Judge largely blocks Trump’s executive orders ending federal support for DEI programs

[essentialsaltes]

Abelson found that the orders likely carry constitutional violations, including against free-speech rights.

 

[PloverWing]

Oh, thank goodness.

 

[Paulos23]

Well, there is one judge Trump will ignore.

 

[Pommer]

Well, there is one judge Trump will ignore.

I’m going to let President Trump actually do that, before I comment on it.

 

[ozso]

Meh there's always a judge out there to rule against whatever. It's a pretty regular routine.

 

[PloverWing]

Actually, there isn't always a judge out there to rule against a new law, if that law is crafted to stay within the Constitution, existing laws, and existing Supreme Court precedents, and if the law carefully specifies what is prohibited and what is permitted. The new DEI-related executive orders aren't clear about what speech in schools, hospitals, etc., is prohibited. From the article:

“The harm arises from the issuance of it as a public, vague, threatening executive order,” he said during the hearing.
...
In his written opinion, Abelson found reason to believe the orders are unconstitutionally vague, leaving federal contractors and grant recipients with “no reasonable way to know what, if anything, they can do to bring their grants into compliance.”

 

[Kensie]

DEI is not a racism. An article found on the official White House website referred to it as such.

 

[ozso]

Actually, there isn't always a judge out there to rule against a new law, if that law is crafted to stay within the Constitution, existing laws, and existing Supreme Court precedents, and if the law carefully specifies what is prohibited and what is permitted. The new DEI-related executive orders aren't clear about what speech in schools, hospitals, etc., is prohibited. From the article:

I'll rephrase that; Meh there's always a judge out there to rule against whatever Trump initiates.

 

[A2SG]

I'll rephrase that; Meh there's always a judge out there to rule against whatever Trump initiates.

I sure hope so, whenever Trump initiates something illegal or unconstitutional. He doesn't seem able to figure that out himself.

-- A2SG, with luck, maybe he'll eventually learn....

 

[ozso]

I sure hope so, whenever Trump initiates something illegal or unconstitutional. He doesn't seem able to figure that out himself.

Some claim everything the Trump administration does is illegal and unconstitutional. I heard something about him changing the oval office desk, and I wouldn't be surprised if some are calling that illegal, unconstitutional and a threat to democracy.

 

[Pommer]

I sure hope so, whenever Trump initiates something illegal or unconstitutional. He doesn't seem able to figure that out himself.

-- A2SG, with luck, maybe he'll eventually learn....

But His Highness President Trump has already taken care of this issue, by writing an Executive Order whereby he and the Attorney General would be the people who’d interpret the Law for the entire Executive Branch!

This way, anything he does is de facto, “legal”.
This will save just oodles of time, since the Administration wouldn‘t have to fight it’s way through nitpicky-Courts and bypassing liberal activist judges appointed by lesser men!

 

[A2SG]

Some claim everything the Trump administration does is illegal and unconstitutional.

Sure. But judges have to justify their rulings, usually with case law or precedent. Us yahoo's on the internet don't have to do that.

I heard something about him changing the oval office desk, and I wouldn't be surprised if some are calling that illegal, unconstitutional and a threat to democracy.

Sure, some yahoos on the internet might, but I'm pretty sure it isn't unconstitutional, and I highly doubt anyone could find a judge to rule it so.

-- A2SG, as I've heard on this forum somewhere, don't worry about stuff that hasn't happened yet...

 

[A2SG]

But His Highness President Trump has already taken care of this issue, by writing an Executive Order whereby he and the Attorney General would be the people who’d interpret the Law for the entire Executive Branch!

This way, anything he does is de facto, “legal”.
This will save just oodles of time, since the Administration wouldn‘t have to fight it’s way through nitpicky-Courts and bypassing liberal activist judges appointed by lesser men!

Yeah, it's beginning to look like his day one promise might be extended a bit.

-- A2SG, ain't we lucky....

 

[Pommer]

Yeah, it's beginning to look like his day one promise might be extended a bit.

-- A2SG, ain't we lucky....

Good thing President Trump stands for religious freedom to believe in even the incorrect versions of Christianity!

 

[ozso]

Sure. But judges have to justify their rulings, usually with case law or precedent. Us yahoo's on the internet don't have to do that.


Sure, some yahoos on the internet might, but I'm pretty sure it isn't unconstitutional, and I highly doubt anyone could find a judge to rule it so.

Funny how some are 100% behind judges when they make a ruling along these lines that they like. But condemn the SCOTUS for making that presidential immunity ruling. And anything else judicial that doesn't go against Trump.

 

[A2SG]

Funny how some are 100% behind judges when they make a ruling along these lines that they like. But condemn the SCOTUS for making that presidential immunity ruling. And anything else judicial that doesn't go against Trump.

What, yahoos on the internet can't have opinions?

Funny, I don't recall any of the voices who are now arguing that the judiciary shouldn't encroach on executive power back when SCOTUS ruled against President Biden. I guess partisan opinions go both ways, huh?

-- A2SG, good thing judges don't base their decisions on popular opinion....

 

[Always in His Presence]

Abelson found that the orders likely carry constitutional violations, including against free-speech rights.

There is always a radical left and right judges following party lines

DEI is not law.

President Biden’s first day in office, when he issued Executive Order 13985, “Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government.”

It was formed by Executive Order. It can be ended by Executive Order

 

[essentialsaltes]

It was formed by Executive Order. It can be ended by Executive Order

Trump did more than just rescind an EO.

"He signed a follow-up order requiring federal contractors to certify that they don’t promote DEI."

If Lockheed wants to 'promote DEI,' that's Lockheed's business (and free speech right), as long as it otherwise obeys nondiscrimination laws.

“That is textbook viewpoint-based discrimination,” Abelson wrote. “The government’s threat of enforcement is not just targeted towards enforcement of federal law. Rather, the provision expressly targets, and threatens, the expression of views supportive of equity, diversity and inclusion.”

 

[Always in His Presence]

Trump did more than just rescind an EO.

"He signed a follow-up order requiring federal contractors to certify that they don’t promote DEI."

If Lockheed wants to 'promote DEI,' that's Lockheed's business (and free speech right), as long as it otherwise obeys nondiscrimination laws.

“That is textbook viewpoint-based discrimination,” Abelson wrote. “The government’s threat of enforcement is not just targeted towards enforcement of federal law. Rather, the provision expressly targets, and threatens, the expression of views supportive of equity, diversity and inclusion.”

The courts deal with LAWS. And DEI is not law

 

[essentialsaltes]

If Lockheed wants to 'promote DEI,' that's Lockheed's business (and free speech right), as long as it otherwise obeys nondiscrimination laws.

“That is textbook viewpoint-based discrimination,” Abelson wrote. “The government’s threat of enforcement is not just targeted towards enforcement of federal law. Rather, the provision expressly targets, and threatens, the expression of views supportive of equity, diversity and inclusion.”

Or if not Lockheed, Apple. Apple management chose to retain its DEI policy, and now its shareholders have backed them up.

Apple shareholders reject proposal to scrap company’s diversity programs​