I read newsletters from those that understand this much better than I. Thanks for an easy to understand explanation David. I watch the supremes much closer since the immunity ruling.
While the may have said Trump can do as he pleases, my interpretation doesn’t include the entire administration. So when Vought says he will ( illegally) fire 10,000 employees in a day or 2 I have hope the SCOTUS will side with the law. But my hopes are fading daily.
"The Antideficiency Act prohibits the federal government from obligating or expending any money not appropriated by Congress. It also forbids incurring new expenses during a shutdown, when funding has lapsed; some federal government officials have concluded that the prohibition could extend to the kind of severance payments that accompany reductions in force."
Sounds like a conflict headed to the Supremes. Which costs the most? Severance pay or a forever salary? Is severance pay required by law? The act you quoted might also include the payment of back pay. We shall see.
This is what happens when the Supremes set themselves up to rewrite the Constitution by failing to adhere to the original meanings and intent. Right now, no one knows the rules until disputes go through the Supreme Court. Congress does not help matters when it passes laws that allow bureaucrats to apply their own interpretation. A good President would veto such laws but it's all about one party winning.
The shadow socket shouldn't exist. If there's too many cases for the court to handle every year, then we need to change the court. For example, expand the number of total justices to 27 and then use random assignment to select 9 for each case. That should also mean a recusal just gets replaced with another justice.
My impression is that a considerable number of these petitions to the Supreme Court stem from District Courts issuing national injunctions regarding administrative decisions. The District Courts appear to be picked by the Democrats specifically because the judge’s political leanings. The Left has used the judicial system for years to get what they can’t get legislatively. Trump was elected in large part because of his promises to clean up the waste and corruption in the Administrative State. So this all comes down to who is going to be the final arbiter of how the taxpayer’s money is going to be spent. If we continue down the current 60 year path we are going to be financially doomed. I’ll take the current Administration over Congress or the Judicial System to solve this problem. If a few eggs get broken in the process that’s fine with me.
The Right does this frequently as well. The Northern District of Texas is quite popular - despite its meager population - as a destination for conservative forum-shopping, given how predictably conservative the judges rule there.
Not only should Lisa Cook be fired from the Federal Reserve, every one else who serves in it should be as well. Too many entities have been ingrained into our government that are unconstitutional or extra-constitutional, and it's time they are eliminated. The Fed is certainly one.
I read newsletters from those that understand this much better than I. Thanks for an easy to understand explanation David. I watch the supremes much closer since the immunity ruling.
While the may have said Trump can do as he pleases, my interpretation doesn’t include the entire administration. So when Vought says he will ( illegally) fire 10,000 employees in a day or 2 I have hope the SCOTUS will side with the law. But my hopes are fading daily.
What law makes it illegal to fire government employees? I believe Vought said the ADMINISTRATION would do the deed.
I was actually just reading about this.
"The Antideficiency Act prohibits the federal government from obligating or expending any money not appropriated by Congress. It also forbids incurring new expenses during a shutdown, when funding has lapsed; some federal government officials have concluded that the prohibition could extend to the kind of severance payments that accompany reductions in force."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/10/02/shutdown-rifs-government-warnings/?utm_campaign=wp_post_most&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&carta-url=https%3A%2F%2Fs2.washingtonpost.com%2Fcar-ln-tr%2F451f1e6%2F68dea2623816071e60aa93f0%2F5982170d9bbc0f6826db38ce%2F11%2F66%2F68dea2623816071e60aa93f0
Sounds like a conflict headed to the Supremes. Which costs the most? Severance pay or a forever salary? Is severance pay required by law? The act you quoted might also include the payment of back pay. We shall see.
This is what happens when the Supremes set themselves up to rewrite the Constitution by failing to adhere to the original meanings and intent. Right now, no one knows the rules until disputes go through the Supreme Court. Congress does not help matters when it passes laws that allow bureaucrats to apply their own interpretation. A good President would veto such laws but it's all about one party winning.
Our current president is taking full advantage of such laws... and then some.
As he should if he wants to accomplish anything useful - something that has been absent for decades.
The shadow socket shouldn't exist. If there's too many cases for the court to handle every year, then we need to change the court. For example, expand the number of total justices to 27 and then use random assignment to select 9 for each case. That should also mean a recusal just gets replaced with another justice.
Regarding the shutdown, I think Matt Yglesias has a few points that make sense: https://www.slowboring.com/p/seventeen-thoughts-on-the-government
It's not really a matter of the number of cases. It's more that some cases can't wait for the full process.
There are cases that just don't get heard because they don't have the bandwidth.
More personnel will provide the bandwidth for both issues.
Makes sense if there are provisions for at least some degree of ideological diversity.
Pair it with term limits, sure.
Or have it be from the senior justices from the circuits rather than specific SCOTUS justices, then you get an even wider field.
My impression is that a considerable number of these petitions to the Supreme Court stem from District Courts issuing national injunctions regarding administrative decisions. The District Courts appear to be picked by the Democrats specifically because the judge’s political leanings. The Left has used the judicial system for years to get what they can’t get legislatively. Trump was elected in large part because of his promises to clean up the waste and corruption in the Administrative State. So this all comes down to who is going to be the final arbiter of how the taxpayer’s money is going to be spent. If we continue down the current 60 year path we are going to be financially doomed. I’ll take the current Administration over Congress or the Judicial System to solve this problem. If a few eggs get broken in the process that’s fine with me.
The Right does this frequently as well. The Northern District of Texas is quite popular - despite its meager population - as a destination for conservative forum-shopping, given how predictably conservative the judges rule there.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/judge-shopping-explained
Kind of like the Vietnam-era “destroying the village to save it” just with the Republic and the Constitution.
Not only should Lisa Cook be fired from the Federal Reserve, every one else who serves in it should be as well. Too many entities have been ingrained into our government that are unconstitutional or extra-constitutional, and it's time they are eliminated. The Fed is certainly one.