quote:

opting instead for an expedited schedule to hear their request for a preliminary injunction.

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:
Judge Declines to Halt Trump’s Firing of Inspectors Generals

The fired inspectors general were forced to drop a request for a temporary restraining order.

T.J. Muscaro
By T.J. Muscaro
2/14/2025
Updated:
2/14/2025
0:00

A federal judge on Feb. 14 rejected an emergency bid by eight inspectors general fired by the Trump administration to have their jobs restored.

District Judge of the District of Columbia Ana Reyes forced the attorney for the inspectors general to drop the request for a temporary restraining order during a virtual hearing, opting instead for an expedited schedule to hear their request for a preliminary injunction.

Reyes expressed frustration that the plaintiff’s counsel, Seth Waxman, filed suit on Feb. 12 for the order requesting emergency same-day relief, which would have included backpay 21 days after the firings occurred, stating that her court’s staff was already overwhelmed with scores of other temporary restraining order requests.

Demanding only yes or no answers, the judge asked several questions of Waxman.

He confirmed to her that the eight inspectors general were fired on Jan. 24 without Congress first being given a 30-day notice or “substantial rationale” for the termination and that they were able to retrieve all of their personal belongings.

These former inspectors general were employed by the Defense, Veterans Affairs, Health and Human Services, State, Education, Agriculture, and Labor departments and the Small Business Administration.

The judge pointed out to Waxman that there was nothing stopping Trump from issuing that 30-day termination notice to Congress five minutes after a TRO went through, this time with a written reason for their termination.

Addressing the written complaint arguing the plaintiffs faced reputational damage, Reyes proposed that a 30-day return to the office with a written reason why they were unfit for their jobs could actually cause even more reputational harm than what was already given.

All the public knows is that they were fired without cause, she said. There was no harm to their reputation because no cause, say of incompetence, was given, and such a termination could be seen as preferable.

She also criticized Waxman for referencing what he called a similar case in his written complaint, pointing out that the government employee who was fired in that instance was operating independently of the White House while his clients worked for agencies that took direction from the presidency.

Reyes declined to even humor the merits of the temporary restraining order during the virtual hearing, which lasted less than 13 minutes, forcing the plaintiffs to drop it.

When Waxman transitioned to an expedited briefing schedule, she chastised him for making everybody rush to a TRO when the matter could have been handled with a five-minute call with the Department of Justice.

The defense counsel representing the heads of the various departments employing those inspectors general remained silent and opted not to weigh in on the matter.

Samantha Flom contributed to this report.

quote:

Ann, you are some piece of work acting like this is something to be proud of.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Ann, you are some piece of work acting like this is something to be proud of.

Typical Trump fan. All for the job cuts... so long as it's not her livelihood on the line.

"I, me, me, mine!" is their theme song.

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:
I offered no opinion at all.

Here is my opinion though:

I do think it is interesting that there is a variety of 'opinions' though by judges over the situation. You TDS lawyer types might explain that over attacking me for posting an article that no doubt you've seen but did not post because it didn't fit your narrative. Many presidents have cleaned house in the past and no outrage. Why outrage now?

People all over get fired from their jobs all the time. The employer does not give them 30 days notice. They are walked out the door at decision or the door is locked when they show up the next day. Employers don't need to give a reason at all. Businesses can close with no reason given.

Sorry, but govt employees are no more special than anyone else. I'm surprised it is an issue with you lawyers. I bet many of you have defended these issues, defended an employer who fired an employee or closed its doors. I believe that is the problem though. You want a protected class. It's wrong. Government doesn't deserve it either.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
I'm always disappointed some when repeatedly we see the lame arguments and excuses such as "all politicians lie", or as in this case, "it has been done before, so what's the problem now".

As said, "expectation is the root of all disappointment". I keep expecting people to learn from their mistakes. My bad.

The problem is this whole purge agenda is, well, un-American . It's unprecedented in means and end in this country. I read that about 4000 federal employees come and go with change in exec, normally. But Trump's purge probably targets as many as or more than 50,000.

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:
I offered no opinion at all.

Here is my opinion though:

I do think it is interesting that there is a variety of 'opinions' though by judges over the situation. You TDS lawyer types might explain that over attacking me for posting an article that no doubt you've seen but did not post because it didn't fit your narrative. Many presidents have cleaned house in the past and no outrage. Why outrage now?

People all over get fired from their jobs all the time. The employer does not give them 30 days notice. They are walked out the door at decision or the door is locked when they show up the next day. Employers don't need to give a reason at all. Businesses can close with no reason given.

Sorry, but govt employees are no more special than anyone else. I'm surprised it is an issue with you lawyers. I bet many of you have defended these issues, defended an employer who fired an employee or closed its doors. I believe that is the problem though. You want a protected class. It's wrong. Government doesn't deserve it either.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
I'm always disappointed some when repeatedly we see the lame arguments and excuses such as "all politicians lie", or as in this case, "it has been done before, so what's the problem now".

As said, "expectation is the root of all disappointment". I keep expecting people to learn from their mistakes. My bad.

The problem is this whole purge agenda is, well, un-American . It's unprecedented in means and end in this country. I read that about 4000 federal employees come and go with change in exec, normally. But Trump's purge probably targets as many as or more than 50,000.

except you'd be wrong - it's been done, by several presidents
here, hear it from their own mouths
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwF12yGmLKs
bill clintion ran off 377,000 - In fact, his attempts to reform the government are case studies, including the spectacular review of these actions by Peter Drucker, included in his masterwork "Management"

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

Except for the minor distinction that these government employees were Inspectors General, who Congress has specifically protected from political bullshit by passing a Law that prevents them from being fired without 30 days notice to Congress stating specific justification for the firings prior to their termination.

Per the Constitution, even Presidents named Trump have to follow the Law.

~Ann

quote:

Perhaps trump and team needs to learn from the previous admin and work like they did?

quote:

I am betting there are crimes.