Judge declares Trump may have broken the law, but she has no authority to stop him, even from breaking it again

[bigtree]

...this is bizarre.

Kyle Cheney @kyledcheney 4h
JUST IN: Judge Reyes has *denied* the legal effort by fired inspectors general to reclaim their jobs. Trump may have broken the law by firing them, she says, but she has no authority to reinstate them — and Trump could remove them again in 30 days anyway.



So the law is proving to be an imposture, transformed into a farcical tool of Donald Trump, as every suspension of actual punishment by the courts bends toward the person they say is committing the crime, and not the victims.

These fired IGs have no future other than, at best, becoming stuck in a limbo of reinstatement and firing? What about sanctioning the administration until they back off of the firings without cause, and sanction them with escalating fines if they try to remove these IGs again.

The claim that the court is powerless to do anything about these positions lost is an absurdity, a sad display of cowardice and abandonment of the victims to the admitted criminal.

[newdeal2]

1. SCOTUS offers no support to the lower courts

They’ve clearly signaled that Trump is all powerful.

[unblock]

2. not clear how the judge can summarily say the plaintiffs cannot show irreparable harm.

can they not provide evidence that some cases they were working on would be irreparably damaged by their firing, especially given that that may have been exactly why they were fired?

[FBaggins]

5. Because they can't show that he can't fire them

Only that he would have to give 30 days notice to Congress. Also - for such preliminary relief the harm would have to be to them personally. Losing 30 days of pay isn’t irreparable (because it can just be awarded if they win the case).

[SSJVegeta]

3. She will probably reinstate them if they win the lawsuit. But she doesnt see grounds to do so immediately. Right?

[FBaggins]

4. I don't think so

She may rule that the firing did not comport with the law - but that giving them their jobs back isn’t one of the possible results of that (because it isn’t that he couldn’t fire them in the first place… it was that he didn’t follow the correct process in doing so).

So eventual victory would more likely result in 30 additional days of pay (or some other penalty)

[Kid Berwyn]

6. Wut Constitution?

John Roberts is a traitor.

[Buddyzbuddy]

7. So does this mean the next Democratic President

could remove a Supreme Court Justice by any means necessary without facing consequences because he/she has immunity and there would be no way to enforce a reversal decided by the courts?
Rhetorical question?