Judge slams 'perverse reading' of Constitution by Trump admin fighting lawsuit challenging DOGE

[pat_k]

12. Thanks!

I've been poking around -- and need to do more looking, but as far as I can tell, there has been no decision that affirms that the creation of DOGE and appointment of Musk (or whoever they claim is running it) is, or is not, a legitimate exercise of the powers granted under the appointments clause. It seems to me that question is very much an open controversy as far as several cases making their way through the courts are concerned. Given the powers DOGE exercised, I don't see how a claim it was an "inferior appointment" that didn't require consent could ultimately fly -- but who the F knows in these up is down and down is up days. In any case, I don't think this decision can be cited as deciding the controversy (although I'm sure 47 shills will try). It strikes me as another "non-decision decision" that gives 47 what he wants.

I have no actual basis for the speculation, but I suspect she jettisoned 47 in anticipation of an emergency motion to SCOTUS where they would they issue another unjustified, wrong-headed and effectively traitorous "for now" decision that somehow takes 47 out of the mix and gives him a "win" on the "emergency/shadow docket," where they can avoid actually putting their blatantly absurd "findings" into an actual opinion.

We should expect it by now, but I'm still flabbergasted at their 5/22 order ignoring 90 years of precedent set by Humphrey's Executor v. U.S. to allow the firings and the irreparable harm to the plaintiffs -- and the people of the United States -- "for now." (And to justify it by asserting the greater harm is to the renegade executive. Double-think in action.)

Supreme Court allows Trump to remove agency heads without cause for now