Supreme Court Lifts Injunction, Allows Education Dept. to Continue Layoffs
The usual suspects dissented.
With a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court lifted an injunction to allow President Donald Trump’s Education Department to continue layoffs.
Take a wild guess who dissented.
In May, U.S. District Judge Myong Joun in Boston placed the injunction on the layoffs because “they had deeply disrupted services for students, families and states, making processes less efficient.”
Joun also claimed the layoffs would complicate matters, making it hard for the department to perform the tasks mandated by Congress.
The majority of SCOTUS justices did not pen an opinion or explanation.
The usual suspects published their usual whiny end-of-the-world dissent. *eye roll*
This dissent is over 18 pages. Blah blah blah. Government belongs in education. Only Congress can dismantle a department. People are losing their jobs!
(Do I really need to read this whole thing? Ugh. I despise the Department of Education!)
The dissenters acted as if Trump and Secretary Linda McMahon literally demolished the department.
The ladies kept using the word “abolish.”
Sure, “Trump repeatedly called for the immediate abolition of the Department both during his campaign and after taking office.” McMahon immediately slashed half the workforce, describing it as “the first step on the road to a total shutdown.”
Since when do we make decisions not based on “facts?”
Gutting a department is not abolishing the department. Unfortunately, the Education Department will continue to exist until Congress grows a spine and takes a match to it.
If states struggle so much without the department, then maybe, just maybe, the states should invest more in their public schools.
Maybe, just maybe, the cities/towns should invest more in their public schools.
Stop. Relying. On. The. Federal. Government. Keep education as local as possible.
If you cannot tell, I hate the Education Department. Hate hate hate it.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
The 3 “Females’ of The View with Robes
Hah!
There are females on the view?
Nobody who is not a biologist should make such a determination.
It almost seems that some people were hoping the Court was actually HR for the administration.
I wish Alito would hide Jackson’s crayons to keep her from dissenting.
Jackson didn’t write the dissent. Sotomayor wrote it. And Jackson along with Kagan joined with the dissent. So chances are Jackson had nothing really to do with the authoring of the dissent.
And she’d eaten the crayons, so she couldn’t write the dissent.
They can cut it to the absolute minimum actually established by direct statute.
Yet again SCOTUS removes the lefty wokiestas that the Chief Executive of the USA aka the President is supposed to run the Executive Branch, hire/fire employees, resize departments/agencies to accomplish the tasks of those departments/agencies as mandated by Congress…. not simply go with flow of whatever design the bureaucracy and their surrogates demand. Federal employment isn’t supposed a ‘jobs program’ for lefty wokiestas with Master’s degrees in unemployable disciplines without any end, never subject to downsizing as the mission creep is eliminated and technology makes employees redundant.
What do you call closing the Department of Education?
A good start.
This needs to happen with multiple agencies across the federal government, returning power to the states.
I’ll say it again – In the execution of his lawful powers, the POTUS can’t legally harm anyone. People may starve, killers may stalk the streets, pestilence can become an ever-present threat. But none of that matters, because the reply to such calamity is found in the next election or in the Congress. No help should be found in any court. Whether or not the POTUS is doing his job well (or not) is a political question. It should be plainly evident that the courts do not provide a route through which a POTUS can be prevented from doing anything lawful. Any act within his authority is, ipso facto, lawful. “Harm,” “inefficiency,” “loss of funds,” etc. notwithstanding. If the dissent has a cogent argument why Trump’s acts are not within his authority, I have yet to see it. Congress can certainly address questions that arise due to ambiguity or lack of clarity in existing statutes.
Exactly. The dissent correctly says that the president doesn’t have the power to abolish the department. That is why he hasn’t done so. But he does have the power to set it up for eventual abolition, and has every right to do so. He must spend the amounts Congress has appropriated for the department, and he must do so within the limits Congress has placed on that spending, but other than that he’s free to shrink and reduce it as much as he can.
Fantastic news.. Channeling, “I love the smell of napalm in the morning.”
I think the merits are a bit questionable here. But I am damned glad that we won.
The left got ahead with worse than questionable rulings like Plyler v. Doe. I hope that one’s next to fall.
To clarify I think the plaintiff in Plyler deserved the relief. A disabled US citizen boy deserved FAPE. But it extended to all illegals that show up at a public school claiming they live in the district, and illegals that show up at a hospital without money, and that’s a very damaging situation. The decision needs to be narrowed to what it should have been in the first place.
Please explain. The plaintiffs in Plyler were all illegal aliens. To which “disabled US citizen boy” do you refer?
I’m not sure what artichoke is talking about. The case was a class action out of Texas about whether or not illegal alien children could attend public schools free of charge. The court ruled they were persons under the 14th Amendment and could unless a substantial state interest was involved.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/457/202/
Of interest to the current Birthright Citizenship issue, note that the court unanimously rejected the idea that illegal aliens are not under the state’s jurisdiction. The majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions all agreed that anyone who is within a state and has to obey its laws is under its jurisdiction, and is entitled to equal protection. They only differed over whether that entitles them (if they are children) to free education.
The interruption of the Federal Student Aid bureaucracy should reduce the number of unrepaid loans given, especially since it seems to be hitting schools that don’t give especially marketable degrees.
Stop kids from going into debt. In the age of everything being available online to those with self discipline, there’s a lot to like there. I don’t want to pay for spoon feeding inadequate students, and I don’t want them to think it’s a good idea for them to accept debt for it either. Buckle down and study by yourself for a while, and you’ll be so impressive a solid college would take you.
This was a very easy call. Sec. 3 (b) states ” This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.”
Thus, the order does not do anything that the law prohibits. Therefore, much to the chagrin of the “Wide Latina” and the residient non-biologist, there was never anything for the court to enjoin in the first place.
Sotomayor wrote “ [The] decision is indefensible. It hands the Executive the power to repeal statutes by firing all those necessary to carry them out.”
OK, fair enough. Now let’s apply this to the push to stop ICE from enforcing immigration laws. She’s saying the executive must carry out statutes. Isn’t this what ICE is doing? And didn’t President Autopen violate this principle by NOT enforcing duly enacted immigration laws?