Did I rip that sentence out of context? Yes, but I gave you a gift link, so you can put it back.
The role of the judiciary is not to determine the meaning of every provision of law that is opined upon by someone in another branch of government, but only to say what the law is when that is needed to resolve a real dispute between adverse parties and only if the court has jurisdiction. The President is independently obliged to follow the law and must figure out what it is as he goes along. The courts don't answer questions of law as they happen to arise as the President does his work. This is basic separation of powers.
I note that the judge in the "Fork in the Road" case just found that the plaintiffs lacked standing and dissolved the temporary restraining order. He gave no advice on the legality of Trump's "fork" offer, because he lacked the power to do so.
As the NYT tells us — in "Trump’s Federal Resignation Program Moves Ahead After Court Win/With a judge’s assent, the Trump administration moved to take next steps in the program and close it to new entrants" — Trump has now closed the offer. His view of its legality is, at this point, the final answer. Did he withdraw the offer because he feared there would be another case, brought by someone with standing? Or does he now view the offer as sweeter than it needed to be?
ADDED: The front-page teaser for"Trump Dares the Courts to Stop Him" is now: "If Trump Triggers a Constitutional Crisis, No Part of Society Can Remain Silent." I feel that headline is intended to evoke the famous saying: "First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."
Posts
73 comments:
The offer had a time limit to induce people to act. That limit has been reached. If further inducements are to be taken seriously—like the Saturday deadline in Gaza—they must be maintained by the President.
I though the offer was just 8 days and it just expired.
With 77,000 accepting and a stated goal of seeing a 5% to 10% reduction of the total federal workforce (~2M), this did not meet their expectations. With only 3.85% of the workforce accepting, per normal attrition this appears to have pulled some planned 2025 retirements forward a few months. Some unhappy younger people likely got out too.
Here I say Musk/Trump are deeply naive about the federal workforce. I truly would like to see a reduction of the workforce, but Fork in the Road never made sense to me.
https://www.newsnationnow.com/politics/75000-federal-workers-trump-buyout/
"...Obediance to the Courts..."
What country is this?
The latter.
One where spelling is in decline...
So, answer me this. How can Trump promise money to people that hasn't been appropriated by Congress yet. (Payroll is only available for Federal employees through mid-March).
"change needs to happen through the established channels of litigation in, and obedience to, the courts." Except when "the courts" rule against progs, then it's back to #Resistance. Or Schumer threats on SCOTUS steps. L. Seidman wrote a whole book about constitutional disobedience. Is even prog lawlessness situational?
I don't know, Freder. How does he promise any Federal employee that they will get paid in April?
Maybe he should just lay them all off without pay.
I love how judges, particularly the leftwing ones, play games with "Standing". Basically, if they like the plaintiff, they have "standing". So for some reason the AG of California can sue Trump over USAID, and the AG of Massachutes can sue over whether Musk can look at treasury data.
However, if the leftwing judge doesn't like you, then you don't have standing. So, during the election fraud cases, State AG's were told they had no standing to challenge the results. Or Biden's Exec Orders.
Again, District Judges can do anything. I repeat they can do anything. They could issue an order that trump can only use the bathroom between 1 and 2 PM. And the only person who can stop or correct them is another judge. Its insane!
And we have over 800 Federal District Judges. Every single one of them can stop or reverse anything Trump does. Their authority is nation-wide. All the Left and D's have to do is find one crazy Trump hating Judge and they can stop Trump.
Its an insane system. But Republicans are stupid.
Final comment - you don't have to be a lawyer to understand this. This entire system of District Judges overruling the POTUS, is nowhere in the Constitution and didn't exist for over 150 years. But 'muricans don't care about history or the actual words of the Consitution. We all worship the judges. All hail the District Judges. Long may they rein!
Has Trump actually refused to obey a court? Listened to Scott Adams yesterday, and he said no.
'...obedience to the courts...' . Yes - there it is. Not 'obedience to the Rule of Law', it's 'obedience to the courts'. The NYT, with its wishcasting and opinioneering.
That is the question: can judges appropriate for themselves the power to decide all federal spending? That's what the leftist talking heads are saying. That interpretation is even worse than we were under Chevron if it would stand review.
It's enjoyable watching Scott Jennings (figuratively) bat the lefty "Legal Minds" around on CNN. It's almost always a 4:1 or 5:1 ratio of screeching lefties to Scott, although last night he had Gov. Sununu to assist from the right, and he has the better argument every time. This is relevant because we keep discussing the TROs and crazy rulings by District Court judges and so do they. On Wednesday they actually defended the judge who said Trump had to keep spending money the way the former Treasury employees wanted to because that was Congress' intent. Scott reasonably asked, "So a judge can allow fraudulent disbursements and the president cannot stop them?" I would have phrased it "pause them" because neither Musk nor Trump has said these disbursements were cancelled, only paused while the new admin has a chance to review them.
@Freder So, answer me this. How can Trump promise money to people that hasn't been appropriated by Congress yet. (Payroll is only available for Federal employees through mid-March).
This is indeed the main question for 2025. To what extent are the Republicans behind Trump? If the Republicans can hang together, this is a non-issue. If the Republicans don't, then it'll be super messy.
Ann Althouse concisely and correctly defines the roll of the federal courts. That’s why the NYT won’t interview Ann.
Here I say Musk/Trump are deeply naive about the federal workforce.
Your pessimism is admirable in its steadfastness, Enigma. However, based on historical examples they were wildly successful, and not really that far off the lowball 5% they aimed for. If given again, I think the offer would garner at least 5% total reduction, which is amazing. Clinton asked for an across-the-board 4% reduction in the federal workforce when he was still high on his "era of big government is over" speech.
Anyone recall the results of that gambit?
To me, standing has always been very murky.
I don't recall the student loan buyouts being appropriated by Congress, Freder. Your concern troll is showing.
Has Trump actually refused to obey a court? Listened to Scott Adams yesterday, and he said no.
Convinced me. I always depend on cartoonists to explain to me complex issues of the balance of powers.
Its an insane system. But Republicans are stupid.
You do realize that the Republicans do the same. Their go-to judge (Matthew Kacsmaryk) sits all by himself in Amarillo, TX. In fact if you want to sue Tesla, you have to file in the good judge's court.
@Mike: However, based on historical examples they were wildly successful, and not really that far off the lowball 5% they aimed for.
The Musk middle estimate would be 7.5% (150,000), so this was a plain failure per a consistent standard. Wait for the CY 2025 retirement totals to see if the net total changes versus 2024. I may eat my words in January 2026.
Still, a few months of staying at home when one has all sorts of holiday, vacation, and sick leave is a NOTHING benefit for many feds.
Freder, that's how all of the federal government operates. Program authorization is one law, appropriations is another. The Fork emails told employees that if they took the deal, they would be treated just like regular employees in the event of a lapse in appropriations.
The easy answer Freder is that for the last four years 85% of the Federal workforce had no-show jobs, where they pretended to "work from home." So Trump could let the 77,000 just continue their no-show no-work collect-a-check existence for eight months and problem solved. My hunch is that the first 77,000 that said yes were doing this exact thing anyway. Many probably already have other employment and were double-dipping.
Either way, his carrot approach will no doubt be followed by his stick approach and we'll see, won't we?
A judge that knows the law, what a novelty,
The comments to this NYT editorial coupled with the spate of TROs exemplify the extent to which TDS has become the excuse for the moral bankruptcy of the Democrats. It is all in defense of the corruption and waste that facilitates the money laundering that is the hallmark of the Party.
The things Trump is doing and that the Democrats are trying to stop are the things he campaigned on. Those are the things the voters want, and voted for- well, a majority of them, anyway.
What happened to all that concern about democracy we were hearing before the election? Was it all a lie? Why yes, it was. But what else can you expect from a Democrat?
@Mike: My numbers were too generous. A better fed workforce estimate is 2.4M. So, about 3.21% accepted Fork in the Road. This is mere retirement statistical noise.
Source data: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/01/07/what-the-data-says-about-federal-workers/
NYT: "We Are Losing Our Kritocracy! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight Trump To Save Our Kritarchy!
Enigma, I also left out part of mt rationale, that after the court's order saying "no standing" the employees on the fence might be inclined to take the offer. Further, your median math is correct but Trump usually asks for the world but will accept the minimal end of the range, thus 5% in this case. I do think they'll get it.
No takers on Clinton's outcome?
Correct me if I am wrong. Congress has the power to define the authority and role of the District Courts. This would be a good time.
NPR said the offer was set to expire Feb. 6th. If it was extended, it was only because of the court delaying. An extra week doesn't bother me.
the federal courts, where nearly all intragovernmental disputes eventually wind up.
The problem is to many this looks like intergovernmental disputes, with the Federal bureaucracy being it's own unelected, unaccountable government. "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." The President either controls the Federal bureaucracy of he doesn't. If he doesn't then it is outside the scope of the executive power of the US Federal government and can not enforce any laws.
@Mike: The easy answer Freder is that for the last four years 85% of the Federal workforce had no-show jobs, where they pretended to "work from home."
I've sat in federal offices and observed a BUNCH of "no-show brain" employees. They happily showed up to the office in their PJs to take naps and collect paychecks, and did so year-in-year-out for many, many, many years prior to COVID.
Mike (MJB Wolf) said...
I don't recall the student loan buyouts being appropriated by Congress, Freder. Your concern troll is showing.
Exactly what I was thinking Mike. He actually BRAGGED that the Supreme Court couldn't stop him.
Appropriations are a max dollar amount, not a minimum. If pres can achieve result for less, he can do that. If he wants to shift funds from Fed to state, he can do that, too. If he finds waste fraud and abuse, he’s obligated to root it out - that’s part of faithful execution of the law. If there so much flagrant abuse, he can stop funding it altogether.
Given several FB posts, it sure seems like federal employees feel entitled to their jobs forever. The Fork results support that impression. We’ll see what happens next!
"District Judges can do anything. I repeat they can do anything. They could issue an order that trump can only use the bathroom between 1 and 2 PM. And the only person who can stop or correct them is another judge. "
And, THIS is The Constitutional Crisis!
Checks and Balances? Not for the "judges"
Mike (MJB Wolf) said...
"No takers on Clinton's outcome? "
approx 377,000
Time to move from offering the “Fork in the Road” to sticking the “Fork in the Bureaucracy”?
https://x.com/Oilfield_Rando/status/1890017210158256176
I blame 100% of this judicial mess on the total fecklessness of SCOTUS, particularly the spineless Chief Justice.
@Freder: I asked Grok whether Trump has stated explicitly whether he will obey all court orders: Grok’s answer: “Trump has stated, ‘I always abide by the courts, and then I'll have to appeal it.’”
The problem the bureaucrats are going to run into is that it's not just the President who is going after them -- Congress will do it too.
Senate Democrats have veto over funding the government past March 14, and over raising the debt ceiling. Without a continuing resolution or any appropriation bills for federal departments, what becomes of these judicial cases and TROs? Any notion that courts are upholding Congressional power over the budget is gone. Who will break the sad news to Elon that he needs to immediately cut all discretionary government expenditures in order to pay Social Security and interest on public debt?
The NYT is dedicated Soviet-Democrat.
Did he withdraw the offer because he feared there would be another case, brought by someone with standing? Or does he now view the offer as sweeter than it needed to be?
Clearly the latter.
One thing that will be addressed at some point is the 3rd branch of government.
Out of all of the grotesqueries of the Leviathan that has built itself to feast off the energy of the people of this country in it is the growth and metastisization of the Judicial branch at every level in our country. Judges are lawyers after all and they don't know how to mind their own business.
There are a bunch of priests in robes that I assume will eventually be impeached and jailed. I am curious how many magical millionaires there are in the DC federal judiciary.
"Change" has a broader range than "established channels of litigation," just comparing the words.
I have a solution!!! Sen. Fetterman just went on the record saying that there is no constitutional crisis.
Perhaps all Dims in Congress should undergo the same brain surgery Fetterman had to help straighten their asses out and facilitate clear thinking.
Did he withdraw the offer because he feared there would be another case, brought by someone with standing? Or does he now view the offer as sweeter than it needed to be?
I also suspect it is the latter. 8 months severance? That sounds far better than what typical employees get, where getting a month or maybe two is on the high end. I also think this is about affecting the mindset of the remaining workforce. How many that didn't take the offer will now feel deep regret about not taking it? If they do feel that way and another off-ramp appears will they not leap to take that even if it isn't as good as the first offer? I have been skimming the FedNews subreddit, which has a lot of Federal Employees as members. It seems that generally their emotions are negative, and at least in my estimation I don't think many at all feel like they are ascendant or winning.
>Dave Begley said...
Ann Althouse concisely and correctly defines the roll of the federal courts. That’s why the NYT won’t interview Ann.<
Otherwise they would? Why?
(Wipe your nose, Begley.)
Aggie said...
'...obedience to the courts...' . Yes - there it is. Not 'obedience to the Rule of Law', it's 'obedience to the courts'. The NYT, with its wishcasting and opinioneering.
Right. It also isn't obedience to the Constitution. The courts are supposed to be an equal branch of government, not the high priests who get the final say on everything. The idea that one pissant federal judge can dictate (deliberate choice of word) to the entire country and tie up the other branches for years of "judicial process" is absurd and totalitarian.
Freder, I think you have to sue Tesla in Texas because that's where they are incorporated and where their headquarters are.
The Professor’s one paragraph comment on separation of powers in the post is outstanding!
He closed the offer so that it can be reopened in the future to entice further retirements and separations.
The “fork in the road”judge is a Clinton appointee. Before I bailed on the Democrats, my Republican friends used to hardass me about Clinton (“Your guy.”) I told them that for all his many, many, many faults he kept the lunatics from taking over the Democrat Party. Many of those lunatics now sit on the federal bench.
The offer was supposed to be withdrawn last week.
It was a short time, one time only offer, with the promise that many people who didn't take it would get a worse deal.
Trump is the most law abiding president in my lifetime. Only Carter might have a shot but he was irrelevant.
From what i recall this was a voluntary deal where folks could get a sweet severance. The rest won’t get anything but what is legally required. They have fa and they will find out.
Imperfect analogy, and one person's (Not That Rich) opinion: If we assume a football game is properly convened (think jurisdiction, standing, and such) then the referees have no business whatever telling the offense whether to pass or run, whether to punt or go for it; no business telling the defense whether to blitz or not, whether to play zone or man. And so on.
But if the offense lines up offsides, or in an illegal formation, or the defense has twelve men on the field, the referees' job is to throw that flag. They don't get to tell the teams what to do; they make sure they follow the rules when they do it.
So to return to a previous discussion, no judge ever presumed to tell the Administration that it could not audit records of any executive department (and if one did, to be clear I wouldn't agree). One judge did temporarily call a time out to consider whether the statutory rules were being followed in the manner of execution of an ongoing audit.
Some of you seem quite offended if the officials even show up at the stadium. The President has already said that the Administration will follow court rulings. The preliminary call is on further review. Things are working as they should. Unless you want a street fight instead of a football game.
"In short, change needs to happen through the established channels of litigation in, and obedience to, the courts."
The Courtship of X's Father?
"I don't know if we have too many rules or not enough."
@Mike, @Breezy, and others who have not witnessed problematic federal workspaces first hand.
Many federal employees are the beneficiaries of patronage: their lifestyles and income fully depend on keeping a federal job. They indeed feel entitled but the quitting option would cut their incomes from say, $100,000 per year, to $40,000 per year based on their open-market skills. This applies to a raft of disabled veterans (who may game the system for increasing disability ratings) and DEI hires.
I witnessed a federal business unit that existed for close to 40 years expressly to house do-nothing, untrainable, hard-to-fire employees. The firing process was so complex that managers would spend a year or two documenting the problems and try to fire someone, and then be overturned on appeal. So, the dead wood stayed in place.
They also had a habit of giving minimally "okay" performance evaluations to avoid the inevitable appeals and conflicts with the federal labor unions.
So, Musk arranged 8 months of stay-at-home pay for people who've alreadly lived for 20-30 years on no-work patronage jobs both in and out of the office? What will they do for the next 10 or 20 years before they shift over to Social Security? This is why the Fork in a Road quit rate was low.
When the Supreme Court failed to overturn Roe v Wade for 50 years, that somehow made Dobbs an invalid decision in a lot of people's minds, who all fail to mention Dredd Scott and getting his case overturned via Constitutional Amendment after only 8 years and a Civil War). I'd be more impressed with the arguments about letting the existing ability of one judge to stop either coequal branch of government proceed with their decisions, if those two other judicial proceedings weren't precedents for how bad court decisions play out.
..."with a judge's assent..."
They can't just state the facts, they have to put the blame on someone. Although, given that the judge said that the plaintiffs simply didn't have standing, I don't think that "assent" is the correct word.
Freder is the "heart" that brings the working class "hands" together with the upper class "mind". Thus, he is the hero and main character of the epic story of Metropolis. .
He "withdrew" the offer because it was always presented as available only for a limited time.
For "voluntary" severance programs to work, the payment in the following "involuntary" severance program needs to be less attractive. Otherwise, all you get from the voluntary program is the departure of your best people who have other alternatives. People with alternatives take the money and run. People with no alternatives won't take the money as long as they're convinced that they'll get the same (or better) deal if they hang around waiting to be fired.
The Skeptic said...
For "voluntary" severance programs to work, the payment in the following "involuntary" severance program needs to be less attractive.
Head over to r/fednews at reddit. There seems to be high levels of anxiety there. Anxious people seem like possible candidates to take a certain deal, even if not ideal, because it gives certainty and a way to end the anxiety.
So to return to a previous discussion, no judge ever presumed to tell the Administration that it could not audit records of any executive department (and if one did, to be clear I wouldn't agree). One judge did temporarily call a time out to consider whether the statutory rules were being followed in the manner of execution of an ongoing audit.
Some of you seem quite offended if the officials even show up at the stadium
Now your'e being a lying ass, Rich.
No judge has the legitimate power to decide how an administration can do audits.
No judge has the legitimate power to decide what web pages the Administration can put up or take down.
No judge has the legitimate power to even "apuse" things for so much as a single day while s/he decides whether or not s/he has the power to do that.
Trump won the election. Article II Section 1 of the US Constitution says: The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
That means Trump gets to exercise ALL "Executive power" however he wishes.
You shit for brains are again figuring out that you all gave teh Executive too much power. Tough shit. You had the triacetate in 2012 - 2022, and you did NOTHING to decrease Executive power. So now Trump gets to use it, and you get to sit on the sidelines and whine.
Stop being such dishonest pieces of shit
"Or does he now view the offer as sweeter than it needed to be?"
The sweetness of the offer is dependent upon its only being available for a limited time, together with the prospect that those who do not take it while it is on offer may find themselves wishing they had. The irony of the situation is, that by "pausing" the end date, the court made it possible for more people to take the offer.
This is the way the AP framed it in my local paper - "Judge removes key hurdle for Trump's plan to downsize federal workforce".
Trump called all remote workers to come back to the office, or be fired. He gave them an option though - voluntary deferred resignation. Which they deemed "a humane offramp". The Union's, who were ruled not to have standing because it didn't directly affect them, said " today's ruling is a setback in the fight for dignity and fairness for public servants".
I'm not sure why they thought it was undignified and unfair treatment.
@Enigma; Your analysis seems sound, as far as it goes. But I think we are all becoming aware that Trump is not a typical politician. I don't know what he will do, but if I were a federal employee, I sure as Hell would not rely upon what has happened in the past. Typical politicians don't like to rock the boat, or wake sleeping dogs. Trump sees sleeping dogs as targets. He may very well fire them all and let the courts sort them out. He wants them gone, and he couldn't care less if three years down the road, some subset of them end up with million-dollar payouts.
Look at this asshole, for instance. Do you think Trump is going to let this little munchkin sit around at EPA, sucking down a salary, because some fucked-up federal employees' union might sue? Hell no. If I were that asshole, I'd get gone while the getting was good. He could be looking at clawback.
Post a Comment
Comments older than 2 days are always moderated. Newer comments may be unmoderated, but are still subject to a spam filter and may take a few hours to get released. Thanks for your contributions and your patience.