SCOTUS Allows Trump Mass Firings

Tuesday, July 08, 2025

Supreme Court allows Trump to move forward with plans for mass firings, reorganization of the federal government

Posted by retort at 04:30 PM | 71 COMMENTS | permalink

JUST IN: The Supreme Court overrides a lower court and allows President Donald Trump to move forward with plans to carry out mass firings and reorganizations at federal agencies. cnn.it/3Grm98O [image or embed]
-- CNN (@cnn.com) Jul 8, 2025 at 4:22 PM

Comments

The Supreme coup continues

#1 | Posted by hamburglar at 2025-07-08 04:44 PM

There's your new farm laborers.
Kinda reminds me of ol' Mao's Cultural Revolution.
Send the eggheads off to the farms.
That only set China back about 30 years.

#2 | Posted by morris at 2025-07-08 04:49 PM

On what grounds are they being fired?

Seems like this is an opportunity to sue the Supreme Court.

#3 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-07-08 05:37 PM

Also. This is how you win all future elections.

By making sure everyone in the government has sworn fealty to you.

Get ready for some Russian style politics.

#4 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-07-08 05:39 PM

Checks?
Balances?

Not in Nazi America

#5 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2025-07-08 05:57 PM

I wonder if the Supreme Court would let the orange pig fire them.

#6 | Posted by cbob at 2025-07-08 06:02 PM

Pretty crazy that Republicans hate brown people so much, they'll fire tens of thousands of white people, just to fire a few brown people too.

#7 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-07-08 06:03 PM

The long term goal is to kick out the browns.

The short term goal is to fully seize control of the federal government.

Once they have the federal government, Democracy will be as free and fair as it was in the Soviet Union.

Putin should win an award for how masterfully he took over America.

#8 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-07-08 06:09 PM

It's a shame Osama bin Laden isn't alive to see America crumblimg, more or less as he drew it up.

Nullifidian too.

#9 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-07-08 06:11 PM

Yeah buddy

#10 | Posted by THEBULL at 2025-07-08 06:17 PM

Seems like this is an opportunity to sue the Supreme Court.

#3 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-07-08 05:37 PM | Reply

You can't sue the Supreme Court. They have sovereign immunity. Sadly

#11 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-07-08 06:17 PM

This does seem strange that Congress creates these positions but the President can micromanage them.

Who would want to work at any organization where the leader arbitrarily fires entire branches of the org chart for no discernible reason?

I realize that's the point, to fill up the government with lackeys and yes-men, who are so blinkered in their hero worship that they don't think they'll ever get fired.

The Cruelty Is The Point.

#12 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-07-08 06:22 PM

Good bye --------!

We need to ramp this up by 10x and bring the Fed workforce back down to the level of the 90's.

#13 | Posted by ScottS at 2025-07-08 06:45 PM

It's a shame Osama bin Laden isn't alive

If OBL was alive the------------- would be sucking his ass.

#14 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2025-07-08 06:49 PM

We need to ramp this up by 10x and bring the Fed workforce back down to the level of the 90's.
#13 | POSTED BY SCOTTS

Easy.

Just get rid of homeland security.

Republicans are responsible for the biggest expansion of the federal government in my lifetime.

#15 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-07-08 07:06 PM

We need to ramp this up by 10x and bring the Fed workforce back down to the level of the 90's.
#13 | POSTED BY SCOTTS

Agreed. Abolish ICE needs to be the first move. Instead, were seeing exponential growth in government under Republican leadership.

#16 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-07-08 07:12 PM

"Just get rid of homeland security.
#15 | Posted by ClownShack"

I am 100% okay with that.

#17 | Posted by ScottS at 2025-07-08 07:16 PM

"Instead, were seeing exponential growth in government under Republican leadership.
#16 | Posted by snoofy"

Is this exponential growth in the room with you now? Is it the memory of the thousands of fed employees that have been given their pink slips crying out to you?

#18 | Posted by ScottS at 2025-07-08 07:17 PM

As it turns out, Sotomayor is NOT the most ignorant, least qualified DEI Supreme Court Justice its Latonya-Kesha Ketanji Brown Jackson.

#19 | Posted by visitor_ at 2025-07-08 07:27 PM

"#19 | Posted by visitor_"

Are you telling me that the DEI hire that could not define a woman cannot understand the law to the extent that even radical liberals like Sotomayor are calling her out in their written opinions? Color me shocked!

#20 | Posted by ScottS at 2025-07-08 07:42 PM

Not a firing, per se, as a deletion of government positions, so they are let go as no longer a position for them, unless they qualify for one elsewhere. Hey, echoing your former 'leader', - they can just learn to code.....

#21 | Posted by MSgt at 2025-07-08 08:05 PM

"Not a firing, per se"

Meanwhile, back in reality:

Transportation Department workers with 'exceptional' reviews told they're fired for 'performance' issues
Feb. 16, 2025
By Allan Smith
www.nbcnews.com

#22 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-07-08 08:17 PM

Good. We vote for POTUS and POTUS should have complete control of the Executive branch.

As for elimImaging DHS ... I'm all for it. DHS is a post 9/11 creation that is purely redundant cans is an obstacle to the agencies it overlaps.

#23 | Posted by BellRinger at 2025-07-08 08:24 PM

Good. We vote for POTUS and POTUS should have complete control of the Executive branch.
As for elimImaging DHS ... I'm all for it. DHS is a post 9/11 creation that is purely redundant cans is an obstacle to the agencies it overlaps.

Posted by BellRinger at 2025-07-08 08:24 PM | Reply

You wouldn't be saying this if it were Obama. I guarantee you that.

#24 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-07-08 08:26 PM

"We vote for POTUS and POTUS should have complete control of the Executive branch"

We vote for POTUS expecting that POTUS to faithfully execute the law.

As in

he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,

Where does it say he gets complete control of the Executive branch Branch? I think I missed that part.

He does have "ministerial duties" and gets to hire and fire and supervise executive officials.

And all of them need to follow the laws and policies currently in place. Or have Congress change them.

#25 | Posted by donnerboy at 2025-07-08 08:56 PM

Even the name, Department Homeland Security, has a fascist tone to it.

#26 | Posted by visitor_ at 2025-07-08 09:36 PM

"You wouldn't be saying this if it were Obama. I guarantee you that.

#24 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-07-08 08:26 PM | Reply"

You are wrong. By far my biggest issue with our government is the unaccountable and unelected 4th branch of government. If the GOP racks up a couple of Executive victories with a good possibility of a 3rd, maybe, just maybe, Democrats will push for a reduction in Executive power vis a vis all of these agencies that just regulate and create "regulations" (laws) without any accountability to the public.

Until that happens, POTUS controls the Executive.

#27 | Posted by BellRinger at 2025-07-08 10:52 PM

Gotta love fake Chreestian daddy's boy trust fund rancher cheering for other people's misery.

As if his demeanor doesn't give away how miserable and bitter a person he is despite having everything handed to him.

#28 | Posted by jpw at 2025-07-09 08:53 AM

Good. We vote for POTUS and POTUS should have complete control of the Executive branch.

You have no idea what you're saying because you have a child's understanding of the world.

#29 | Posted by jpw at 2025-07-09 08:55 AM

"Screw all of you federal employees. We have lifetime employment with an annual salary of $303,600, health benefits, 24/7 security, an excellent pension, and we only work half the year."
Signed,
SCOTUS

#30 | Posted by C0RI0LANUS at 2025-07-09 09:23 AM

" You have no idea what you're saying because you have a child's understanding of the world.

#29 | POSTED BY JPW AT 2025-07-09 08:55 AM | FLAG: | "

Pick up a copy of the Constitution, moron.

#31 | Posted by BellRinger at 2025-07-09 10:27 AM

So the Supremes have officially endorsed the Purge?

Good to know.

At least we know where they stand.

This helps with my upcoming purchasing decisions.

Like whether to buy the new Toyota hybrid or the Barret sniper rifle and a new shotgun.

#32 | Posted by donnerboy at 2025-07-09 10:28 AM

Pick up a copy of the Constitution, moron.

#31 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Still waiting for you to show us where the constitution gives the presidency "complete control" of the executive branch.

#33 | Posted by donnerboy at 2025-07-09 10:31 AM

Pick up a copy of the Constitution
#31 | Posted by BellRinger

Pick up a history book.

Historically, which leaders have micromanaged their own government employees like this, and how did it go for those nations?

You are unable to have this conversation.

You're Eberly Lite.

#34 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-07-09 10:31 AM

the president does not have complete control over the executive branch. While the president is the head of the executive branch and has significant authority, the U.S. system of government includes checks and balances designed to limit the power of each branch, including the executive.
Here's why:
Constitutional Constraints:
The Constitution divides power among the three branches of government (executive, legislative, and judicial), preventing any one branch from becoming too dominant.
Congressional Oversight:
Congress has the power to create executive branch departments, fund them, and confirm presidential appointments. They can also override presidential vetoes and have the power to impeach the president.
Judicial Review:
The judicial branch, particularly the Supreme Court, can review and potentially strike down executive actions if they are deemed unconstitutional.
Executive Orders:
While presidents can issue executive orders, these orders are subject to legal challenges and can be overturned by the courts or reversed by subsequent presidents, according to Wikipedia.
Accountability:
The president is accountable to the American people and can be removed from office through impeachment.
Checks and Balances:
The system of checks and balances ensures that the president's power is limited and that no single branch can act unilaterally.
In essence, the president's power over the executive branch is significant but not absolute. The other branches of government, as well as the Constitution itself, serve as checks on the president's authority.

#35 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-07-09 10:33 AM

Pick up a copy of the Constitution, moron.

#31 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Got one right here.

Which article and paragraph gives the President "complete control" over the executive branch.

#36 | Posted by donnerboy at 2025-07-09 10:37 AM

Still waiting on that article and paragraph from DingDong.

You made the assert

You called others morons for not knowing the constitution.

You said pick up a copy of the constitution.

I have one right here.

Which article and which paragraph gives the POTUS "complete control" of the Executive Branch?

#37 | Posted by donnerboy at 2025-07-09 11:30 AM

" Which article and paragraph gives the President "complete control" over the executive branch.

#36 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY AT 2025-07-09 10:37 AM | FLAG: "

Read Article II

#38 | Posted by BellRinger at 2025-07-09 11:37 AM

Which article and which paragraph gives the POTUS "complete control" of the Executive Branch?

It's not in the Constitution. There are some pretty heavy hitters in recent SCOTUS rulings though.

#39 | Posted by REDIAL at 2025-07-09 11:39 AM

If he can check enough DEI boxes, and having that level of ignorance, Donner is ready for the Supreme Court .

#40 | Posted by visitor_ at 2025-07-09 11:39 AM

The problem is over the past several decades Congress has willingly ceded its powers to the Executive. We now have 4 branches of government. The Constitution enumerates 3 branches. The 4th branch falls under the Executive. Therefore POTUS has near complete control over it. The only way Dems (and the left) think about reining it in is if we get to a second Vance term.

#41 | Posted by BellRinger at 2025-07-09 11:41 AM

Read Article II

#38 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Ok. Article II. We are getting somewhere!

Now.

Which paragraph specifically?

#42 | Posted by donnerboy at 2025-07-09 11:41 AM

Therefore POTUS has near complete control over it.

No he does not. Saying it does not make it so.

Show me the paragraph in the constitution.

He gets to hire and fire executive level officers ONLY.

They in turn make the hiring and firing decisions at the civil servant level. Based on the legal requirements and funding from Congress.

The "spoils system" in the U.S. federal government was largely eliminated by the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act of 1883. This act created a merit-based system for hiring government employees, replacing the previous practice of awarding jobs based on political patronage.

#43 | Posted by donnerboy at 2025-07-09 11:45 AM

Donner is ready for the Supreme Court .

#40 | POSTED BY VISITOR_

Not possible.

I could never kiss and lick Trumpy's nasty arse like you and they do.

#44 | Posted by donnerboy at 2025-07-09 11:51 AM

Pick up a copy of the Constitution, moron.

#31 | Posted by BellRinger

Like I said, you have a child's understanding of the world.

#45 | Posted by jpw at 2025-07-09 11:53 AM

Still waiting for you to show us where the constitution gives the presidency "complete control" of the executive branch.
#33 | Posted by donnerboy

He won't because he can't.

His understanding of the world is so simplistic he actually thinks the arguments around these topics are based solely in the Constitution and not, you know, in the entirety of Constitutional case law that exists from decisions over the last two and a half centuries.

#46 | Posted by jpw at 2025-07-09 11:57 AM

" The "spoils system" in the U.S. federal government was largely eliminated by the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act of 1883. This act created a merit-based system for hiring government employees, replacing the previous practice of awarding jobs based on political patronage.
#43 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY AT 2025-07-09 11:45 AM | FLAG: "

As I understand it, it was enacted to prevent actual spoils - REPLACING employees based upon political patronage. Eliminating jobs WITHOUT replacement is not the same thing.

#47 | Posted by BellRinger at 2025-07-09 11:58 AM

The Constitution enumerates 3 branches. The 4th branch falls under the Executive.

LOL

#48 | Posted by jpw at 2025-07-09 11:59 AM

Posted by BellRinger at 2025-07-09 11:41 AM | Reply

The fourth branch of government is separate and apart from the other three. It does not fall under the executive branch. How stupid can you get Jeff?? Seriously.

#49 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-07-09 12:28 PM

Eliminating jobs WITHOUT replacement is not the same thing.

POSTED BY BELLRINGER

That is partly true like most if your BS.

But the president does not have the power to eliminate civil service jobs.

But only to hire or fire Executive Officers. Who then can be directed to reduce staff. But they can NOT reduce staff to the point where the agency cannot do the job that was assigned to it by Congress.

The NWS is a Law passed by Congress and only Congress can change that law.

Still waiting for you to produce the paragraph Article II in the U.S. constitution that grants the president "complete control" of the executive branch.

#50 | Posted by donnerboy at 2025-07-09 12:33 PM

Very first sentence:

" Article II
Section 1

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America"

#51 | Posted by BellRinger at 2025-07-09 12:55 PM

Because he is the head of the executive branch.

So. It does not say "complete control ".

You just pulled that crap outa Trumpy's nasty arse didn't ya?

Each agency is a law passed by Congress. They are appropriated monies to complete those duties as assigned BY CONGRESS.

Being vested with Executive Power does not give him complete hiring and firing authority of individual civil servants. Nor does it allow him to change the laws passed by Congress.

He only has complete control and supervisory authority over the executive officers he hired. Who then have to staff their agencies according to the laws and appropriations passed by Congress to do the duties as assigned by Congress.

#52 | Posted by donnerboy at 2025-07-09 01:09 PM

"Executive power shall be vested"

That's unequivocal.

You are misdiagnosing the problem. Congress passes 1000+ page bills that are littered with phrases like, "HHS secretary shall" and then the Executive doesn't just enforce law, IT CREATES LAW.

That is the problem.

#53 | Posted by BellRinger at 2025-07-09 01:13 PM

" "HHS secretary shall" and then the Executive doesn't just enforce law, IT CREATES LAW."

Why is it a problem when Congress empowers someone to make rules, and then rules get made?
How do you imagine rules get made?
Have you ever had a job where the CEO makes literally every rule?
You people are such insufferable idiots.

#54 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-07-09 01:16 PM

"Executive power shall be vested"
That's unequivocal.
You are misdiagnosing the problem. Congress passes 1000+ page bills that are littered with phrases like, "HHS secretary shall" and then the Executive doesn't just enforce law, IT CREATES LAW.
That is the problem.

#53 | Posted by BellRinger

Ah, so in JeffWorld, the President doesn't have to obey any laws he doesn't like. Got it.

And no, dummy, the Executive doesn't create Laws. The Executive can create regulations only WITH a grant of power by Congress to do so.

Did you skip all of High School Social Studies?

#55 | Posted by Sycophant at 2025-07-09 01:16 PM

Very first sentence:
" Article II
Section 1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America"
#51 | Posted by BellRinger

LOL and yet he gets all hot and bothered when his views are rightfully called out as being on par with a child's.

#56 | Posted by jpw at 2025-07-09 01:21 PM

The supremes should be ousted by a higher court, the people's court.

#57 | Posted by grumpy_too at 2025-07-09 01:57 PM

" Ah, so in JeffWorld, the President doesn't have to obey any laws he doesn't like. Got it."

Where did I say that?

#58 | Posted by BellRinger at 2025-07-09 05:02 PM

" LOL and yet he gets all hot and bothered when his views are rightfully called out as being on par with a child's.

#56 | POSTED BY JPW AT 2025-07-09 01:21 PM | FLAG: "

When it comes to civics and economics you are utterly clueless.

#59 | Posted by BellRinger at 2025-07-09 05:03 PM

"Where did I say that?"

It was when you said the President has absolute unchecked dictatorial powers over every Executive Branch employee's ongoing employment.

#60 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-07-09 05:04 PM

"Where did I say that?"

In the voting booth.

#61 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-07-09 05:05 PM

"When it comes to civics and economics you are utterly clueless."

Who won the 2020 Election?
Does Trump raising the debt ceiling by five trillion dollars help the United States economy in any way?

#62 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-07-09 05:07 PM

When it comes to civics and economics you are utterly clueless.

#59 | Posted by BellRinger

Says the Nazi ----------. ---- off, imbecile. You're an unthinking clueless whore.

#63 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2025-07-09 05:15 PM

IT CREATES LAW.

The president DOES NOT CREATE LAWS.

Congress is the legislative branch. They legislate. And pass laws.

The President is the Executive Branch. They Execute the laws that Congress passes.

Welcome to America Comrade.

#64 | Posted by donnerboy at 2025-07-09 06:39 PM

On topic, this is a 8-1 ruling and in her concurrence Sotomayor called out KBJ because her dissent addressed an issue that wasn't before the court. A couple weeks ago ACB excoriated her in a majority opinion. If these justices are publicly calling her out in writing I can only imagine what they say to each other about her behind closed doors.

#65 | Posted by BellRinger at 2025-07-09 09:01 PM

Just trimming down a very bloated bureaucracy, i.e. eliminating unnecessary manning positions.

During President Joe Biden's term, the federal civilian workforce increased by about 4.8%, which translates to roughly 130,000 employees. This is the largest increase in any single presidential term since the 1980s.

Now, ask yourself this, with the exception of those hirings making the US employment stats [i.e. the economy] look better-- were those new bodies, and the millions in costs [salaries and benefits] ready necessary?

FYI: The average salary for a federal government employee in the United States is around $106,000 per year. This figure includes various levels of employees, from entry-level to high-level positions. However, the actual salary can vary significantly based on factors such as position, experience, location, and agency

#66 | Posted by MSgt at 2025-07-10 10:30 AM

When it comes to civics and economics you are utterly clueless.

#59 | Posted by BellRinger at 2025-07-09 05:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

But turn that fccker lose at frat party and he'll show 'em how it's done.

#67 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2025-07-10 01:15 PM

I look forward to the day a Democrat wins the presidency and devices to fire everyone that didn't bite for him and install loyalists and all the republicans get red faced while vociferously defending their ability to do so.

Just kidding. They would be red faced and absolutely apoplectic if a democrat used the precedent they set and did the exact same thing.

#68 | Posted by Imshakinitboss at 2025-07-10 01:15 PM

But turn that fccker lose at frat party and he'll show 'em how it's done.

#67 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS

A response involving gay sex. Shocker.

#69 | Posted by jpw at 2025-07-10 03:07 PM

When it comes to civics and economics you are utterly clueless.

#59 | Posted by BellRinger

This from the guy who thinks all one needs to decide a question in front of the courts is a pocket copy of the Constitution...

#70 | Posted by jpw at 2025-07-11 11:24 AM

"Now, ask yourself this, with the exception of those hirings making the US employment stats [i.e. the economy] look better-- were those new bodies, and the millions in costs [salaries and benefits] ready necessary?"

Is any hiring really necessary?
The Constitution gives Congress the power to enact "necessary and proper" legislation.
So, if Congress passed the legislation, it's because Congress found it "necessary and proper."

"The Necessary and Proper Clause, also known as the Elastic Clause, is found in Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of the U.S. Constitution. It grants Congress the authority to make all laws that are "necessary and proper for carrying into Execution" other federal powers.
This clause is significant because it provides Congress with the flexibility to pass legislation that is not explicitly listed in the Constitution but is essential for executing its enumerated powers."
--Brave AI

#71 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-07-11 11:42 AM

Drudge Retort Headlines

Trump Threatens Chicago with Military (104 comments)

US Open Broadcasters told Not to Air Trump Boos (31 comments)

Mike Johnson Clarifies Comment About Trump Being FBI Informant (29 comments)

Pentagon Plan Prioritizes Homeland over China Threat (20 comments)

Rosie O'Donnell Slams Trump (20 comments)

Russia Hits Ukraine with Largest Air Attack of the War (19 comments)

South Korea says Deal Reached with US for Release of Detained Workers (19 comments)

What Trump Posted on Truth Social Should Force Him to Resign (19 comments)

Trump Plans Harder Test for US Citizenship (18 comments)

Pope Leo Makes Teen God Influencer a Saint (14 comments)