Michael Schellenberger

Rank 42 of 47
|
Score -120
2/22/2025, 2:20:08 AM
X
In reply to:
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
329d
There has long been cynicism about a president's ability to shrink the federal government to make it more efficient.

This ruling proves it can be done, with no "constitutional crisis" required.

As the kids say, "You can just do things."

/END
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
329d
The caricature of government employees is that they act entitled to their jobs. Well, that's how these USAID employees behaved.

The plaintiffs claimed that losing their jobs would cause "irreparable damage." But unemployment is repairable. You can get another job.
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
329d
The plaintiffs themselves admitted when confronted, that many of their claims weren't true, including the notion that the funding freeze had prevented
USAID employees from paying their bills.
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
329d
The rhetoric employed by the media, USAID's activist labor union, and the taxpayer-funded NGO industrial complex was grossly irresponsible and constituted emotional blackmail.

At various moments, the judge scolds the plaintiffs for being misleading:

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi…
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
329d
The claims of "emotional harm" were too "'hypothetical' to "support a finding of irreparable harm."
"Upon scrutiny" the alleged injuries "are not irreparable."
USAID had not deprived anyone of necessary security.
And USAID had an orderly plan to return people home.
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
329d
Media outlets uncritically embraced the notion that what Trump had done was unconstitutional. They uncritically accepted claims that USAID people would somehow be put in grave danger. It was all total nonsense, the evidence shows.

The statement 'If you're tired of starting over, stop giving up.' is motivational and encourages perseverance. It does not directly engage with the substantive public issues discussed in the conversation about government efficiency and legal rulings. Therefore, it does not constitute public discourse.