Phyllis Fong, a 22-year veteran of the department, had earlier told colleagues that she intended to stay after the White House terminated her on Friday, saying that she didn’t believe the administration had followed proper protocols, the sources said.
In an email to colleagues on Saturday, reviewed by Reuters, she said the independent council of the inspectors general on integrity and efficiency “has taken the position that these termination notices do not comply with the requirements set out in law and therefore are not effective at this time”.
Ms. Fong is correct. Let’s start with the wrongful termination suits. And let’s stop reacting to these fascists, instead let’s seek injunctions, and other proactive things. They’ve told us their plans. It’s well past time to get active!
Exactly. I keep hearing “how can they do this” or “they can’t do this” exasperated and aimless energy from the democrat/liberal crowd, which needs to be channeled into literally any form of action rather than perpetual reaction. Yes, there will always be tomorrow’s new atrocity. No, it won’t really be a surprise, they wrote a damn manual on it. What effort, big or small, can be done today?
Trump bilked the courts for years. Tying them up to great effect. Why don’t we do it back?
No reason I can think of, actually.
One very simple reason. How are court decisions ultimately enforced? By police, with force. Even if you win in court what police or federal agency will stand against the administration? None. Why? Fear of retaliation. Which is the same thing I’d be thinking if I was considering making a court case against Trump. The math is simple: stand up against a broken system and put a target on your back or sit down quietly and hope they don’t come for your family. This will be happening in many people’s minds. I hope I’d have the courage to stand up like this person did, but honestly I don’t know. Guess it depends on how bad it gets.
because we want a working functioning government and not just to fuck things up. Tying up the courts just mucks everything up.
I don’t see use ever going back to something “normal” without first tearing everything down first. Either from internal or external means. Things have only been getting worse since I’ve been politically aware.
Which I guess is why palestine will soon be at something normal. Nope. Tearying everything down is not a good way to go. Please give me a historical example of everything being torn down resulting in a better result. Sure you can look at how some power went down and another better one eventually became the norm but that is over decades and centuries and often different parts of the world. Things do not work that way.
Not having to tear things down would be great, but how do we do that at this point? The president is above the law, and has Congress, the courts, cops, a newly-freed legion of brownshirts, and an actual cult on his side. His party’s been getting away with ratfucking elections for at least 25 years.
I certainly think we can tear things down nonviolently, but we’re out of ways to do this politely. I don’t know how we get past the right-wing propaganda machine or government not being very democratic in the first place. We need to hugely expand the House, get rid of the Senate, and limit federal judge terms at the very least, and none of those are going to happen as long as the federal government is stacked in fascists’ favor. The last meaningful amendment was passed in 1971.
well one way is to not allow the worse option that is pushing our worst things to win elections at all. This could be done if everyone who does not like their ways would actually just consistently vote against them at every level. Tearing things down means no support for anything. We have to fight things in the courts and at the ballot box and on the streets. Heck luigi showed a pretty good thing to. There are not all that many that need to go and we don’t want to destroy poor neighborhoods to get things done.
I never said that it’s a good way, but every democrat that gets elected does nothing to pull back the overreach of the previous republican.
Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Guess what those two regimes have in common with the current US government.
If we don’t do something internally, the US government is going to go to war with the good guys.
both of those examples were basically rebuilt by the us. that is an anomaly and what is the society that is going to rebuild us better even if it were to happen again? What happened to germany when after ww1 when an outside force did not guide its rebuild? This is not something anyone should want.
I want to have concentration camps less then I want to be invaded by Europe and have my government rebuilt. On a personal level, this government has done me dirty and I owe it nothing.
yeah im not saying being rebuilt better is not something that would be great but more who is going to do that or is in a position to do that. its just not something that is going to happen regardless of what we may want.
Wrong af
I would like to see a judge put a block on all new executive orders until the current ones are adjudicated. There should be some number of contested orders that demand that they are not being made in good faith. The executive could always push the trial process as fast as possible to get back to it.
You want our current judiciary system to have the power to nullify the presidents power? How is that a proper checks and balances approach?
I get you but there needs to be some limit to presidents sending out executive orders that exceed their power. This already has a precidence it would simply add that if presidents flood the system with executive orders that result in suits that they stop making them till adjucated. I do hate the idea but I see no other way to balance abuse like this.
"President Harry Truman’s Executive Order 10340 placed all the country’s steel mills under federal control, which was found invalid in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 US 579 (1952), because it attempted to make law, rather than to clarify or to further a law put forth by the Congress or the Constitution. Presidents since that decision have generally been careful to cite the specific laws under which they act when they issue new executive orders; likewise, when presidents believe that their authority for issuing an executive order stems from within the powers outlined in the Constitution, the order instead simply proclaims “under the authority vested in me by the Constitution”. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order#History_and_use