Tag: Politics

RBTE – Ensuring Enforcement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c)

On By brainsbriIn Reading Between the EdictsLeave a comment
Politics Bunker

Reading Between the Edicts – this Executive Order focuses on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c). I encourage you to read this order in its entirety in addition to reading the excerpts below.

2025-03-11 — Executive Order – Ensuring Enforcement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c)

One key mechanism is Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) (Rule 65(c)), which mandates that a party seeking a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order (injunction) provide security in an amount that the court considers proper to cover potential costs and damages to the enjoined or restrained party if the injunction is wrongly issued.

Consistent enforcement of this rule is critical to ensuring that taxpayers do not foot the bill for costs or damages caused by wrongly issued preliminary relief by activist judges and to achieving the effective administration of justice.

Therefore, it is the policy of the United States to demand that parties seeking injunctions against the Federal Government must cover the costs and damages incurred if the Government is ultimately found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.  Federal courts should hold litigants accountable for their misrepresentations and ill-granted injunctions.

Consistent with applicable law, the heads of executive departments and agencies (agencies), in consultation with the Attorney General, are directed to ensure that their respective agencies properly request under Rule 65(c) that Federal district courts require plaintiffs to post security equal to the Federal Government’s potential costs and damages from a wrongly issued injunction.  The scope of this directive covers all lawsuits filed against the Federal Government seeking an injunction where agencies can show expected monetary damages or costs from the requested preliminary relief, unless extraordinary circumstances justify an exception.

(b)  the security amount the agency is requesting is based on a reasoned assessment of the potential harm to the enjoined or restrained party; and

(c)  failure of the party that moved for preliminary relief to comply with Rule 65(c) results in denial or dissolution of the requested injunctive relief.

RBTE – …Restoring Merit to Government Service

On By brainsbriIn Reading Between the EdictsLeave a comment
Politics Bunker

Reading Between the Edicts – let’s look at another Executive Order related to hiring. I encourage you to read the order in its entirety in addition to reading the excerpts below.

2025-01-20 — Executive Order – Reforming the Federal Hiring Process and Restoring Merit to Government Service

prioritize recruitment of individuals committed to improving the efficiency of the Federal government, passionate about the ideals of our American republic, and committed to upholding the rule of law and the United States Constitution

…prevent the hiring of individuals who are unwilling to defend the Constitution or to faithfully serve the Executive Branch

This Federal Hiring Plan shall include specific agency plans to improve the allocation of Senior Executive Service positions in the Cabinet agencies, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Office of Management and Budget, the Small Business Administration, the Social Security Administration, the National Science Foundation, the Office of Personnel Management, and the General Services Administration, to best facilitate democratic leadership, as required by law, within each agency.

Don’t bring checkers to a chess match

On By brainsbriIn Observations, Other, Personal Development, Perspectives, Politics, Random ThoughtsLeave a comment

Recent events sparked some new thoughts on a concept I introduced in a previous post.

Pay attention to the rules before engaging in the game. Intimately understand the system and identify the levers that achieve maximum impact.

I did not participate in the 28 February economic blackout:

  • It’s the wrong tool for the intended impact. Halting spending for one day seems significant to the average person, but it’s a rounding error – a mere blip – on the Income Statements of the targeted large-cap, multinational companies currently in the crosshairs. These companies measure their finances quarterly, in lockstep with financial markets – they easily absorb a single-day financial hit.
  • Going cold turkey never works anyway. Keeping the first bullet in mind, companies won’t even see the impact of a one-day sales drop if individuals switch back to regularly scheduled “spending” programs and merely shift planned blackout day purchases to the next day*. Abruptly halting all spending on a single day is not sustainable for the average consumer anyway, and the inevitable return to normal spending habits becomes a non-impact since those sales still appear on the same quarterly financial statement.

*We’ll ignore for now the rare instance where a blackout day falls on the last day of a fiscal quarter.

If financial impact was the goal, a barrage of wooden arrows just shattered against tank armor.

If the goal is to stand in solidarity with a specific community or cause – great.

Unify.

Drive change.

I support the intent – just recognize the false lever and re-evaluate the strategy.

So no, I did not participate in the Feb 28 economic blackout:

I did shop at local stores though – because I typically do anyway.

I still used my credit card sparingly – I always do anyway.

These two actions form the core of the normal spending habits I established over the past decade.

Looking to make an impact? I emphasized “normal spending habits” twice in this post for a reason. Incrementally alter daily habits, fiercely and resolutely guard that checking account, and allow the desired global impacts to become a side-effect of individual self-improvement.