Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought that folks covered by a union were still safe, not true?

It has to follow the law. Which means the layoffs happen then lawsuits are filed. Once that's done and it goes through appeals the SCOTUS will say that the provision in the union contract limiting the President's power to fire people is illegal but that the rest of the contract provisions weren't being decided on.

By the time the court makes this ruling it will be a couple of years from now and everyone laid off will have new work anyway. It isn't possible reinstate hundreds of thousands of people in 2027 or 2028 that were laid off in 2025 even if SCOTUS ruled in the favor of feds. Also, not all feds have union contracts and not all contracts are the same for those that do have them.

At best we'll see people on extended admin leave while lower courts make a decision. Extended admin leave will, of course, be ruled unlawful by SCOTUS in a few months based on an """emergency""" request.

No one is getting another job

Trump is crashing the economy unemployment will sky rocket

Yep- this will get worse before it gets better. MAGA has to have trouble putting food on the table and get worried about losing their home, ability to make car payments, afford private school, pay off medical bills, etc. but I’m not totally confident that would change their tune.

Their family would be hungry, their homes would go into foreclosure, and they’d insist like most cult members that suffering is necessary for salvation— in this case, saving America from Communism.

As if people in the trailer parks send kids to private schools, could get a car loan, or own a home. Heck go to Food bank already and having missing teeth due no real medical coverage.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So what does this mean? The CA judge is reopening the case and now reviewing on the merits of the plans themselves?

Yep, so now the plans themselves can be evaluated for compliance with the law. My money is on them having cut corners and they get enjoined again.

Anonymous wrote:

So what does this mean? The CA judge is reopening the case and now reviewing on the merits of the plans themselves?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This should be taught in law school to show the Judiciary is the weakest branch of our government. Our Supreme Court would allow our democracy to fall just to adhere to procedure then later order the government to clean up the smoking ashes and return to status quo.

Even Sotomayor and Kagan agreed on this one. They have to interpret the law, not legislate.

The lawsuits sort of jumped the gun. And then the Supreme Court jumped the gun too. The Supreme Court is making these procedural rulings, trying to pretend that they are in the right while everyone else is failing to cross their Ts and dot their Is. But they're doing it too. Apolitical and nonpartisan? SMH

Kagan and Sotomayor agreed with this one.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Basic question: Have the probationary employees (at HHS or wherever) who were laid off earlier this year still been getting paid while these court decisions were TBD/undecided?

Or did they stop getting paid right after they were laid off? Thanks

All of those people were fired on May 8th and are no longer getting paid.

And wasn't there an earlier round, in March-ish?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought that folks covered by a union were still safe, not true?

It has to follow the law. Which means the layoffs happen then lawsuits are filed. Once that's done and it goes through appeals the SCOTUS will say that the provision in the union contract limiting the President's power to fire people is illegal but that the rest of the contract provisions weren't being decided on.

By the time the court makes this ruling it will be a couple of years from now and everyone laid off will have new work anyway. It isn't possible reinstate hundreds of thousands of people in 2027 or 2028 that were laid off in 2025 even if SCOTUS ruled in the favor of feds. Also, not all feds have union contracts and not all contracts are the same for those that do have them.

At best we'll see people on extended admin leave while lower courts make a decision. Extended admin leave will, of course, be ruled unlawful by SCOTUS in a few months based on an """emergency""" request.

No one is getting another job

Trump is crashing the economy unemployment will sky rocket

Yep- this will get worse before it gets better. MAGA has to have trouble putting food on the table and get worried about losing their home, ability to make car payments, afford private school, pay off medical bills, etc. but I’m not totally confident that would change their tune.

Their family would be hungry, their homes would go into foreclosure, and they’d insist like most cult members that suffering is necessary for salvation— in this case, saving America from Communism.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This should be taught in law school to show the Judiciary is the weakest branch of our government. Our Supreme Court would allow our democracy to fall just to adhere to procedure then later order the government to clean up the smoking ashes and return to status quo.

Even Sotomayor and Kagan agreed on this one. They have to interpret the law, not legislate.

Bingo. Democrats hate that.

BS
Republicans are not Americans


When the American empire finally collapses, historians won't be stunned
the greed of the elite; They'll be stunned by the loyalty of the poor.
The working class didn't just vote against their own interests. They worshipped the billionaires robbing them.
They slashed their own benefits, gutted their own healthcare, and cheered while the rich wrote off private jets as tax deductions.
Not because it helped them. But because they were told it would hurt someone else.
And that, right there, is how you rig a democracy without ever breaking a single law.

I loathe the Supreme Court these days. No honor or integrity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought that folks covered by a union were still safe, not true?

It has to follow the law. Which means the layoffs happen then lawsuits are filed. Once that's done and it goes through appeals the SCOTUS will say that the provision in the union contract limiting the President's power to fire people is illegal but that the rest of the contract provisions weren't being decided on.

By the time the court makes this ruling it will be a couple of years from now and everyone laid off will have new work anyway. It isn't possible reinstate hundreds of thousands of people in 2027 or 2028 that were laid off in 2025 even if SCOTUS ruled in the favor of feds. Also, not all feds have union contracts and not all contracts are the same for those that do have them.

At best we'll see people on extended admin leave while lower courts make a decision. Extended admin leave will, of course, be ruled unlawful by SCOTUS in a few months based on an """emergency""" request.

No one is getting another job

Trump is crashing the economy unemployment will sky rocket

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WaPo says state department has conference rooms booked for Friday to do the RIFs.

Wasn't that last Friday? Or the Friday before?

I don't have WAPO but this is the linked article on reddit.

https://www.reddit.com/r/fednews/comments/1lvuiu8/federal_workers_fear_trump_will_fire_them_after/

They’re booked again.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This should be taught in law school to show the Judiciary is the weakest branch of our government. Our Supreme Court would allow our democracy to fall just to adhere to procedure then later order the government to clean up the smoking ashes and return to status quo.

Even Sotomayor and Kagan agreed on this one. They have to interpret the law, not legislate.

Bingo. Democrats hate that.

No Democrats are Americans republicans are dictator lovers

If you think SCOTUS is not going to destroy the US and install a dictator you are a cult member of the highest ignorance.

Show us one thing a republican has ever done that did not enrich themselves bull the people that voted for them???

When has Trump done one thing to help the US and not take the US treasury he’s crushing the economy unemployment is going to sky rocket .

Again I ask show evidence of one republican doing anything that the people that voted for them asked for?

Hawley liar
Mtg liar
Jordan liar
Johnson liar
Andy Harris Mike Lee Ted Cruz show us evidence of them doing their jobs??

Project 2025 you don’t have any preexisting conditions? You want men head of households no more women on mortgages? You don’t want work safety or overtime pay? You want kids uneducated and working the fields and factories??

Red states have passed laws that girls can be married at age 10 by all means let your kid be the first.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WaPo says state department has conference rooms booked for Friday to do the RIFs.

Wasn't that last Friday? Or the Friday before?

I don't have WAPO but this is the linked article on reddit.

https://www.reddit.com/r/fednews/comments/1lvuiu8/federal_workers_fear_trump_will_fire_them_after/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This should be taught in law school to show the Judiciary is the weakest branch of our government. Our Supreme Court would allow our democracy to fall just to adhere to procedure then later order the government to clean up the smoking ashes and return to status quo.

Even Sotomayor and Kagan agreed on this one. They have to interpret the law, not legislate.

Bingo. Democrats hate that.

Anonymous wrote:From AFGE?

AFGE has filed in California asking for expedited motions after this SCOTUS decision.