Hearing about to get underway in Judge Tanya Chutkan's courtroom related to blue state lawsuit against Elon Musk/DOGE seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO) prohibiting Musk from:

Julie Kelly on Twitter X ^ | February 17, 2025 | Julie Kelly

[Macho MAGA Man]

Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 @julie_kelly2

Hearing about to get underway in Judge Tanya Chutkan's courtroom related to blue state lawsuit against Elon Musk/DOGE seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO) prohibiting Musk from:

(1) Accessing or continuing to access any data systems and the information and code contained within those systems, including but not limited to systems containing sensitive or confidential agency and personnel data at the Office of Personnel Management, the Department of Education, the Department of Labor, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Energy, the Department of Transportation, and the Department of Commerce, or any components of any of those agencies, or copying, transferring, or in any way disseminating any data from any of the agencies identified in this paragraph.

(2) Terminating, furloughing, or otherwise placing on involuntary leave—whether paid or unpaid—any officers or employees of the federal government working within any of the Departments and agencies identified above.

10:03 AM · Feb 17, 2025 ·

[Macho MAGA Man]

I have to wonder what the outcome will be.

[Parley Baer]

I think that we already know the outcome of this. In this courtroom Trump is guilty until proven innocent if that is even possible under Chutkan.

[traditional2]

Is her name pronounced “Chitcan”????

[Jane Long]

JEFF MOSS, POINT OF IMPACT
@PoINews2

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan in Washington, D.C., on Sunday called the hearing for Monday, the Presidents Day holiday when federal courts are closed.

Soros owned Chutkan is an imbedded domestic terrorist here to do her part in the destruction of America.

🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸
@mrddmia
·
13h
Does any judge have a spouse receiving funding from USAID?

(Yes.)

[FlingWingFlyer]

Judge Tanya is like Kamala Harris and Jamaica winning the last election. This will be her second shot at a Jamaican judge bringing down an American president.

[curious7]

They have no standing.... If Chutkan was smart, which no on ever accused her of being.

[asinclair]

Again, the very, very loud protest from the Left. Almost like it’s life or death that they bury that which is still in the closet, the maze of details. Sunshine is the best disinfectant, right?

[pierrem15]

DOGE as the renamed digital services administration and its employees already have access to all data and systems by law. If Musk is an employee and/or appointed by the President within that administrative agency, there's no legal basis for intervening.

Plus DOGE doesn't fire anyone: they can only make recommendations. The President's agency heads do the firing.

If Chutkan rules otherwise, have her arrested for sedition and throw her in the same DC s---hole they put the J6 prisoners in.

[econjack]

I really don’t understand why anyone who has nothing to hide can fight an effort to uncover fraud and waste in the gov’t. This is NOT about data privacy. The fact that the gov’t has the data means it’s not private, as we’ve seen so many gov’t databases hacked in the past. This is a CYA move, pure and simple, and the Democrats are, again, using the judicial system to try and protect them.

[PGR88]

The US District Court for the District of Columbia was created by Congress in 1863.

It has morphed into the US Deep State Kangaroo Court.

Combined with a leftist-controlled Dept of Justice, and located in Washington DC, it has become a kind of KGB star-chamber, where political show trials are conducted before friendly apparatchiks.

Even with a no-longer leftist DOJ, it is still a venue for leftist political show-trials.

Congress created this monster, so it also can be eliminated by Congress

[bigbob]

On one hand, these judges know they are not accountable for their decisions - only 15 have ever been impeached in the history of the country and only half were convicted. So they can do pretty much whatever they want.

On the other, they know bad decisions will be overturned and maybe some don’t like having that kind of reputation.

I’d say it’s about 80% the first, and 20% who will resist the temptation to “make history”.

But there’s a bigger picture in play: Would continued abuse give Scotus sufficient reason to impose limits on the power of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions? If they did that, it would truly be karmic justice!

[FlingWingFlyer]

Giving Chutcan a do over is proof that the RATS might be running out of Feral RAT “judges” to help them bring down America.

[bk1000]

Why not just tell her she doesn’t have standing and to pound sand?

[Carry_Okie]

I guess I could be accused of spamming myself here, but as posted elsewhere: Everybody knows that Federill judges are getting out of line, pronouncing nationwide injunctions meant only for political purposes for which the Federal Courts were never intended by the Framers. That ties up both the Executive and the Appellate Couts with bogus cases, in which yet more de-facto legislation is pronounced in the opinions without the participation of Congress. It's a totally dysfuntional process that is immensely destructive to the Separation of Powers principle.

The idea that these judges will be removed by the Senate as currently composed is a fantasy. So this threat from Congress is all empty posturing and therefore a waste of time. Yet Andrew Branca's observation that judges should be removed for failing to uphold "good Behavior" per Article III Section 1 is correct. His prescription (that they would be removed by the Executive) is not, but there is a way to get this done from within the Judiciary which would seem a better way to uphold judicial independence and at least therefore theoretical objectivity.

Congress could pass a Statute to define the limits of "good Behavior" beyond which judges would be removed automatically. My preference is a rate of apellate overturn, say five cases over five years or some such. I have no idea how many overturns is typical or exactly how that limit would be prescribed but that's a political decision up to Congress anyway.

What I like about the idea is that it is automatic, said judges would then be mindful of the chance of being overturned when writing their decisions. Certainly if the limits were tight, they would be MUCH more circumspect, which I suspect is what we want. Yes there are possible drawbacks if the apellate court goes off the deep end the way the Ninth Circuit panel used to be.

Another thing I like about it is that we DO have the Congress constituted now such that this kind of legislation could pass and be signed by the President. As opposed to 'impeach and remove' this is a much more attainable means of curtailing judicial excess.

Anyway, it's an idea, and you read it here first. I hope someone will forward it appropriately.

There is no way a "judge" like Chutkan would give a rip about ruling otherwise unless her job was at stake. Were she berated before SCOTUS, she would see it as a partisan attack and bask in the glow of sympathy from its minority "jurists."

[iamgalt]

Somehow the rats got the most important lawfare case of them all in front of the worst of the Trump hating DC hacks…somehow

[Ronald77]

Don’t need to waste money on trial the out come has already been determined.

[Biblebelter]

Eventually this constitutional issue MUST go to the SCOTUS.

This may turn out to be the “fast tracked” case.

[MeneMeneTekelUpharsin]

If Chutkan rules otherwise, have her arrested for sedition and throw her in the same DC s---hole they put the J6 prisoners in.

This.

[Macho MAGA Man]

(This may turn out to be the “fast tracked” case.)

Let’s hope!

[Howie66]

Yeah, right.