Latest Breaking News

which is why the suits were brought in the first place, is that despite the Executive being permitted to DRAW UP PLANS for personnel, actually "carrying out those plans" is under the purview of Congress with respect to getting approved funding or recessions of funding.

And the 45 administration has been operating "backasswards" - illegally eliminating positions that were ALREADY FUNDED by Congress, without a Rescission approval.

The lower courts were trying to stop the immediate layoffs that were violating the Impoundment Control Act and the SCOTUS just ignored that as I suppose that minute argument either wasn't clear enough or didn't seem to get through to 6 of them. The lower courts saw what was going on right away.

If 45 wanted to lay off people NEXT FY and Congress approves that, then that would be a different issue.

I remember the Clinton RIFs of the '90s and that was part of a PLAN that was provided to Congress and approved by them. Clinton didn't violate the Antideficieny Act by funding "buyouts" without appropriations designated for that purpose. "Buyouts" didn't happen UNTIL Congress passed legislation TO do such. Yet Muskrat had his fellow rats send out "Fork in the Road" nonsense as if the federal government was some "business" run by a "CEO" without a Civil Service Act or need for governmental funding approval.