Writes Judge Neomi Rao, dissenting, in Slaughter v. Trump.
The NYT article about the case is "Federal Appeals Court Reinstates an F.T.C. Commissioner Fired by Trump/The court said the commissioner, Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, had been illegally terminated 'without cause.'" Excerpt: "Since March, the F.T.C. has been led only by Republicans. Ms. Slaughter said in an interview Tuesday evening that she planned to go to the F.T.C. on Wednesday morning to work."
Here's the Wikipedia article on Humphrey's Executor. Excerpt: "The case involved William E. Humphrey, a commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) whom President Franklin D. Roosevelt had fired. Roosevelt had fired Humphrey over their policy disagreements involving economic regulation and the New Deal, even though the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 prohibited firing an FTC commissioner for any reason other than 'inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.'"
FDR wrote to Humphrey: "You will, I know, realize that I do not feel that your mind and my mind go along together on either the policies or the administering of the Federal Trade Commission, and, frankly, I think it is best for the people of this country that I should have a full confidence."
Posts
17 comments:
I asked Grok about how you go about ignoring a Supreme Court ruling and it responded with this story about Joe Biden.
"In a speech in Culver City, California, on February 21, 2024, Joe Biden said, “The Supreme Court blocked it [the student loan forgiveness plan], but that didn’t stop me,” referring to the Supreme Court's 2023 decision in Biden v. Nebraska, which struck down his initial $400 billion student loan forgiveness program as unconstitutional. This comment was widely reported and criticized by, particularly Republicans, as a defiance of the Court's ruling."
And Joe Biden's still walking around a free man.
You don't have to listen to the Supreme Court. That court is laughable.
By the way ... how come Federal Marshall's haven't arrested Lisa Cook yet? She's been fired from the Federal Reserve Board by the President of the United States, but she still keeps showing up at work and logging into her computer.
That's trespassing.
What was the majority’s reasoning? Trump bad?
That second “primary residence” bought by Lisa Cook. Turns out she’s renting it out. She should be in jail.
…living permanently in the lawless land between the political whims of Hawaiian judges and the reversal from the Supremes…
The Lisa Cook case will be a strong argument. There is clear malfeasance in office. If she can’t be fired for cause, then the ruling in Humphrey’s Executor becomes nonsense, because who has the power to remove for cause? If it is Congress, then these roles are as powerful as the President and Vice President.
but she still keeps showing up at work and logging into her computer.
…like a bad ‘90s movie. One clue: if she still has credentials to log in to her computer she hasn’t been fired fired…
That's an interesting legal argument: the court of appeals for the District of Columbia claimed that Slaughter should be reinstated based on a Supreme Court precedent, arguing that not doing so would go against SCOTUS. Now SCOTUS may have to argue that they are wrong to reinstate her -- because lower courts have no right to reinstate individuals sacked by POTUS -- and right at the same time -- because POTUS had no right to sack Slaughter without cause.
Given as Justice Jackson put it the Supreme Court is ‘playing Calvinball where the only rule is the administration always wins’ I don’t put much weight on these judgements. Until the Supreme Court does a backflip and actually clips Trump’s wings or control of congress flips to anyone with a spine -- the US is effectively an imperial regime.
"By the way ... how come Federal Marshall's haven't arrested Lisa Cook yet?"
It's worth considering who has actually been convicted of mortgage fraud.
Mortgage lenders are absolutely able to do DD on borrowers. In fact, there's much more asymmetry between the lender and borrower favoring the lender than there is in a business loan.
Intent was easier to prove in Trump's case than it would be in Cook's case. It's also more plausible that Cook did not intend to misrepresent, if she even did (the applications were weeks apart and she only attested to her intention, at the time, to live in each as a principal rather than primary address).
The judge asked the prosecutor if Pulte's social media posts of allegations against Cook satisfied "due process" requirements (which are elaborated in the Bill of Rights fifth amendment to the US Constitution.) The prosecutor claimed yes. This outrageous claim, if upheld, would reduce rule of law to rule by rumor mill.
By the way ... how come Federal Marshall's haven't arrested Lisa Cook yet?
Mortgage fraud seems likely, so Cook should be charged. They seem to be playing politics.
Originalists should support Humphreys executor and the insulation of appointees to government agencies that have been designated as 'independent' of government agencies that have by law. The constitution requires the Consent of the Senate for appointees. The terms of that consent are an important component of the appointment. In cases of independent agency administrators, like those of the Fed or the FTC, is that those individuals are insulated from political fluctuations. The Senate's role and expectations are an important balance to that of the President.
There are strong public policy reasons that certain agencies (generally with narrow and clear areas of authority) should be non-partisan or have balanced partisan representation. It is even common at more familiar levels. Many towns, for example, require that their school boards have representation from both major parties.
Presidential ultramontanists are wrong on the constitutional principles here, subverting established law, and promoting a chaotic administrative system.
At my last place of employment, the Smithsonian, 2 of the previous 3 bosses had been fired for cause, one for financial misdeeds, and another for sexual harassment. In neither case was the offense actually adjudicated in court. They simply laid out the evidence, and said you're fired for cause. It seems like Trump has that evidence, and the authority to act on it. If it actually had to go to court to be legal, the process would take longer than her actual term in office.
…they could be filling the hopper for an election season where many (most) prominent Democrats are being rounded and charged so hawaiian judges can free them, but I’m rating that scenario ‘highly unlikely’. A true justice scenario I’m giving ‘no chance in Hell’…
One thing for certain- if/when the legal arguments to oppose Trump are exhausted, the hyper-Constitutional precedents of we just don’t do that and that’s not something we do will ultimately prevail…
Stephen, "Originalists" have no obligation to approve of your sophistry. Prior to Humphrey's Executor the USSC repeatedly held Advise and Consent for appointments did not give Congress the power to interfere with termination of Executive branch officials, and even subsequent decisions as recent as Collins v. Yellin in 2021 ruled attempts by Congress to control how and when Executive branch officials can be fired was a violation of separation of powers in most cases.
Welcome to the Sausage factory, folks. It's like you expect the Democrats to lay down and play dead. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.