#Trump says the #SeparationOfPowers guaranteed by the #Constitution forbids #Congress to limit his ability to run the #ExecutiveBranch. For that reason, he insists that he can fire Ms. Slaughter & other leaders of #independent agencies for any reason — or for no reason at all. Congressional efforts to shield officials from political interference by curbing his ability to fire regulators, he argues, are unconstitutional.
Discussion
Loading...
Post
If the Supreme Court will not defend the constitution, should we even recognize its authority?
Having handed over near absolute power to the president of the United States and handed away their own discernment, what purpose do they serve other than to be a priesthood peddling an ideology they make up on the spot
@GhostOnTheHalfShell @Nonilex I recognize the Supreme Court and the current Federal government in general in the same way that I recognize a dangerous animal or a thug with a gun. They have no legitimacy at all, but they’re dangerous. It’s the same way I’d look at the nazis, which is appropriate.
Since returning to the White House, #Trump has fired government #watchdogs, leaders of #independent agencies & rank-and-file federal workers, drawing multiple legal challenges.
#SCOTUS has generally allowed the firings to take effect through temporary emergency orders. This case is the first opportunity for the court to issue a conclusive ruling on the underlying legal questions of Trump’s firings.
Under federal #law, #Trump is free to fire Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, a member of the #FTC. But he has to provide a reason. #Congress has defined sufficient cause to fire a member of the FTC as “inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.”
#law #HumphreysExecutor #SCOTUS #ActivistCourt #Trump #Autocracy
#Trump says the #SeparationOfPowers guaranteed by the #Constitution forbids #Congress to limit his ability to run the #ExecutiveBranch. For that reason, he insists that he can fire Ms. Slaughter & other leaders of #independent agencies for any reason — or for no reason at all. Congressional efforts to shield officials from political interference by curbing his ability to fire regulators, he argues, are unconstitutional.
The case #SCOTUS hears today will test that proposition.
But how hard would it be for #Trump to simply comply with statutes requiring him to give a reason before firing regulators? The legal terrain is surprisingly uncharted because attempts to remove leaders of independent agencies “for cause” are exceedingly rare.
Federal laws requiring presidents to show cause are, on the other hand, commonplace. More than 30 statutes say that leaders of executive agencies can be removed only for some combination of the same factors cited in the #law shielding #FTC commissioners like Ms. Slaughter. Another 20 or so, like the one governing the #FederalReserve Board, say only that agency leaders may be removed “for cause,” without elaboration.
Arguments have started 🧵
Trump’s Solicitor General D. John Sauer opened his argument by calling the court’s landmark decision in the 1935 case #HumphreysExecutor “an indefensible outlier.” He called the case “a decaying husk with bold & particularly dangerous pretensions” that was “grievously wrong” when it was decided.
Again. This was a landmark decision that has stood for 90 years.
#law #SCOTUS #ActivistCourt #Trump #Autocracy #ExecutiveBranch #power
Bonfire Dinteg Labs
This is a bonfire demo instance for testing purposes. This is not a production site. There are no backups for now. Data, including profiles may be wiped without notice. No service or other guarantees expressed or implied.
Automatic federation enabled