D's are arguing Musk needs to be nominated&then appointed by congress. Remember Jack Smith?
Jack Smith was appointed without congressional approval to hunt Donald Trump for 4 years. There was SPECIFIC laws that require a special counsel to be nominated and then approved by the senate which BidenHandlers skipped and then argued in court that it was not necessary.
Now with Musk, there are NOT specific laws that require him to be nominated and then confirmed by congress. They claim that there SHOULD BE a law that requires this process for someone with such power to lay off and fire so many govt workers....except 1) there isn't, and 2) even so, Musk is not firing or laying off anyone - he is merely informing department heads of audit findings.
Department heads, nominated by POTUS and then confirmed by the senate are doing the lay offs and firings.
Anyways, I thought that Democrats now demanding adherence to The Appointments Clause of the US Constitution is classic Liberalism Rule #2: The Rules Are For Thee And Not Me. The fact that they are misapplying the appointments clause is just the cherry on top.
Well, they chose the DC judge whom they feel will give them the ruling they want before this goes up higher. But talk about shameless!
Replies to: D's are arguing Musk needs to be nominated&then appointed by congress. Remember Jack Smith?
Why do you support the misery and harm Elon has heaped on the poor & vulnerable?
(no message)
California spent $24B on the homeless problem and homelessness increased by 40%.
I trust you've used the same tone with your state's leaders?
Why did DOGE lay off the people in charge of protecting us against nuclear attack?
(no message)
Maybe they weren't doing their job, like your state government.
I get that you'd vote to increase spending on programs that are making things worse.
Just own yer MAGA DOGe shite, Checkers.
(no message)
Own your own party's mistakes that put everyone behind the 8 ball that Musk and Trump are working
overtime to get us away from the eight ball. No snow days for Trump and Musk.
Conversing with you is like playing minesweepers.
(no message)
If true or not, what does that have to do with barons post, Checkers?
(no message)
I didn't respond to the OP, Beavis.
(no message)
Grocery prices keep soaring while airplanes keep falling. So DOGE!
(no message)
Do Only Good Everyday.
(no message)
Ah, the MAGAmoron world of make it up as you go.
(no message)
what, exactly, did he make up? all of what he posted is historical fact.
unless you live under a rock and get your information from the discredited msm.
He's USDS, Congress created it.
(no message)
Please go on.
(no message)
DT issued spec EO for establishment of a different temporary organization(USDSTO)headed by Musk
It special, temporary organization was not created by congress.
Even taking that to the side for a moment, Musk is not firing or laying off anyone. That "great power" is being wielded by congressionally appointed govt officials.
That the Dems suddenly caring about the Appointments after their actions and arguments with Jack Smith is hilariously hypocritical.
Link: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2025-01-29/pdf/2025-02005.pdf
I think I already gave you this ..
Thanks-this confirms that USDSTO was established by EO, not congress. It also says USDSTO is within
USDS. (And I will note that it is NPR, so.....beware, but nonetheless...)
To make sure we are on the same page, the reason that I see this as pertinent in light of the OP is whether or not Musk would have to be confirmed by congress.
I did some searching and found that Mia Hsiang, the former head of the USDS was appointed by the head of OMB (where USDS resided under until Trump brought it into the WH under his auspices).
While congress funds the organization, there is no record that I can find that it has ever .specifically confirmed an appointment of a USDS head.
This is important because Dems want to block or at least delay the audits by claiming that Musk was never confirmed appointed by congress.
From both of these links and what I can find, Musk would not need confirmation by congress since previous heads have not. Further, even if i missed something here, this is a NEW organization originated by Executive Order rather than by congress (regardless of where it is housed - in this case within USDS- and thus Musk would not require House appointment either.
Do you disagree?
(link is in reference to who appointed Hsiang and whther congress appointed her).
Link: https://fedscoop.com/mina-hsiang-appointed-usds-administrator/
I think Obama created it and Congress funded it.
It's never needed to be led by a congressionally approved leader. DOGE isn't a new entity, it's an old one, rebranded and moved to directly under Trump. Or something like that.
I don't think we're disagreeing other than details.
Yes. All of which means that the hypocritical lawsuit Dems filed to stymie Musk is also wrong.
(no message)
Agreed, it'll get shit down.
(no message)