Judge, YOU hire them!
They can clerk for you.
Posted on 04/22/2025 4:32:24 PM PDT by Beave Meister
A federal judge on Tuesday ordered the Trump Administration to rehire Voice of America (VOA) and other affiliate news services staff.
President Trump placed employees and contractors for government-funded Voice of America on leave last month.
US District Judge Royce Lamberth, a Reagan appointee, said Voice of America is funded by Congress and Trump’s cuts to the agency are “a direct affront to the power of the legislative branch.”
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
The black robed tyrants have eliminated Article II of the Constitution and now rule by judicial fiat.
I’m sorry Mr. Franklin, we couldn’t keep the constitutional republic you gave us.
5.56mm
Save the earth from climate change!
Shut off the electricity to them.
That would be unconstitutional. Appeal and get a stay pending the appeal.
She [Hillary Clinton was found to be in possession of 900 FBI files. A Republican [I forget his name] was found to be in possession of 1 file and got jail time. She has 900 and nothing was done to her. No wonder she feels that she is above the Law.
None of these judges stood up for the rights of citizens to not have to have havey-cavey drugs jabbed into their arms or lose their jobs. Trump is cleaning out his branch of government. Maybe they should do the same with theirs. I don’t see the judicial branch interfering with the legilative one.
Interesting I seem to recall congress passing laws to make programs then not funding them. But it’s not up to congress or the judiciary to dispense said funds.
Funded is not a directive for expenditure.
https://law.justia.com/codes/us/title-2/chapter-17b/subchapter-ii/
U.S. Code
Title 2 - The Congress
Chapter 17B - Impoundment Control
Subchapter II - Congressional Consideration of Proposed Rescissions, Reservations, and Deferrals of Budget AuthoritySec. 682 - Definitions
Sec. 683 - Rescission of budget authority
Sec. 684 - Proposed deferrals of budget authority
Sec. 685 - Transmission of messages; publication
Sec. 686 - Reports by Comptroller General
Sec. 687 - Suits by Comptroller General
Sec. 688 - Procedure in House of Representatives and Senate2 U.S.C. § 683 (2023)
Section §683. Rescission of budget authority
(a) Transmittal of special message
Whenever the President determines that all or part of any budget authority will not be required to carry out the full objectives or scope of programs for which it is provided or that such budget authority should be rescinded for fiscal policy or other reasons (including the termination of authorized projects or activities for which budget authority has been provided), or whenever all or part of budget authority provided for only one fiscal year is to be reserved from obligation for such fiscal year, the President shall transmit to both Houses of Congress a special message specifying—
(1) the amount of budget authority which he proposes to be rescinded or which is to be so reserved;
(2) any account, department, or establishment of the Government to which such budget authority is available for obligation, and the specific project or governmental functions involved;
(3) the reasons why the budget authority should be rescinded or is to be so reserved;
(4) to the maximum extent practicable, the estimated fiscal, economic, and budgetary effect of the proposed rescission or of the reservation; and
(5) all facts, circumstances, and considerations relating to or bearing upon the proposed rescission or the reservation and the decision to effect the proposed rescission or the reservation, and to the maximum extent practicable, the estimated effect of the proposed rescission or the reservation upon the objects, purposes, and programs for which the budget authority is provided.
(b) Requirement to make available for obligation
Any amount of budget authority proposed to be rescinded or that is to be reserved as set forth in such special message shall be made available for obligation unless, within the prescribed 45-day period, the Congress has completed action on a rescission bill rescinding all or part of the amount proposed to be rescinded or that is to be reserved. Funds made available for obligation under this procedure may not be proposed for rescission again.
- - - - - - - - - -
2 U.S.C. § 684
§684. Proposed deferrals of budget authority
(a) Transmittal of special message
Whenever the President, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the head of any department or agency of the United States, or any officer or employee of the United States proposes to defer any budget authority provided for a specific purpose or project, the President shall transmit to the House of Representatives and the Senate a special message specifying—
(1) the amount of the budget authority proposed to be deferred;
(2) any account, department, or establishment of the Government to which such budget authority is available for obligation, and the specific projects or governmental functions involved;
(3) the period of time during which the budget authority is proposed to be deferred;
(4) the reasons for the proposed deferral, including any legal authority invoked to justify the proposed deferral;
(5) to the maximum extent practicable, the estimated fiscal, economic, and budgetary effect of the proposed deferral; and
(6) all facts, circumstances, and considerations relating to or bearing upon the proposed deferral and the decision to effect the proposed deferral, including an analysis of such facts, circumstances, and considerations in terms of their application to any legal authority, including specific elements of legal authority, invoked to justify such proposed deferral, and to the maximum extent practicable, the estimated effect of the proposed deferral upon the objects, purposes, and programs for which the budget authority is provided.
A special message may include one or more proposed deferrals of budget authority. A deferral may not be proposed for any period of time extending beyond the end of the fiscal year in which the special message proposing the deferral is transmitted to the House and the Senate.
(b) Consistency with legislative policy
Deferrals shall be permissible only—
(1) to provide for contingencies;
(2) to achieve savings made possible by or through changes in requirements or greater efficiency of operations; or
(3) as specifically provided by law.
No officer or employee of the United States may defer any budget authority for any other purpose.
(c) Exception
The provisions of this section do not apply to any budget authority proposed to be rescinded or that is to be reserved as set forth in a special message required to be transmitted under section 683 of this title.
- - - - - - - - - -
https:// www.loc.gov/item/usrep420035/
TRAIN, ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
v.
CITY OF NEW YORK ET AL.CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
No. 73-1377.
Argued November 12, 1974
Decided February 18, 1975The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 provide a comprehensive program. for controlling and abating water pollution. Title II of these Amendments makes available federal financial assistance for municipal sewers and sewage treatment works. Section 207 of Title II authorizes the appropriation of "not to exceed" specified amounts for each of three fiscal years, and § 205 (a) provides that the "[sums authorized to be appropriated pursuant to [§ 207] ... shall be allotted by the Administrator" of the Environmental Protection Agency. The President directed the Administrator not to allot among the States § 207's maximum amounts but instead to allot no more than $2 billion of the $5 billion authorized for fiscal year 1973 and no more than 83 billion of the S6 billion authorized for fiscal year 1974; and the Administrator complied with this directive. Thereupon respondent city of New York brought this class action seeking a declaratory judgment that the Administrator was obligated to allot to the States the full amounts authorized by § 207 for fiscal years 1973 and 1974, and an order directing him to make those allotments. The District Court granted the respondents' motion for summary judgment, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that "the Act requires the Administrator to allot the full sums authorized to be appropriated in § 207." Held: The 1972 Amendments do not permit the Administrator to allot to the States under § 205 (a) less than the entire amounts authorized to be appropriated by § 207. Pp. 42-49.
[...]
I don’t remember voting for him/her/it for POTUS! Eff the Judge and the Democrat Party. Ignore this SOB. Continue with the firings. I voted for this.
So what could go wrong with a press that is funded by the government?? Wake up you STUPID judges! You are not divine, you are human and make mistakes. Arrogance is not a virtue.
This really is the only solution.
While it reminds me of a book by some affirmation guru, titled "Let Them," in this case it's the right move. Ignore them and let them do what they will, which isn't much. Another impeachment, ho hum.
He can’t now, because it could influence weaker USSC justices. Wait until June.
Janitors and parking lot attendants-the lot of them.
I thought VOA was established by EO.
Damn! If only we had a majority in Congress....
If memory serves, I think he played a part in keeping the Clintoons in check, no?
He did when they were the White House, but later on - not so much.
Oh, no. This guy has been after Trump with a passion for a long time. You’ll find his fingerprints on a lot of the lawfare cases and I think even going back to the first term, with Russia Russia Russia related issues.
Judge, YOU hire them!
They can clerk for you.
Spot on.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.