One of the reasons I've been pretty certain Trump/Musk aren't going to prevail on funding freezes is the arguments their lawyers keep advancing are so incredibly bad. - ThreadSky

nied.bsky.social • 20 days ago

One of the reasons I've been pretty certain Trump/Musk aren't going to prevail on funding freezes is the arguments their lawyers keep advancing are so incredibly bad.

Reposted from Joshua J. Friedman

DOJ tells Judge AliKhan—in a DC hearing happening now on Trump funding freeze—that plaintiffs can't prove that missing money in any given place is caused by the funding freeze as opposed to individual agency discretion

Comments

yorkealbarn.bsky.social•20 days ago

So? They were ordered to turn the funding back on and haven't already why would they turn the funding back on if they lose here? What is the mechanism by which the courts can force trump to turn on the money?

supremerobo.bsky.social•20 days ago

This is the kind of argument you have to make when you can't trust *any* of the testimony you've been sent from below

supremerobo.bsky.social•20 days ago

Sometimes you defend a client that refuses to back down or settle and also just won't stop feeding you half truths. Your bosses or legal ethics won't let you drop the case, so you have to do legal sophistry

nied.bsky.social•20 days ago

IANAL but I'm pretty sure judges LOVE when people come up with parsimonious reasons why they can keep violating direct court orders.

tomscud.bsky.social•20 days ago

obviously at some level it's a matter of just how shameless the supreme court is willing to be but i don't think they're that shameless

db-user.bsky.social•20 days ago

I honestly do not like where this ends up and do not have faith in those systems meant to deal with, "What happens when these people just simply keep defying court orders and can order around their own guys with guns for cover?"

I would really like to see some evidence countering that fear soon.

nied.bsky.social•20 days ago

Judges rarely do it because it's a pretty big stick, but they can & do just straight throw people in jail for contempt of court.

db-user.bsky.social•20 days ago

yes, they do it to people like you and me

they don't do it to *them*, there's always some deal or appeal that turns it into a very affordable fine and then everybody "moves on"

effinvicta.bsky.social•20 days ago

That's under normal conditions and things are becoming increasingly abnormal.

wanderlib.bsky.social•20 days ago

They did it to Bannon for contempt of Congress, and he was merely uncooperative.

db-user.bsky.social•20 days ago

Congress did that, when Dems had control of the House

not the courts

hammbear2024.bsky.social•20 days ago

These aren't good arguments. Of course, everybody involved has been placed into an incredibly shitty box. I didn't see who appeared, but whatever they're asserting is almost certainly not backed by remotely adequate provision of facts from the agencies they purportedly represent.

randyhermanlaw.com•20 days ago

That's because competent attorneys know better than to represent them

jben1990.bsky.social•20 days ago

Oh, *legally* they're going to keep losing badly. I don't think I've seen a single judge *upholding* the freeze!

What I'm worried about is that they seem to be (at least partly) defying the orders, and IDK if being found in contempt actually *stops* them effectively.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply