Reductions in Force aka RIFs being blocked by liberal courts

President Trump aims to shrink government

He's trying but the Swamp using their typical obstacles to make Trump fail

• Trump saving taxpayer money and boosting efficiency.
• Lower courts blocked these cuts, siding with big government advocates like unions.
• Trump’s SCOTUS appeal defends executive power and fights costly bureaucratic delays.

President Trump’s administration is taking bold steps to deliver on a promise many Americans have longed to see: shrinking the overgrown federal workforce.

The plan involves what’s known as “Reductions in Force,” or RIFs – a straightforward way to make government leaner and more focused on serving the people, not itself. But, as you might expect, not everyone is thrilled with the idea of less bureaucracy.

Almost immediately, the usual suspects tried to throw a wrench in the works. A group made up of unions, various non-profit groups, and even some local governments sued to stop the President.

A federal judge in San Francisco, Susan Illston,  recommended by of Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, Illston was nominated by President Bill Clinton on January 23, 1995 sided with them, claiming the President needed special permission from Congress to make these kinds of personnel changes.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, often a roadblock for common-sense conservative policies, agreed, calling the President’s actions “unprecedented.”

It seems some people prefer the swamp just the way it is – murky and expensive.

Read about it...