Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
labor unions, representing the labor--the workers who are impacted, labor unions which exist to represent those workers...
don't have standing.
holy fuck.
A few weeks before the election Trump and Musk had a publicly available sit down in which they talked about how much they hated unions and how worker rights just got in their way.
And then working class Americans came out in the millions and voted for them.
THAT is how stupid Americans are.
The worker rights that took generations to acquire and that people literally died for....well, you can kiss them all goodbye.
We are a truly stupid society.
Random people who already paid their student debt? Standing, Supreme Court agrees with them.
They lack standing?? They stand to not get paid when Congress never appropriates the money they never previously discussed spending for this idiocy! Gimme a break.
We're a few years past them just making up standing for cases they want to push through and just gaslighting about there being no standing for case they want shut down.
There was no legal standing in the case that shut down student loan forgiveness, but that didn't matter because they were shutting down something they disliked. It's the opposite here, while they clearly have standing, they'll just be told they don't by some asshat who just cares for having power over others.
Ah, I think I might have an idea about where this "doesn't have standing" might come from.
The union doesn't have standing, because the union isn't an employee. Employees are members of the union, but the union itself is a separate entity.
If my guess is right, it would be the absolute stupidest of technicalities.
Which is insane, because (as has been pointed out), the entire point of unions is to REPRESENT the workers!
Yes, in contract negotiations, which are not lawsuits.
They should have gotten a group of union members (employees) to sign on as plaintiffs, or done it as a class action of employees. Maybe they will?
You're right, of course, and I appreciate the angle you are steel manning here. I just also know that those greedy fucks speak money and that's exactly what they are fucking with in terms of union dues tied to employment and membership, so it should still be clear to any judge that the union has a crystal clear legal and financial interest in the outcome, both of which are topics of particular interest amongst the money-sniffing bunch as they are directly tied to power and influence
I dont know what you mean by "steel manning" (as in I've never heard that phrase), but I'll assume it means you're displeased.
Make no mistake: this doesn't make me happy. I don't even know the actual reason the judge had. I'm not a lawyer. I just asked myself, "If the union doesn't have standing, who does?" The employees, with disregard as to whether they're union members or not.
I am 100% in favor of standing firmly in the way of fascism, and when I see obstacles to fascism fall, I am disappointed. In this case, there exists a way that I can understand it, even if I don't like it.
Steel manning means arguing in good faith for a side even if you might feel differently
I meant it respectfully, and I appreciate the perspective
Not completely off base, but I don't disagree with the thought process I came up with. I'll see what I can do tomorrow to find the original ruling and figure out what the judge's reasoning actually was. Would probably put this whole discussion to bed.
My assessment was accurate. AFGE (the union) does not have standing because AFGE the organization is not "directly impacted":
Standing requires the plaintiffs to be more than “mere bystander[s]” and instead requires a “personal stake in the dispute.” ... The plaintiffs here are not directly impacted by the directive.
Furthermore, there is a second reason the judge states for why the injuction was lifted:
Second, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to consider the plaintiffs’ pleaded claims.
This one gets a little more complicated, but in summary, there is a procedure for how a federal employees union is supposed to navigate disputes. There are two parts to this.
Part one is that AFGE must exhaust all "administrative" measures first. Part two is whether "the litigant’s claims are of the type Congress intended to be reviewed within [the] statutory structure."
In so deciding, the court walked through the two-part Thunder Basin framework. Id. (“Under that framework, Congress intended that a litigant proceed exclusively through a statutory scheme . . . when (i) such intent is fairly discernible in the statutory scheme, and (ii) the litigant’s claims are of the type Congress intended to be reviewed within [the] statutory structure.” ... According to this complex scheme, disputes must first be administratively exhausted before the employing agency and the relevant administrative review board and any further challenges are properly heard in a court of appeals.
According to this ruling, the first step (exhausting administrative measures) is satisfied. The second, however, is not:
Aggrieved employees can bring claims through the administrative process. That the unions themselves may be foreclosed from this administrative process does not mean that adequate judicial review is lacking.
Now - this is not all bad news. This is a lifting of the injunction, not a dismissal of the case, which I honestly would have expected from a "plaintiffs do not have standing" ruling. To me, this signals that the judge is leaving space for AFGE to bring qualified plaintiffs to the case in order for it to go forward, and I expect they will do that. I also expect that Defendant will move for dismissal on the basis of this ruling.
Thanks for the follow-up, this is insightful stuff
Standing is flimsy and pliable. They use it to not hear cases they should have and vice versa on a regular basis.
I swear, the entire judicial branch can be summed up as a clown show of fuck yous::
Judge A: Fuck you, your ruling is stupid....
Judge B: No, fuck you, YOUR ruling is stupid
The same judge established the freeze -- which was intended to be temporary -- and then later dissolved it.
This sort of thing is done when an action might have serious consequences and more time is needed to examine the arguments and their legal basis.
It's not different judges fighting with each other. It's just how the legal system normally works.
EDIT: I'd add that this is just over an offer to people to voluntarily resign. If the Trump administration does intend to do major layoffs -- which would cause people who don't want to leave to go -- my guess is that there are likely to be more legal actions over it.
How the fuck do they not have standing? That makes no sense at all.
Easy: fascists have standing, non-fascists don't. That's now the only test going forward.
Ah, how silly of me.
You can kiss our federal government goodbye.
And we're all about to find out exactly how important an operational federal government is.
Welcome to Russia 2.0
I don't see anything requiring him to honor the deals being sent out.
75000 people who took the deal bouda find out why that orange turd was nicknamed Teflon don here in NYC
Honestly, this is the one I'm least worried about. It doesn't sound like anyone who wasn't about to retire is taking the deal. I'm more worried about congressionally allocated funding being impounded, federal bureaucrats being illegally fired, and Doge's massive security breaches in the Treasury and IRS.
Fitting judge name. What a O'Toole.