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.”

  • 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 hours ago

    You think I have to go to your country and sue you there? Collection would have some hoops, but obviously Americans can sue non-Americans. But your courts really wouldn’t be involved at all. Unless to cooperate with America.

    i see your law knowledge also comes from comics 😂

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      5 hours 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        5 hours 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.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 hours 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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            5 hours 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.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              5 hours 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
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                4 hours 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.

                • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  4 hours ago

                  it could help you understand that us supreme court doesn’t rule behind us borders

                  But…

                  I’ve linked you an article multiple times, even quoting the relevant sections on forum determination…

                  It would all happen in the US courts, again, like the link I provided explained in depth. It doesn’t matter where you are, because your commenting on a community hosted in America.

                  Like you’re right that US SC doesn’t effect me suing you in your country’s legal system, but literally no one is saying that. And I could have sworn we already got on the same page that this would happen in US courts?

                  i am done with this discussion, bye

                  And that’s fine, all you have to do is stop replying.