SCOTUS pronounces Trump King of America

[iemanja]

The Supreme Court on Tuesday said the Trump administration can move forward with the termination of 16,000 probationary federal workers across six agencies and departments, rescinding a lower court order that they be reinstated as litigation challenging the layoffs continues.

In a brief, unsigned order, the court said the nine labor unions and nonprofit groups that had challenged the firings lacked standing in the matter. The groups' "allegations [of harm] are presently insufficient to support the organizations' standing," the order read. . . .

A federal judge last month ordered the administration to reinstate the affected employees at the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, the Department of Interior and the Department of Treasury.

The Trump administration appealed to the Supreme Court for an emergency stay of the judge's order, arguing the plaintiffs lacked standing and had "hijacked the employment relationship between the federal government and its workforce."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/supreme-court-allows-trump-to-terminate-16-000-probationary-federal-workers/ar-AA1CxvQo?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=2ceda254ee9e4a78a15d7f4059fd0bbe&ei=7

After blocking numerous Biden initiatives, SCOTUS decides Trump can do whatever he wants, regardless of the law. They don't even make the pretense of fairness. They are doing everything in their power to codify authoritarianism. Their rulings make clear their position that we all hail the King.

[Easterncedar]

1. This is making me feel all off with their headsish

[Initech]

9. I'm really starting to get how the peoplle of 1790s France felt.

[Midnight Writer]

2. How can the unions who represent these employees not have standing?

That's like saying my lawyer can't represent me in a criminal trial because he doesn't have standing.

Employees pay the union for representation. If the employee is damaged, by, let's say unreasonable termination, the union has the legal obligation to support that employee. That is the definition of standing, is it not?

I was a union steward for many years, and I faced a lot of silly arguments as I appealed cases through the process, but never once was I told I did not have the standing to represent my member, even if they were not members of the union.

[iemanja]

3. Also, how can SCOTUS claim there is no irreparable harm?

These employees have lost their jobs and therefore their means of survival, all for totally arbitrary reasons.

[Igel]

8. SCOTUS didn't.

One dissenting justice said she wouldn't have reached the conclusion the majority did and, instead, would have denied the application (in other word, the TRO would have stood since the request to overturn the TRO would have been denied) because the applicants--that is, the Trump team--had not demonstrated irreparable harm. At least that's how I read the text.

Justice Jackson would have declined to reach the standing
question in the context of an application for emergency relief where the issue is pending in the lower courts and the applicants
have not demonstrated urgency in the form of interim irreparable
harm. See Department of Education v. California, 604 U. S. ___,
___ (2025) (Jackson, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 1–2). Thus,
she would have denied the application.

[Igel]

6. Because (1) some precedent on what's required for standing and

because all the evidence were allegations..

The District Court’s injunction was based solely on the
allegations of the nine non-profit-organization plaintiffs in
this case. But under established law, those allegations are
presently insufficient to support the organizations’ standing.
See, e.g., Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U. S. 398 (2013).
This order does not address the claims of the other plaintiffs,
which did not form the basis of the District Court’s preliminary
injunction.

[D_Master81]

4. At this point

Can the Supreme Court just call itself a wing of the Republican Party so we can stop acting like they’re a separate but equal branch of government

[iemanja]

5. A wing of MAGA and Trump lickspittle

[mountain grammy]

7. Only one branch of government now..

at this point the only thing Roberts and Co care about are keeping republicans in power. nothing else matters.

[Crunchy Frog]

10. Eventually the SCOTUS will have to be dissolved.

It no longer serves any function other than to codify and legitimize authoritarian leaders while undermining democratic ones in a highly partisan fashion.

Even if we ever have another legitimate election within the framework of the current state, governing will be impossible with such an organization in place.

[lindysalsagal]

11. They are guilty of taking bribes and will buy off maga to protect their own asses

[a kennedy]

12. WHAT THE ABSOLUTE FAWK!!!!!!

They have been bought and paid for by the orange piece of shit...... HOW CAN HE BE STOPPED??????