District judge orders Trump to reemploy recently fired bureaucrats
According to progressive jurists, a president trying to stabilize a failing business model—that is, the federal government—by the executive power vested in him, is a “sham” and unlawful. Here’s the story, from an item published at The New York Times yesterday:
Two judges ordered federal agencies on Thursday to reinstate tens of thousands of workers with probationary status who had been fired across 19 agencies as part of President Trump’s government-gutting initiative.
Judge William Alsup, a Democrat and district judge for the Northern District of California (San Francisco), declared Trump’s firings as a “gimmick” and “sham” act, stating that the administration exploited a loophole in “statutory requirements” (the law). Per Alsup:
‘It is a sad day when our government would fire some good employee and say it was based on performance when they know good and well that’s a lie,’ he said.
Perhaps Alsup ought to dust off his old law books. First of all, a loophole is a legal course of action, only accessible because the legislature apparently missed something. The constitutional and judicious response is to petition said legislature to remedy the perceived issue—you don’t trample all over a defendant just because he outsmarted the system. Well, unless you’re a progressive ideologue I guess.
Secondly, Alsup also needs to refresh himself on what a “probationary period” of employment is:
The employee’s initial period of employment during which the employer assesses the employees’ suitability for the role.
An employer will quite often specify a probationary period in the contract which could vary from several weeks to six months. It is also often the case that the employer (or employee) can terminate the relationship with a shorter period of notice (often one week) than if they are a permanent employee. It is also possible that an employer will offer less or no benefits during a probationary period.
These probationary employees are not entitled to employment, and considering the employer is upside down in its debts—which fall on the taxpaying public—the new salaries that come with these prospective workers are not suitable to the business (government), or its stakeholders (taxpayers). This is a completely reasoned and legally sound conclusion.

Furthermore, it seems like a deficit of $2 trillion, and an overall national debt of $36 trillion, might also emphasize the unsuitability of new hires…no?
Alsup’s cohort, Judge James Bredar, then ruled that Trump was not allowed to fire anyone else. Thankfully, these idiots aren’t in charge of our government —oh wait, they are!
Hat tip: Jack Hellner
Image from Grok.
Ad Free / Commenting Login
FOLLOW US ON
Recent Articles
- How the Fate of the West is Tied to the Fate of the Jewish Nation
- Green Cards, Student Visas and Domestic Terrorists
- Maybe the Little Things and Little People Matter
- The FBI Must Investigate Itself And, Once Cleaned, Several Other Political Crimes
- The Danger of Going Hungry
- The Tariff Is a Weapon
- Trump-O-Phobia Drives Some Americans to Questionable Greener Pastures Overseas
- A Businessman and a Brilliant Strategist
- A Remarkable Headline for a Fascinating Story
- Democrats Unmask Themselves
Blog Posts
- Hills to Die On: Democrats know how to pick 'em
- Near-death experiences, reliance on oil, and more cataclysmic failures—it’s all just part and parcel of ‘green’ energy
- So where'd America's obesity epidemic come from? Chef Andrew Gruel has a theory ...
- Trump just fired a huge warning shot over Iran’s bow
- Markets respond: Trumpian peace in Russo-Ukrainian war is in the bag
- The time of the hoax
- New York Times goes bipolar on Trump’s border control success
- Mark Kelly decides to offload his Tesla to protest Elon Musk
- The half-million dollar American
- Three things for the U.S. to understand about the Middle East
- Speaker Mike Johnson reveals why the Autopen scandal is a big deal
- The CDC website really needs to update its COVID protocols
- Hands in your back pocket
- Birthright citizenship: The facts
- ‘She’s my little Musk coupe’