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.