Posted on 05/02/2025 5:45:33 PM PDT by CFW
Today, May 2, the Solicitor General asked the Supreme Court for an emergency stay in Social Security Administration v. AFSCME. This case was brought to stop DOGE employees from accessing SSA data.
Immediately after the application was filed, the Chief Justice called for a response due on May 12.
Response to application (24A1063) requested by The Chief Justice, due by 4 p.m. (EDT) on May 12, 2025.
Here, Roberts continues his trend by calling for a response immediately. but Roberts apparently does not think this case is urgent. He did not grant even a temporary administrative stay, and granted the Respondents a leisurely ten days to respond.
Yesterday, I tracked the average length of time for shadow docket responses. This will be the second-longest period, only behind Justice Jackson's timeline in the Maine case. I wonder if Roberts too is signaling that the shadow docket should slow down.
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
Roberts apparently thinks there is no urgency at all as federal judges issue injunction after injunction against the Executive branch.
SCOTUS ping!
I think it is this case (There are so many, sometimes it is hard to differentiate between them).
Case Summary: Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit challenging the U.S. Department of Government Efficiency’s access to Social Security Administration data and systems.
They allege that allowing DOGE to access private citizens’ sensitive data violates several laws, including the Internal Revenue Code, the Privacy Act, the Federal Information Systems Modernization Act, the E-Government Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act.
They further allege that Acting SSA Commissioner Leland Dudek’s exercise of significant authority without nomination or confirmation violates the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiffs ask the court to declare DOGE’s access to SSA data and systems unlawful, order DOGE to disgorge or delete any unlawfully obtained data, and prohibit any further efforts by either DOGE or SSA to enable DOGE to access SSA data or systems.
What options does the Trump team have to light a fire under Roberts to speed things up? Any?
Wouls suspending Habeud Corpus for illegal aliens and mass deporting them faster do it?
DOGE was created from an administrative office that, by statute, had access to ALL federally held information. Trump and company capitalized on that to make DOGS able to legally access any information fedgov holds.
The judges are out of line, and should be punished. Logically, they should be defrocked and deposed. Emotionally, they should be drawn and quartered for their treasonous acts.
“What options does the Trump team have to light a fire under Roberts to speed things up? Any?”
None really. They just need to make sure their court pleadings are well-cited and well-written and hope Roberts and the other justices will set aside their prejudices against Trump and rule based upon the Constitution and legal precedent.
Article II
he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices,
Trump clearly has the authority to commission is DOGE guy to fetch him ANY information that he wants.
I was under the impression that DOGE is not accessing the info but working with SSA employees who do have permission to obtain the information.
These plaintiffs and such should just probably go ahead and declare that Trump is no longer president pending approval by a group of hand selected district judges.
I was a computer programmer and worked for the US Census in two decennials.
This lawsuit is pony plop.
“I was under the impression that DOGE is not accessing the info but working with SSA employees who do have permission to obtain the information.”
That was my understanding as well. The entire lawsuit is ridiculous.
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.