Hampton Dellinger's lawyers have eviscerated Musk / Tangerine 2.0 -- in an acidic letter of response -- filed overnight, with the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. [He goes so far as to cheekily-ask the Chief to "please circulate it" to the other eight! Hah!]
But on the merits, it buries the Tangerine 2.0 team's grandstanding before the Supremes -- as Trump has wildly misrepresented the posture of this case, and to Chief Justice Roberts, to boot. Here's that bit -- and the full letter:
. . .[Musk/Trump] advances arguments concerning an administrative action that Special Counsel Dellinger recently filed before the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). The government does so despite failing to brief this issue to the district court (apart from a single unreasoned sentence in a footnote in its summary judgment reply brief) -- and despite failing to make any mention of this matter before the district court at the lengthy oral argument that occurred just yesterday. To be clear, the government nowhere asserts that the Special Counsel’s action was in any respect legally unsupported. Regardless, the government mis-describes what occurred: it was the MSPB, not the Special Counsel, that “halt[ed]” certain personnel actions, Letter at 2, and it is the MSPB (not the Special Counsel) that will render any further decisions and issue any binding orders within the Executive Branch’s internal administrative process concerning the propriety of those personnel actions. As the Special Counsel is fully prepared to explain when the government properly raises this issue within the litigation, there is no merit to the government’s assertion that this administrative action supports its position. To the contrary, a more accurate understanding of that process confirms the Special Counsel’s position concerning his for-cause removal protection.
That said, the government’s attempt to raise these issues for the first time in this posture -- and to object to a different TRO issued by a different judge in a different case -- is a distraction.
Had the government consulted with Special Counsel Dellinger before filing its letter (which it did not do), the government would have known that the Special Counsel does not object to its request to hold the application in abeyance for three additional days, which is the proper course of action.
I would appreciate it if you could circulate this letter to the Members of the Court[!!!]. . . .
Yup. That's gonna' leave. . . a bunch of big red welts, on these boys' big old hinies. Hah!
नमस्ते
No comments:
Post a Comment