Federal Judge George O’Toole of Massachusetts just reinstated the Trump buyouts for federal workers who don’t want to return to the office. It is a victory for Trump, a significant loss for labor unions. About 70,000 workers have taken the buyout.
Judge O’Toole reversed the ruling by Judge John McConnell.
“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.”
Speaking of Judge McConnell
Judge John McConnell threatened Donald Trump with imprisonment, stopped the buyouts, and demanded the release of frozen funds to USAID. These judges have too much power, especially when they are compromised and are making decisions based on personal opinions.
He’s a crackpot who compared Donald Trump’s first term to the Civil War and Jim Crow.
Impeach this activist posing as a judge!
Such a person does great discredit to the American justice system. https://t.co/wGmzi2ApRV
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 12, 2025
His unethical actions deserve disbarment and falls under the category of misconduct. Hold him accountable. No one is above the law. https://t.co/cG1zrEMxzL pic.twitter.com/4lD1iPAnxN
— xPhoenix (@xMaryannM) February 12, 2025
You can comment on the article after the ads and subscribe to the Daily Newsletter here if you would like a quick view of the articles of the day and any late news:
Where is “white privilege” in the legal code? DIE is cultural communism, not law. Any judge who bases a ruling in woke bullcrap instead of law should be impeached. Judges are no more sacrosanct that bureaucrats.
Judge John McConnell’s 15 seconds of fame are over.
Trump is going to win these cases. He knows it, he does not need to change directions. Oddball judges are hand delivered these cases to make their predictable rulings, which then get overturned.
Buyouts are not illegal, corporations do it often. A person has the right to voluntarily terminate
He just wants to understand his “white privilege”. Every, Single, One of these Jackasses complain about the rule of law, or Constitution, do so in matters that are nothing but personal policy differences. Nothing More. None of them, not a single one, has put forth an argument to substantiate claims of legal violations. Undoubtedly if they brought up specifics there would be an avalanche of experts proving otherwise.
He brings up Jim Crow. Maybe he should read the 1866 case.
Excerpts from SCOTUS opinion on Mississippi v. Johnson.
whether, in any case, the President of the United States may be required, by the process of this court, to perform a purely ministerial act under a positive law, or may be held amenable, in any case otherwise than by impeachment for crime.
The single point which requires consideration is this: can the President be restrained by injunction from carrying into effect an act of Congress alleged to be unconstitutional?
It is true that, in the instance before us, the interposition of the court is not sought to enforce action by the Executive under constitutional legislation, but to restrain such action under legislation alleged to be unconstitutional. But we are unable to perceive that this circumstance takes the case out of the general principles which forbid judicial interference with the exercise of Executive discretion.
The Congress is the legislative department of the government; the President is the executive department. Neither can be restrained in its action by the judicial department, though the acts of both, when performed, are, in proper cases, subject to its cognizance.