Latest Breaking News

BumRushDaShow

(150,363 posts)

4. She explained the issue in her questioning yesterday

Tue Feb 18, 2025, 06:46 PM

Feb 18

I.e., it's what they are arguing - and is unfortunately considered, in court-ese, as being "premature", even though we know PEOPLE in those states are being "harmed" ( let alone the nation). But they have to show how the STATE is (like a "person" might be) imminently "harmed".

This then sort of tells you how such a suit would need to be filed - i.e., with "individuals" doing it (where they can obviously be backed by giganto law firms).

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

5 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Scully bluestarone Alice B.SweepPicker LauraInLA

49 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Judge denies request to temporarily block DOGE's mass firings, access to data [View all] BumRushDaShow Feb 18 OP

Even judges are paid off or they are running scared now angrychair Feb 18 #1

She explained the issue in her questioning yesterday BumRushDaShow Feb 18 #4

Right... so there's no recourse until slightlv Feb 18 #11

See this post below BumRushDaShow Feb 18 #14

That's the part that doesn't make sense angrychair Feb 18 #21

"me making that case by myself isn't going to help anyone else." BumRushDaShow Feb 19 #30

Not true with this judge, they need to make a case. we can do it Feb 18 #5

She's a highly respected Obama appointee Polybius Feb 19 #29

No chance of an appeal? Baitball Blogger Feb 18 #2

They can appeal BumRushDaShow Feb 18 #3

Not really FBaggins Feb 18 #18

I think this explains the strategy BumRushDaShow Feb 18 #20

i read the descision moonshinegnomie Feb 18 #6

How can losing your most sensitive financial info to teenage Nazis be "undone"? SunSeeker Feb 18 #9

Gods, SunSeeker, this is what I'm zeroed in on! slightlv Feb 18 #12

The problem is that they can't demonstrate any of that is happening FBaggins Feb 18 #19

Even reading this private information is illegal. SunSeeker Feb 18 #23

Except we don't know that's happening either FBaggins Feb 18 #25

Yes we do. Miller has explictly said they're looking for "fraud," like "illegal aliens" claiming "child tax credits." SunSeeker Feb 18 #28

They don't have to look at individual returns in order to do that FBaggins Feb 19 #34

OFFS, everything DOGE is doing is "prohibitively inefficient." SunSeeker Feb 19 #35

Can i ask this question? Somebody is supplying something to these AG's. My question is could this judge bluestarone Feb 19 #45

I'm not sure that someone is supplying information to the AGs FBaggins Feb 19 #46

TY. This many AG's should KNOW what is needed for Christ sake. bluestarone Feb 19 #47

shit shit shit shit Genevra Feb 18 #7

Here is the final paragraph of her order: in2herbs Feb 18 #8

TY for this. bluestarone Feb 18 #10

"Don't give up hope." It's hard to give up what is already gone. n/t elocs Feb 18 #13

The state AGs may have been denied a TRO but they are pursuing an injunction, and this was in2herbs Feb 18 #15

Just a way to drag it out angrychair Feb 18 #22

Thanks. The details are important. defacto7 Feb 19 #43

Biggest line of BS from a judge moniss Feb 18 #16

She is the opposite of Loose Cannon BumRushDaShow Feb 18 #17

However it is nonsensical to say there is no imminent harm apparent. moniss Feb 18 #27

In this case, the "STATE" is NOT the same as an individual "person" - it's those unique "legal definitions" BumRushDaShow Feb 19 #31

I believe that the moniss Feb 19 #32

Unfortunately this is how the courts operate BumRushDaShow Feb 19 #33

Oh dear God, please do not direct people to take the word of anonymous self-appointed legal eagles. SunSeeker Feb 19 #36

Look - I have close family members who ARE lawyers BumRushDaShow Feb 19 #38

Please do not asset you know better than others because your relative is a lawyer. SunSeeker Feb 19 #39

I addressed the issue of "legal definitions" BumRushDaShow Feb 19 #40

"Legal definitions" aren't at issue here. SunSeeker Feb 19 #41

I agree that it is all up in the air for what the SCOTUS will do BumRushDaShow Feb 19 #42

Coward Nululu Feb 18 #24

Oh, for fuck's sake!! FOURTEEN Attorneys General couldn't come up with Scrivener7 Feb 18 #26

Sounds to me like she was being much too strict on what is required to "clearly show" irreparable harm. SunSeeker Feb 19 #37

It's not like she's shown herself a fan of this mob. She'd have granted it if she could. Scrivener7 Feb 19 #44

Of course she's not a Trump fan. But she is a human being subject to pressure. SunSeeker Feb 19 #48

The Court's Decisions Are Absolutely Worthless BlueKota Feb 19 #49