"... that is intended to restrict the White House’s power to control the agency.... Trump fired both Democratic commissioners on the five-person FTC in March, [Rebecca Kelly] Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya. Both challenged the move, although Bedoya later dropped out of the case. Slaughter is currently listed as a serving commissioner on the
agency’s website, as the case has made its way through the courts. The firings are a direct challenge to a 1935 Supreme Court precedent called
Humphrey's Executor v. United States that upheld limits on the president’s ability to fire FTC commissioners without cause, a restriction Congress imposed to protect the agency from political pressure. Under the 1914 law that set up the agency, members can only be removed for 'inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.'"
From
"Supreme Court allows Trump to fire FTC commissioner/Trump's actions are in direct tension with a 1935 ruling that upheld restrictions on the president's ability to remove FTC commissioners without cause" (NBC News).
"Slaughter is currently listed as a serving commissioner on the
agency’s website" — not anymore.
ADDED: The fact that NBC News referred to the fired commissioners as "Democratic commissioners" gives away the game. According to
Humphrey's Executor, the idea was that "The commission is to be nonpartisan; and it must, from the very nature of its duties, act with entire impartiality." And "It is charged with the enforcement of no policy except the policy of the law."
Who even remembers to pretend that was supposed to be the idea these days?!
Posts
54 comments:
For cause or color (e.g. politics)?
If the Left would quit suing Trump so much he could quit winning so much, which leads to aggregating so much power in the Unitary Executive, which is the thing the Left claims (LOL!) it is fighting against.
Unintended consequence says what?
Humphrey's Executor is going bye bye bye.
Reinstatement isn’t a remedy.
Trump did have cause.
They were useless functionaries doing a worthless job.
Women are really just upset that not doing anything is cause for being fired.
Lem Vibe Bandit said...
Humphrey's Executor is going bye bye bye.
It was just another usurpation of power by the Supreme Court. It is long past time.
I'm afraid I don't understand the desire for "independent" government agencies. Why would we want an agency with legal authority over us to not be subject to the will of the voters?
"without cause."
oh there be cause.
SeanF said...
I'm afraid I don't understand the desire for "independent" government agencies. Why would we want an agency with legal authority over us to not be subject to the will of the voters?
You know that bureaucracy always tries to insulate itself from the consequences of elections.
Stop pretending the people who oppose this are good people.
"a restriction Congress imposed to protect the agency from political pressure."
i.e., so it can't be held accountable to the people.
I was assured by several commenters over the last several weeks that this couldn't happen.
funny how that works,
Good. Rogue agencies that are not answerable to any elected official are a Constitutional abomination and must be entirely abolished. Save our democracy!
…and yet another reminder you don’t hate mainstream media enough. Despite the SCOTUS ruling, Trump’s actions are still in ‘direct tension’ with the now irrelevant case what just failed the left….how newsworhty
Why would the FTC be different from any other executive agency?
"I'm afraid I don't understand the desire for "independent" government agencies."
The desire is that those agencies be staffed by Democrats, in order that they have the ability to block Republican attempts at implementing their policies.
Fire all of them and replace them with MAGA Republicans who interfere with Democrat policies and you'll find out real quick what Democrats *really* think about those independent agencies.
Now let's hope the deranged leftists give us another court case that will result in the extirpation of Wickard v. Filburn and the wholesale destruction of entire Cabinet departments that no longer hold any jurisdiction.
Who even remembers to pretend that was supposed to be the idea these days?!
Ann reads the garbage so we don’t have to but I get the feeling from this and the we’re surprised NYT wrote this story downthread that MSM has abandoned broadbased persuasion in favor of acting as the leftie newsletter, full of catharsis and signals for call to action/violence..
I looked at the website. The SCOTUS did not rule that the firing was lawful. It ordered that the Appeals court "stay on the firing" be gotten rid of. So, Slaughter is out. For now. But that may change.
Both people on the net (not althouse of course and other experts) and the MSM are getting two things mixed up. They constantly claim Trump has incurred a victory or the SCOTUS has "Ruled in their favor" when all the SCOTUS has done has gotten rid of an injunction or "stay" put on by some far-left Judge.
Saying Trump can temporarily do X while the court decides isn't the same as "the court says Trump can do X".
despite a federal law...
... that is CLEARLY Unconstitutional because it intended to restrict the White House’s power to control the agency...
fify!
Independent agencies whose leadership can removed only for cause are not inconsistent with a unitary executive if, and only if, those agencies are performing legislative functions delegated to the agency by Congress (issuing regulations, for example). The arguments for a unitary executive are only persuasive when applied to the exercise of execute power (commander in chief, prosecution and foreign policy, for example).
yes but they figure the appeals court will not prevail on final
determination,
The District Court Democrat hacks are evidently having difficulty understanding that Separation of Powers limits their ability to summarily enjoin the President from carrying out his duties as he sees fit prior to trial. This is elemental.
Beware of what you wish for. All of the great powers that the Trump administration is seeking for the chief executive will be handed over to the Democrats one day to Lord it over each and every one of you. They will have long memories and be quite vengeful.
You do realize that this tit for tat little victories here are there only provide temporary dopamine hits to your pea brains without any concern for the future cost.
“Independent” my eye! They were never independent of the New York/Washington cocktail circuit opinions, that’s for sure. And was there ever a bigger weasel-word in Washington than the word “nonpartisan “?
Caligula's Horse had more independence, nay,
Hombre 12:32 - That. #
Hank said: "Independent agencies whose leadership can removed only for cause are not inconsistent with a unitary executive if, and only if, those agencies are performing legislative functions delegated to the agency by Congress (issuing regulations, for example)"
Hank makes a good point. The problem is that the nondelegation doctrine limits the delegation power of Congress, proscribing the delegation of core legislative functions and requiring that any delegated legislative power, to be valid, must be granted subject to an "intelligible principle". Is this limitation even intelligible? I dunno.
so shes a former schumer staffer who replaced another dem, oh I see now,
All of the great powers that the Trump administration is seeking for the chief executive will be handed over to the Democrats one day to Lord it over each and every one of you. They will have long memories and be quite vengeful.
Good. Let's rip the bandaid off and see the left-wing freak-flag fly, the sooner the better. It can only help the counter-revolution take shape. A definitive reckoning with the enemy tyrant scum is long overdue.
What the higher courts keep saying is "Trump acts within the law."
For the full Inspector Clouseau effect, you should spell it "nut anymur."
By law no more than 3 of 5 commissioners to be from same party. What game is given away by identifying party of fired commissioners?
"By law no more than 3 of 5 commissioners to be from same party. What game is given away by identifying party of fired commissioners?"
How is that enforced? If Trump appoints a "Democrat" or an "Independent" like, say, RFK Jr. is that OK? Even if the Democrats squeal?
Has that provision been subjected to judicial scrutiny?
You mean there are laws that are unconstitutional? Did anyone tell James Madison?
"They will have long memories and be quite vengeful."
And that will be different from how they acted last year, in what way? Will anybody even be able to tell?
"...You do realize that this tit for tat little victories here are there only provide temporary dopamine hits to your pea brains without any concern for the future cost....."
Dude, I don't have to worry about your 'future cost' when I have the evidence of 'past experience' to say, 'had enough of this sh*t, you try some now'. When you hit something on the head enough, it will eventually think twice before poking the bear again.
Howard said...
Beware of what you wish for. All of the great powers that the Trump administration is seeking for the chief executive will be handed over to the Democrats one day to Lord it over each and every one of you. They will have long memories and be quite vengeful.
They already do that. Have been for 40 years. The problem is that this is about Bureaucracy and accountability to the voters.
Your argument is going to fall flat with us because all of these government agencies are full of democrats anyways. We voted for Trump to fire all of these people.
If he is not allowed to fire these people then we will have to find another way to remove them.
If we can't do it through elections what other options are there?
"If we can't do it through elections what other options are there?"
Those government agencies exist in order to advance leftist causes and get in the way of any Republican effort at reform. Democrats don't want there to be ANY options for removing Democrats from the government.
Readering said...
By law no more than 3 of 5 commissioners to be from same party. What game is given away by identifying party of fired commissioners?
Holy crap Readering found a nugget of truth.
This is why I want ALL of these people fired. Get them all the fuck out and make them get real jobs where they have to do real work.
All of these government agencies are full of worthless lazy bums and they all need to go out and get real jobs.
You do realize that this tit for tat little victories here are there only provide temporary dopamine hits to your pea brains without any concern for the future cost.
You do realize Democrats have already been doing this for decades, right?
That whole 'careful what you wish for because the Democrats will return the favor' is bullshit.
WE are returning the favor. And if we bludgeon you about the head and face long enough, maybe you'll think twice before you pull this shit again.
stlcdr said...
Why would the FTC be different from any other executive agency?
I am not a Constitutional or USSC scholar but in reading various articles and posts on this situation it appears the best answer to that question is the Humprehy's Executor opinion takes considerable care to cabin the ruling to the FTC. As recently as 2021 in Collins v. Yellen the USSC ruled that an attempt by Congress in the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 to constrain the President in the termination of the HFHA Director violated Separation of Powers. Humphrey's Executor is almost unique among rulings that actually allowed a constraint on removal of an Executive Branch official.
Reading between the lines and looking at the timing (1935, in the middle of the fight between the USSC and FDR that lead to the court-packing attempt in 1937) it seems to me that this was the USSC putting a shot across FDR's bow, and signaling that they would at least consider suits from Executive Branch officials removed by FDR because of policy disagreement. Since Humphrey was dead it didn't result in actually retaining an official hostile to FDR but the implication was certainly there.
And the alphabet networks wonder why they are bleeding audience share.
Dear Congress:
Please break up the administrative state. Put all the rule-making authority under your jurisdiction. Put all the enforcement under the executive. Put all the judicial questions under the Supreme Court. This would expand the bureaucracies of Congress and the Court, but it would be true to the philosophy of how we started.
"Put all the rule-making authority under your jurisdiction."
Congress doesn't want to make the rules, they want to choose the people who will make them. That way, when their preferred mandates go to shit, they can throw up their hands and say "Well, that wasn't us, it was the EPA (see EVs)."
"Independent agencies whose leadership can removed only for cause are not inconsistent with a unitary executive if, and only if, those agencies are performing legislative functions delegated to the agency by Congress (issuing regulations, for example)"
The only constitutional way to make this valid is that every single ruling made by such a body must be turned into a bill for Congress to debate, pass, and get signed by the executive. What you are advocating seems an end run around Congress having to vote for bills at all.
In short, such a body would only be an advisory board for Congress itself.
"What you are advocating seems an end run around Congress having to vote for bills at all."
As well, an end run around allowing for the possibility of a veto.
There’s that BS “the Supreme Court allowed” formulation again.
I dunno as I only have 6 credits of law from college but, doesn't the Constitution "trump" Federal law? And, doesn't the Supreme Court only rule on the Constitutionality of the issues before it?
Again with the "allowed" bullshit.
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.