Nonsense. When Republicans ignore laws, Democrats get upset. When Democrats ignore laws, Republicans AND Democrats get upset. That's a large difference between the parties.
Is the Department of Government Efficiency not supposed to be approved by Congress in the first place? Why is it that other heads of departments have to have their cabinet heads approved yet Elon Musk apparently does not? Because it is not a real department? Sure! But isn’t that the very problem? How is it that DOGE agents have the authority to go through the finances of the other departments when that is what the inspectors general are supposed to do?
Wrong. It's right where it's always been. It's just not legislating the way you want.
No, that's just how you think alignment should work. The legislature giving the executive its reins is another way to do it.
Kinda' seems like the definition of a medicine.
Meh. Depends on whether you want to adopt the meaning from a few centuries ago, or a more modern meaning. Historically, willow bark would be considered medicine... but in modern terms, it would be more likely to be an herbal supplement. We generally expect that modern medicine is standardized in dose, controlled by prescription, with clearly identified indications and (known) side effects. We generally expect that they're regulated by the FDA.
You not believing it doesn't mean I'm making it up, plague.
Dude, what on earth are you on about here? What view are you imagining that I hold that makes you feel justified in acting like this?
In even more modern times, I won't expect that of this administration.
It might be best for them to pretend they have some role rather than to let the Trump admin prove that they don't.
It's fair enough though. Remember that the Democrats in Congress won't even applaud Donald Trump when he invents a cure for a disease that would exterminate whole populations of people.
I'm really hoping that basic safety and clinical indications are retained, but I'm not taking any bets.
Link
"likely violated the constitution" is appropriate to the preamble of a prosecutor's argument, not a judge's ruling. Unless the judge goes on to spell out the exact constitutional violations they've found, they're abusing their authority.
"Likely violated". Who actually executed the shut down decisions? Were the orders signed by Elon Musk? Or were the orders signed by someone in the executive branch with executive authority (whether inherent or delegated)? The judge's use of "likely" suggests the judge herself doesn't even know for sure. People concerned about a politicized judiciary and judicial overreach should be paying close attention to this decision.
Presumably Laura Loomer is already busy doxxing the close relatives of the judge.
This is a preliminary injunction, as CNN and AP reported: "“Taken together, these facts support the conclusion that USAID has been effectively eliminated,” Chuang wrote in the preliminary injunction."
Uh-huh.
She does say that "the evidence presently favors the conclusion that contrary to Defendants' sweeping claim that Musk has acted only as an advisor, Musk made the decisions to shutdown USAID's headquarters and website even though he lacked the authority to make that decision." I'd say it's far more probable that he's seen evidence that you haven't to make that determination.
So the judge is basing her decision on Elon Musk's bluster, without having seen any evidence that he's actually responsible. This is bad judging.
I would need some reasonable summary of what constitutional amendments the judge believes are being violated.
Trump can say about whatever he wants. Who actually signed the shut down orders?
It's not just based on his bluster. It is based on claims by Elon Musk and Donald Trump as well as actions by DOGE and by those in departments affected by DOGE, by double-talk on whether DOGE is advisory and also on whether it is actively doing what Elon Musk says they are doing, not to mention the emails sent out laying off staff. The fact that all of this lacks transparency and accountability is a problem in and of itself.
Who. Signed. The. Orders?
How about we use the first definition from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary: "a substance or preparation used in treating disease." None of the definitions in that entry mention dose, prescription, indications, side effects, or government regulation.
I think it would normally be the head of the agency approved by the legislature. You tell us?
Sure, sure. Someone's on your doorstep, pitching a substance or preparation used in treating disease. That fits your definition of medicine, so of course you buy up the entire stock, and put it into your body at the first opportunity. It never occurs to you to enquire about dosage, or ingredients, or regulation, or any of that. You have a dictionary! Bottoms up!
And when he is speaking officially as the President, his statements are evidence of the administration's policy. Since the person finally named as the nominal head of DOGE was vacationing in Mexico when all this happened, I doubt it was her. And since she's someone no one has ever heard of, it's likely that the President's identification of Elon Musk as the head of DOGE is more credible.
I'm not asking what you think. I'm asking whether the judge has met her burden of proof. I don't think she has. What's your argument otherwise?
What your comment has to do with how a medicine is defined is unclear.
Good question because the defendants have not provided evidence that anyone with proper authority did so according to the judge's decision...
