Trump vs. Judges
-
Heard a good analysis yesterday that as SCOTUS eventually takes on case(s) that challenge the President's authority to do stuff like... close departments or not execute funding that Congress requires him to do (e.g., appropriations to USAID), that SCOTUS might be careful to (as you said) allow some unprecedented executive power so as to not run into the scenario where a SCOTUS ruling against the President is defied by the President... (essentially implying that SCOTUS doesn't matter), as SCOTUS' power has always been on the general agreement that the Judicial Branch is the final say in interpreting the law, but they have no way to enforce it. Wasn't it Jefferson who said something like "Thanks for the ruling, your honor... now come try and enforce it"?
-
I think he’ll win some unitary executive stuff. Being able to fire IGs for example. And more, but not all, of the firings.
I think he’ll lose on the impoundment stuff. That’s where congress authorized funds for something and he just decides not to spend the money.
Scalia had a great phrase - ‘Congress does not hide elephants in mouse holes’. He’d pull it out when an administrative agency did some wild interpretation of the regulations they enforce. That is to say, if Congress thought the clean waters act extended to every pond on every farm in America, they might have mentioned something about that.
The founders didn't hide elephants in mouse holes either. They went out of their way to describe how the executive could veto legislation and how the legislature could override that. It’s not really believable that they went to all that trouble if the executive had another shot at a veto with no possible override, just by refusing to do what Congress legislated.
-
Yeah but in this case (e.g. the FEMA 'clawback' from NYC) the legislative action already occurred. Congress already appropriated the funds.
@jon-nyc said in Trump vs. Judges:
Yeah but in this case (e.g. the FEMA 'clawback' from NYC) the legislative action already occurred. Congress already appropriated the funds.
Did Congress dictate how exactly the funding was to be spent? I mean did they dictate that it was to be spent to rent rooms at hotels? Or was it a blanket “provide housing”. And was the money spent pre-January 20th, 2025? If so, then I don’t see how they can claw it back. That’s water under the bridge.
The Brad
-
@jon-nyc said in Trump vs. Judges:
Yeah but in this case (e.g. the FEMA 'clawback' from NYC) the legislative action already occurred. Congress already appropriated the funds.
Did Congress dictate how exactly the funding was to be spent? I mean did they dictate that it was to be spent to rent rooms at hotels? Or was it a blanket “provide housing”. And was the money spent pre-January 20th, 2025? If so, then I don’t see how they can claw it back. That’s water under the bridge.
@LuFins-Dad said in Trump vs. Judges:
@jon-nyc said in Trump vs. Judges:
Yeah but in this case (e.g. the FEMA 'clawback' from NYC) the legislative action already occurred. Congress already appropriated the funds.
Did Congress dictate how exactly the funding was to be spent? I mean did they dictate that it was to be spent to rent rooms at hotels? Or was it a blanket “provide housing”. And was the money spent pre-January 20th, 2025? If so, then I don’t see how they can claw it back. That’s water under the bridge.
I provided a summary of this in the $59 million thread: https://nodebb.the-new-coffee-room.club/post/327691
You can open up the SSP site directly.
In short the SSP that congress approved is: "SSP provides financial support to non-federal entities to provide sheltering and related activities to noncitizen migrants following their release from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The intent is to support CBP in the safe, orderly, and humane release of noncitizen migrants from short-term holding facilities."
And from there, entities (such as cities) can apply for funding if it aligns with the program's requirements.
In other words... yes, water under the bridge. So Trump "clawing back" (or I guess as Fox News says, DHS Chief Noem clawing back) that money seems to be easily rejected by the courts, but who knows any more.
-
@jon-nyc said in Trump vs. Judges:
Yeah but in this case (e.g. the FEMA 'clawback' from NYC) the legislative action already occurred. Congress already appropriated the funds.
Did Congress dictate how exactly the funding was to be spent? I mean did they dictate that it was to be spent to rent rooms at hotels? Or was it a blanket “provide housing”. And was the money spent pre-January 20th, 2025? If so, then I don’t see how they can claw it back. That’s water under the bridge.
@LuFins-Dad said in Trump vs. Judges:
@jon-nyc said in Trump vs. Judges:
Yeah but in this case (e.g. the FEMA 'clawback' from NYC) the legislative action already occurred. Congress already appropriated the funds.
Did Congress dictate how exactly the funding was to be spent? I mean did they dictate that it was to be spent to rent rooms at hotels? Or was it a blanket “provide housing”. And was the money spent pre-January 20th, 2025? If so, then I don’t see how they can claw it back. That’s water under the bridge.
I’m not sure you’re making the point you want to be making but you’re right, the Trump administration had no business clawing it back. The January date is irrelevant.
-
@LuFins-Dad said in Trump vs. Judges:
@jon-nyc said in Trump vs. Judges:
Yeah but in this case (e.g. the FEMA 'clawback' from NYC) the legislative action already occurred. Congress already appropriated the funds.
Did Congress dictate how exactly the funding was to be spent? I mean did they dictate that it was to be spent to rent rooms at hotels? Or was it a blanket “provide housing”. And was the money spent pre-January 20th, 2025? If so, then I don’t see how they can claw it back. That’s water under the bridge.
I provided a summary of this in the $59 million thread: https://nodebb.the-new-coffee-room.club/post/327691
You can open up the SSP site directly.
In short the SSP that congress approved is: "SSP provides financial support to non-federal entities to provide sheltering and related activities to noncitizen migrants following their release from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The intent is to support CBP in the safe, orderly, and humane release of noncitizen migrants from short-term holding facilities."
And from there, entities (such as cities) can apply for funding if it aligns with the program's requirements.
In other words... yes, water under the bridge. So Trump "clawing back" (or I guess as Fox News says, DHS Chief Noem clawing back) that money seems to be easily rejected by the courts, but who knows any more.
@89th said in Trump vs. Judges:
@LuFins-Dad said in Trump vs. Judges:
@jon-nyc said in Trump vs. Judges:
Yeah but in this case (e.g. the FEMA 'clawback' from NYC) the legislative action already occurred. Congress already appropriated the funds.
Did Congress dictate how exactly the funding was to be spent? I mean did they dictate that it was to be spent to rent rooms at hotels? Or was it a blanket “provide housing”. And was the money spent pre-January 20th, 2025? If so, then I don’t see how they can claw it back. That’s water under the bridge.
I provided a summary of this in the $59 million thread: https://nodebb.the-new-coffee-room.club/post/327691
You can open up the SSP site directly.
In short the SSP that congress approved is: "SSP provides financial support to non-federal entities to provide sheltering and related activities to noncitizen migrants following their release from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The intent is to support CBP in the safe, orderly, and humane release of noncitizen migrants from short-term holding facilities."
And from there, entities (such as cities) can apply for funding if it aligns with the program's requirements.
In other words... yes, water under the bridge. So Trump "clawing back" (or I guess as Fox News says, DHS Chief Noem clawing back) that money seems to be easily rejected by the courts, but who knows any more.
What is the date of payment and what period does the payment cover? Those are two important questions.
If the payment went out post January 20th and is advance payment, then the Trump administration has the right to select what Non-governmental entity they choose to pay to provide that housing. If the payment went out prior to the 20th or was for services already provided, then Trump doesn’t have a leg to stand on.
