Federal Workers Refuse To Profess 'Loyalty' To Trump On Job Applications
www.huffpost.com
One federal employee said in a court filing that they "cannot in good conscience pretend to agree with President Trump’s policies."

One federal employee said in a court filing that they “cannot in good conscience pretend to agree with President Trump’s policies.”

Government employees asked a federal judge Wednesday to block the Trump administration from encouraging job applicants to demonstrate their loyalty to the president’s agenda.

In a lawsuit filed earlier this month, a group of federal labor unions argues that the White House’s “merit hiring plan” violates applicants’ First Amendment rights. The plan, put forth by the Office of Personnel Management, includes the following short essay question:

“How would you help advance the President’s Executive Orders and policy priorities in this role? Identify one or two relevant Executive Orders or policy initiatives that are significant to you, and explain how you would help implement them if hired.”

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
    32·
    2 days ago

    https://legalclarity.org/can-you-sue-someone-from-another-country/

    I can try to find something easier to read, but I didn’t find any actual comics.

    What are you having difficulty with in that link?

    The most relevant bit is this:

    The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in International Shoe Co. v. Washington established the “minimum contacts” standard, guiding jurisdiction over foreign defendants.

    Venue is influenced by factors such as the location of the parties, the place where the cause of action arose, and contractual agreements specifying a forum. Many international contracts include forum selection clauses, designating a specific jurisdiction for resolving disputes. These clauses are generally upheld by courts unless deemed unreasonable or unjust. The Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements provides a framework for recognizing and enforcing such clauses among member states.

    You’re on a US based social media website, it would not be difficult at all to have a lawsuit based on an exchange here heard in American courts.

    You could ignore it, but then you’d almost certainly lose and have to fight collections.

    But if I’m not doing a good enough job explaining, you’re probably better off reading the full article

    • 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip
      25·
      2 days ago

      You’re on a US based social media website

      maybe they did not tell you that, but there is whole rest of the world behind us borders and not everything is “us based”.

      i am not us citizen on a website that is not hosted on us soil, doing something that is absolutely not illegal in my jurisdiction.

      the only international cooperation you would get from justice system in my country would be showing you the middle finger, because “american snowflake did not like something they read on the internet” is not a crime here. go back to comics, or cry to mods, whichever you prefer.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
        42·
        2 days ago

        maybe they did not tell you that, but there is whole rest of the world behind us borders and not everything is “us based”.

        Correct…

        on a website that is not hosted on us soil

        But you’re on a lemmy.world community right now. And it’s US based, and hosted on US soil, even tho your local instance may not be. But this community is, and this is where your comments are going and where they’re being posted.

        because “american snowflake did not like something they read on the internet” is not a crime here.

        Doesn’t matter if it’s a crime there.

        Or even if it’s a crime in America.

        Because a civili lawsuit isn’t criminal…

        That link didn’t go into the difference of civil lawsuits and criminal prosecution in America, I could find one if you’re not able on your own tho

        go back to comics, or cry to mods, whichever you prefer.

        I’m happy to try and help you understand, if you don’t want help understanding, it’s as easy as not replying again. Although I’m afraid continued incivil comments will likely keep resulting in your comments being deleted.

        • 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip
          23·
          2 days ago

          if you don’t want help understanding

          you know what? go ahead and sue me, that will show me how right you are 😂

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
            32·
            2 days ago

            What would that prove that the SC ruling from that article hasn’t already proven?

            I’ve shown you proof that it can happen, along with a very detailed article going into the specifics of how it happens.

            But you’ve went off on a tangent, I started with:

            I’d probably lose, but I could still sue you over it.

            And now you’re arguing I couldn’t win?

            So you agree with me?

            Admittedly it’s hard to review the exchange after the majority of your comments have been removed.

            • 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip
              23·
              2 days ago

              What would that prove that the SC ruling from that article hasn’t already proven?

              it could help you understand that us supreme court doesn’t rule behind us borders. whether it actually would, i have no idea.

              Admittedly it’s hard to review the exchange after the majority of your comments have been removed.

              i understand you are trying unconventional attack vectors, but 2 out of 5 is not a majority, swetie. i see you are as good in math as you are in law. i am done with this discussion, bye.