It was unclear, however, whether Alsup’s ruling would do much to stem the Trump administration’s sweeping purge of the federal workforce, as it was limited to agencies directly involved in the case. It was also not clear that the ruling would result in fired probationary employees getting their jobs back.
According toBloomberg Law, “the judge listed the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the National Science Foundation among the agencies that are barred from engaging in layoffs ordered by OPM.”
Politiconoted that “Alsup stopped short of ordering the agencies to reinstate the fired workers or to halt looming firing,” saying he “doesn’t currently have the authority to do that.”
So grow a fucking pair and stop it
Politiconoted that “Alsup stopped short of ordering the agencies to reinstate the fired workers or to halt looming firing,” saying he “doesn’t currently have the authority to do that.”
I, for one, appreciate when judges know the law.
He should’ve been more broad in preventing it in other agencies, but at least there’s precedent.
Perhaps this is true, but I feel like it’s more likely he doesn’t want to push his authority any farther because, like most people times likes these, he is terrified of how everything he says and does might come back on him.
Maybe. I honestly don’t know the specifics on what judges can or cannot do, but I do know I don’t want activist judges who go beyond their legal authority. So in general, I prefer restraint.
This is very noble and normally I would agree wholeheartedly, but I’m afraid restraint now will get a whole lot of us dead
The reason we’re in the mess we’re in is because of a similar series of justifications and “this time is different.”
- Harry Reid (Dem) lowered the Senate appointment vote to simple majority, down from super majority to get Obama’s appointments through - the GOP later expanded it to include Supreme Court nominees
- DNC decided to skip the primary and put Harris on the ballot to keep the campaign money, likely costing them the election
- Roe v Wade (IMO) went beyond what the Supreme Court’s limits should be (relied on stretching an implied right to privacy to cover abortion), because passing an actual law was too difficult; now it’s overturned and women are screwed in many areas
There are tons of examples where stretching the law results in a worse situation long term than s doing things properly.
I’m not suggesting anyone stretches any laws, I just want our lawyers, judges, and government officials to start pushing the limits of the laws we do have as far as they can go. (Though maybe the subtle difference only exists in my head, lol)
The current administration doesn’t give a flying fuck about laws and the more the people that hesitate or use restraint when enforcing those laws, the more the big bad Cunts can get away with playing their stupid dangerous game. Like a rebellious child with no consequences, they will keep sticking their fingers in the cookie jar until the only cookies left are the perfect white, straight, Nazi Americans. There needs to be consequences, and they need to happen now while there is still an America to salvage.
pushing the limits of the laws we do have as far as they can go
That just establishes precedent so the next batch can push it even further. It’s why the Executive Branch has so much power, the Executive keeps pushing and we’re all “surprised pikachu” when the other party abuses that new power in ways we don’t like.
That’s why we have norms and the rule of law. The ends don’t justify the means. Do the hard thing and pass a law, don’t reward copping out by relying on judges and executives to “push the limits” in a way you like, because the next group will use it in ways you don’t.
The only reason Trump has power to break the law is because we’ve given the Executive Branch that privilege over years of “but this time is different.”
