Newsnews

Tue Aug 28, 2018, 11:25 AM

Judge Strikes Down Most of Trump's Executive Orders Targeting Federal Employee Unions

A federal judge has struck down most of the key provisions of President Trump’s three recently issued executive orders that are intended to weaken federal employee unions.

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, appointed by President Obama to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in 2012, issued the decision which is more than 120 pages long.

The executive orders placed additional restrictions on unions and made it easier to fire federal employees for non-performance. See Restricting Federal Unions and Firing Poor Performers.

https://www.fedsmith.com/2018/08/25/judge-strikes-trumps-executive-orders-targeting-federal-employee-unions/

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/25/business/trump-federal-workers-unions.html

https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/08/25/federal-judge-denies-trump-executive-orders-to-make-it-easier-to-fire-federal-employees

14 replies, 467 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 14 replies Author Time Post
Reply Judge Strikes Down Most of Trump's Executive Orders Targeting Federal Employee Unions (Original post)
uncledad Aug 2018 OP
Solesurvivor Aug 2018 #1
uncledad Aug 2018 #2
Solesurvivor Aug 2018 #3
oldenuff35 Aug 2018 #4
uncledad Aug 2018 #5
Lifelong Aug 2018 #6
quad489 Aug 2018 #7
uncledad Aug 2018 #10
WhiskeyMakesMeHappy Aug 2018 #8
uncledad Aug 2018 #9
WhiskeyMakesMeHappy Aug 2018 #11
uncledad Aug 2018 #12
Carlos W Bush Aug 2018 #13
uncledad Aug 2018 #14

Response to uncledad (Original post)

Tue Aug 28, 2018, 11:31 AM

1. Everything has to be a fight with the left

if they don't get their way off to a liberal court to get a injunction since they can't pass a law or elect a president. At any rate I hope Trump keeps pushing this until it gets to a moderate court

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Solesurvivor (Reply #1)

Tue Aug 28, 2018, 11:36 AM

2. It has legs.

I'm sure the Judge's decision will be contested.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uncledad (Reply #2)

Tue Aug 28, 2018, 11:41 AM

3. What does that even mean? "it has legs"?

Its the game plan of the left to run to a liberal judge in DC, CA or HI and most times it gets shot down when it gets to higher courts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Solesurvivor (Reply #3)

Tue Aug 28, 2018, 11:53 AM

4. It has legs means it will walk up the chain of courts, appellate court and SCOTUS if needed.

This is not done and Trump will end up winning, again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Solesurvivor (Reply #3)

Tue Aug 28, 2018, 11:58 AM

5. It's likely to continue.

It has legs.

It's likely to continue in the Courts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Solesurvivor (Reply #1)

Tue Aug 28, 2018, 12:05 PM

6. Winning!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uncledad (Original post)

Tue Aug 28, 2018, 12:46 PM

7. ''appointed by President Obama''...color me shocked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quad489 (Reply #7)

Tue Aug 28, 2018, 03:20 PM

10. Shocked as in pink? Or shocked as in fire engine red?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uncledad (Original post)

Tue Aug 28, 2018, 01:15 PM

8. How can a US district court make a ruling that affects the whole US? This

seems to be a case where SCOTUS has original jurisdiction to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WhiskeyMakesMeHappy (Reply #8)

Tue Aug 28, 2018, 03:17 PM

9. It will get there eventually.

In the link to Fed Smith look at the comment section. There's an explanation.

RZW72 reply:

"Your opinion is entirely at odds with the Constitution. The Supreme Court's original jurisdiction is limited to cases involving foreign diplomats and suits between U.S. States. It can only hear cases against the President by virtue of its appellate jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction is derivative of the lower court's jurisdiction. If the Supreme Court has the authority to find a presidential action illegal, it necessarily means that the lower courts do as well. And if the lower courts don't have the power to find the president's actions illegal, that necessarily means the Supreme Court doesn't either.

The Framers of the Constitution fully understood this and would have vehemently disagreed with your suggestion that the lower courts didn't have the power to find presidential actions unconstitutional."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uncledad (Reply #9)

Tue Aug 28, 2018, 04:13 PM

11. Well, the first paragraph is wrong on this point I know,

SCOTUS can also hear cases that originate in DC if they so choose. So I'm not so sure about the correctness of the rest of the article.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to uncledad (Reply #12)

Tue Aug 28, 2018, 06:30 PM

13. That poster is usually not correct about stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carlos W Bush (Reply #13)

Tue Aug 28, 2018, 07:34 PM

14. He can read and the information is there in the linked article.

Some days, it's just easier to give people the source. They can go from there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Newsnews