legislature, for instance.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

It is, but the legislature said that officeholder can only be fired for cause. Sure, we have checks and balances, but the legislative is the most powerful branch and can do that.

---

Not really. Three branches are co-equal. POTUS can veto or courts can strike down statutes passed by the legislature, for instance.

---

And the legislature can override the POTUS veto and remove jurisdiction from the judicial branch.

Easy fix for Trump. He just has to insert a reason and she is fired again.

She will then sue about evidence supporting the reason.

waitwhat? said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

waitwhat? said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

JUST IN: A federal judge has ordered the reinstatement of Cathy Harris atop the Merit Systems Protection Board, ruling that Trump's decision to fire her exceeded his authority. https://t.co/OpEqI6kqFH pic.twitter.com/JbMVXeA290

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) February 18, 2025

---

Still not sure how the judicial branch has authority to determine who does and does not work for the executive branch.

---

To be fair, it seems that the relevant law, passed by Congress, says the holder of that position can only be fired for cause. The administration fired her without cause, so that would violate the law.

It's not the judicial branch saying he can't fire her without cause, it's the legislative branch.

---

Then just change the comment to use legislative instead judicial...

Either that office is under the executive branch or it's not.

---

It is, but the legislature said that officeholder can only be fired for cause. Sure, we have checks and balances, but the legislative is the most powerful branch and can do that.

---

Are they really able to? Or has it just never been litigated to see if it's constitutional?

If the legislative branch can dictate how and when a member of the executive branch is hired/fired, then can the legislative branch say that the executive branch cannot fire them under any circumstance? And/or the executive branch has to hire a specific person put forth by the legislative branch. It's just degrees of difference.

waitwhat? said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

waitwhat? said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

JUST IN: A federal judge has ordered the reinstatement of Cathy Harris atop the Merit Systems Protection Board, ruling that Trump's decision to fire her exceeded his authority. https://t.co/OpEqI6kqFH pic.twitter.com/JbMVXeA290

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) February 18, 2025

---

Still not sure how the judicial branch has authority to determine who does and does not work for the executive branch.

---

To be fair, it seems that the relevant law, passed by Congress, says the holder of that position can only be fired for cause. The administration fired her without cause, so that would violate the law.

It's not the judicial branch saying he can't fire her without cause, it's the legislative branch.

---

Then just change the comment to use legislative instead judicial...

Either that office is under the executive branch or it's not.

---

It is, but the legislature said that officeholder can only be fired for cause. Sure, we have checks and balances, but the legislative is the most powerful branch and can do that.

---

Most contracts also allow termination in cases of financial exigency. They could easily say that the federal government is broke and that the position is being either eliminated or reassigned. Send her to El Paso with a requirement for in person work and you'll have her resignation by tomorrow morning.

🚨BREAKING: Just filed brief in support of @realDonaldTrump Application to Supreme Court to vacate lower court's lawless order to reinstate Special Counsel. Had pleasure to co-author brief with amazing colleagues @NCLAlegal. 1/

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) February 18, 2025

3/3 This was my rush project keeping me busy last two days.

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) February 18, 2025

2/2 Link: https://t.co/Rs5mnkjtCC

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) February 19, 2025

2/2 Press release and link to brief: https://t.co/nTGCbOz1h6

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) February 19, 2025

What does all of this mean in a nutshell?

FireAg said:

---

What does all of this mean in a nutshell?

---

Courts battles for months

Good ol' corrupt scumbag Rudy Contreras, there's a name I've not heard for a couple years.

The person masquerading as a judge here is Rudolph Contreras. If that name sounds familiar, it's probably because he was @GenFlynn's “judge”—and just so happened to be buddies with corrupt FBI agent Peter Strzok. Contreras refused to recuse himself until Flynn’s sentencing day.… https://t.co/VRI1BSFRp1

— Hans Mahncke (@HansMahncke) February 19, 2025

But of course 'he recused himself'…6 days after accepting Gen Flynn's plea.

8) Strzok even refers to Contreras as Rudy. pic.twitter.com/aVRtrhZLdz

— 🏴‍☠️🍊🍊Pirate Gal🍊🍊🏴‍☠️ (@storyspinner) December 21, 2019

Thread.

2/ Here's Dellinger's Response: https://t.co/esUHx13rvc

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) February 19, 2025

4/ Also here's amicus brief in support of Trump, I co-authored with great colleagues @NCLAlegal https://t.co/UpB8LDOUCb

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) February 19, 2025

11/11 Again, read entire Trump Admin. Reply Brief: It details not just how there was a constitutional "red line" crossed here (the real constitutional crisis), but how lower court system is using TROs to interfere in executive branch using executive powers!https://t.co/SjT1DJ6qtO

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) February 19, 2025

This is the basis for Lamberth's injunction--filed by the plaintiffs who are in federal prison. pic.twitter.com/Hiw8K3QzNZ

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) February 19, 2025

Catholic Charities has sued the administration claiming they are owed 67 million for their human trafficking costs:

Quote:

---

The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia, names as defendants the State Department, the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration and the Department of Health and Human Services. It says the bishops have partnered with the U.S. government for nearly 50 years, and that the bureau has committed to provide $65 million to the USCCB "for the immediate physical needs and integration of refugees into their new communities."

"But now, after refugees have already arrived and been placed in USCCB's care, the government is attempting to pull the rug out from under USCCB's programs by halting funding."

The suit says the Trump administration hasn't made any payments to the USCCB since Jan. 24 and owes money for services that go back to November.

The impact is "devastating" for the USCCB and the people with whom it works, the suit says. More than 6,700 refugees assigned to the USCCB by the government were still within their "90-day transition period," the suit said.

As a result, the USCCB now has millions of dollars in pending, unpaid reimbursements and "is accruing millions more each week." The conference has started the process of laying off 50 people and "faces irreparable damage to its longstanding refugee resettlement programs and its reputation and relationship with … the refugee populations it serves."

---

90 day 'transition period' needs to go away. Cry me a river, USAID funded liars.

Isn't it illegal to abet criminals?

These activist district court judges are going to FAFO.

I think Trump has proven that the gloves are officially off. There will be no GOP candidate that supports the deep state that will win the primaries for POTUS.

These lower level TROs need to top before Trump just tells them all collectively to pound sand. He is playing nice now, which is prudent, but everything is on the table at this point.

With the gloves off, we will start to see Conservative courts issue similar TROs. Its not something that we have done in the past, but it will be on the table soon.

The left has won the last two decades by expanding executive power and wielding it in ways that conservatives would not dare to. Well, they are getting their comeuppance now as Trump/Musk is wielding that power the way the left does.

The same will happen with the judicial branch if they really do FAFO.

These liberal judges are trying to stall President Trump's executive orders. They will learn this lesson the hard way: play stupid games win stupid prizes.

That really is a double edged sword for the dems. Trump will surely contest any of the lower court dem wins up to SCOTUS. If SCOTUS rules for Trump, then dems lose their big slush funds and all the agencies get purged of hard core lefties in the leadership ranks. If the SCOTUS rules in dem's favor, then they have successfully set a SCOTUS precedent that limits executive power to act by EO that will be applied to EO actions by any future dem president.

2/2 Specifically both cases involve question of whether Trump has power as Executive to fire officers--something necessary to ensure "buck stops with him".https://t.co/iBdpzgpbW4

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) February 20, 2025

BREAKING: JUDGE RULES TRUMP ADMIN CAN CONTINUE MASS FIRINGS OF FEDERAL WORKERS.

— Election Wizard (@ElectionWiz) February 20, 2025

BREAKING: JUDGE RULES TRUMP ADMIN CAN CONTINUE MASS FIRINGS OF FEDERAL WORKERS.

— Election Wizard (@ElectionWiz) February 20, 2025

Quote:

---

With the gloves off, we will start to see Conservative courts issue similar TROs. Its not something that we have done in the past, but it will be on the table soon.

---

Were you asleep during the Biden admin?

Conservative judges entered plenty of TROs against Biden!

🚨🚨🚨BREAKING: Court denies Bishops TRO to force Trump Administration to keep funding refugee grants. Frankly I'm surprised but only given how other courts have been handling APA claims--acting like it was final agency action when it wasn't. Posts below detail case/arguments. https://t.co/i9fJiVgjum pic.twitter.com/JqKtN9b2wQ

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) February 20, 2025

An Obama judge, at that;

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

A federal judge on Thursday declined to issue a temporary restraining order pausing President Donald Trump's moves to fire thousands of employees who are on probationary status or deemed nonessential, clearing a roadblock for the new administration as it attempts sweeping changes to downsize the federal government.
U.S. District Judge Christopher R. Cooper, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, ruled against the National Treasury Employees Union and four other labor organizations that requested a temporary halt to the mass firings. More than half a million federal workers could lose their jobs through the Trump administration's firings and a separate program of deferred resignations, or buyouts, the unions said in legal filings.

---

Judge Cooper said the unions would have to take their complaints first to the federal agency that handles such things:

Quote:

---

Judge Cooper said that he was denying the unions' request that he block the Trump administration from continuing its downsizing efforts because the matter should be first addressed with the agency that adjudicates labor disputes between federal employee unions and management, known as the Federal Labor Relations Authority.
Judge Cooper noted that if the unions lose in that venue, they could resume their court battle through the federal court of appeals.

---

---

NEW: Judge Dale Ho appoints Paul Clement to present “friend of the court” arguments on the government’s motion to dismiss Eric Adams’s charges. pic.twitter.com/aSuwIO2aDq

— Anna Bower (@AnnaBower) February 21, 2025

That seems pretty ridiculous.

DOJ wants to Dismiss w/o prejudice. Of course Defendant wants to dismiss.
Judge has hearing on why DOJ wants to dismiss.
Bove appeared in court and explained why it should be dismissed.
Now the judge is allowing amicus briefs on why it should not be dismissed?

If the prosecuting agency doesn't want to pursue, how can a judge make them try the case? lol

Quote:

---

DOJ wants to Dismiss w/o prejudice. Of course Defendant wants to dismiss.
Judge has hearing on why DOJ wants to dismiss.
Bove appeared in court and explained why it should be dismissed.
Now the judge is allowing amicus briefs on why it should not be dismissed?

If the prosecuting agency doesn't want to pursue, how can a judge make them try the case? lol

---

Similar to the end of the Michael Flynn case. Judge Sullivan actively invited amici against his dismissal after Barr filed the motion to dismiss the case. Took the DC Circuit Court twice telling Sullivan to back down and dismiss it.

2/2 https://t.co/eLcVExqbOY

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) February 21, 2025

If they won't let them dismiss the case, then the prosecution should go ahead to trial.

The first statement of the trial from the prosecution should be...

You honor, the state rests.

As I noted in my coverage of this hearing today in case concerning Trump capping NIH indirect cost %, Judge extended TRO until she could rule on PI motion. Order just entered officially doing so, as she had already orally ruled from bench: https://t.co/8K6OAI5WJW pic.twitter.com/PXmNnWadMc

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) February 21, 2025

I would bet dollars to donuts that Clement is going to tell the judge that his only two options are to dismiss with or without prejudice. Normally, a defendant would oppose a dismissal without prejudice. So the judge is inviting amici to chime in.

The defendant is fine with it being dropped without prejudice.

HTownAg98 said:

---

I would bet dollars to donuts that Clement is going to tell the judge that his only two options are to dismiss with or without prejudice. Normally, a defendant would oppose a dismissal without prejudice. So the judge is inviting amici to chime in.

---

The judge should know that without an amicus brief. Not exactly a tough nor complicated concept. LOL.I laugh because it is just so damn stupid.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Then just change the comment to use legislative instead judicial...

Either that office is under the executive branch or it's not.

---

It is, but the legislature said that officeholder can only be fired for cause. Sure, we have checks and balances, but the legislative is the most powerful branch and can do that.

---

False. The Legislative Branch cannot pass laws that bind the Executive's powers per the Constitution. The President IS the Executive Branch. He alone can determine who the **** he wants to fire.

The branches' powers are derived from the Constitution and nowhere else. If the Constitution doesn't grant a power to a branch, Congress cannot magically do so.

This is lawfare meant to thwart the will of the American voter. Nothing more.

will25u said:

---

The defendant is fine with it being dropped without prejudice.

---

And that's the problem. Normally a defendant would fight that to get a dismissal with prejudice. No sane defendant would be ok with this.

HTownAg98 said:

---

will25u said:

---

The defendant is fine with it being dropped without prejudice.

---

And that's the problem. Normally a defendant would fight that to get a dismissal with prejudice. No sane defendant would be ok with this.

---

Not the judge's problem, though. He can ask if the defendant fully understands the differences between with prejudice and without prejudice and if the defendant says yes, that's all the judge can do.