The case — to be argued tomorrow — is Trump v. Slaughter.
The case to be overruled is Humphrey's Executor, discussed in this NYT article, "For Landmark Test of Executive Power, Echoes of a 1930s Supreme Court Battle/Franklin D. Roosevelt’s efforts to oust a Federal Trade Commission leader offer parallels to the current fight over President Trump’s actions" — showing various letters from FDR to Humphrey, saying things like "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
52 comments:
NYT tries to delegitimize the decision even before the case is argued and decided.
Orwellian.
..Congress’s power to constrain the president’s authority to fire independent regulators..
This is SILLY!
according to our Constitution..
Congress (like the President) have NO POWER
ALL POWER (according to our Constitution) is vested
SOLELY in appointed District Judges
READ THE CONSTITUTION, dummies!
OK, well we alll know the score. The 3 Democrats will all vote against Trump because they don't follow the law, they follow their leftwing politics. Roberts will probably join them, since he hates Trump and is a uniparty Bushie.
That leaves the other 5 to decide based on the law.
There is no "Conservative project". There is a leftwing project. The Democrat justices, and (people like Brennan, Blackmun, and souter) all vote as a bloc, and vote based on their leftwing politics. That's been true ever since the warren court.
The other non-left justices seem to vote based on God knows what. Thomas, Alioto, and Scalia seem(ed) to have principles. All the rest of them seem to swing back and forth depending on how they felt that day. Kennedy and Grandma O'Connor were the worst. Even their opinions were absent any strong principles or legal philosophy.
The fatal problem with the way the left wants things is the staffers at the independent agencies aren’t so independent, straying from competence and the mission of the agency in favor of politically motivated priorities and selective ambition. Who checks rogue independent agencies if they are independent?
The problem with Humphrey’s Executor is found in the person of Jerome Powell. Is he malicious or merely incompetent? Trump made a number of poor nominations during his first time, and Powell is by no means the worst, but he seems eager to sabotage the US economic recovery and thd dole question is whether he does so for political reasons (e.g., to help Democrats during the 2026 midterms)?
When it comes to government agencies:
independent = rogue = unaccountable
The magic word missing from the article is EXECUTIVE, as in Independent Executive Agency
From "Conservative Project at Supreme Court Meets Trump’s Push to Oust Officials/President Trump has repeatedly ousted leaders of independent agencies despite federal laws meant to shield those regulators from politics" (NYT).
Trump's failure is that those agencies still exist.
Constitutionally speaking there are no **independent** agencies. Everyone is accountable to someone. Checks and balances were all the rage when stupid district court injunctions were raining like shit from the sky earlier this year. Follow the logic.
RCOCEAN II said...
There is no "Conservative project". There is a leftwing project. The Democrat justices, and (people like Brennan, Blackmun, and souter) all vote as a bloc, and vote based on their leftwing politics. That's been true ever since the warren court.
The other non-left justices seem to vote based on God knows what. Thomas, Alioto, and Scalia seem(ed) to have principles. All the rest of them seem to swing back and forth depending on how they felt that day.
They aren't voting for leftwing politics.
They are voting for the desires of their globalist masters.
The globalists just want the constitution torn down and destroyed and they want their serfs back.
Some of the "Justices" like Jackson are retards. Others like Roberts are ciphers.
The goal is the same though. Helter Skelter.
How many Ivy League degrees do you need to be able to write the following sentence. “…chipped away at Congress’s power to constrain the president’s authority to fire independent regulators...."
of course that’s nonsense.
A more accurate rendering of the situation would be “chipped away at Congress‘s unconstitutional attempts to create agencies outside of the control of one of the three branches of government, but more particularly outside the control of the president.”
the courts have already clearly told Congress they can’t run any agencies. So Congress is trying to set up agencies that the president can’t run either. they run on their own authority apparently.
Mike (MJB Wolf) said...
Constitutionally speaking there are no **independent** agencies. Everyone is accountable to someone. Checks and balances were all the rage when stupid district court injunctions were raining like shit from the sky earlier this year. Follow the logic.
We are fighting against people who use our system against us.
Arguing on a systemic level does no good with even a majority of Americans. Most Americans think we are a democracy and that majority rules.
Looks like another Trump “King Me”.
What could go wrong?
You let us know who's gonna wiin when you figure out which one's cock is bigger, ok ann? We rely on you for that now, not any kind of legal analysis (or linking to the people who do that kind of work...) God bless ya, annie meade. Never change! lol
In my opinion, the remedy for Congress creating an agency over which neither Congress not the President has control (i.e. "independent") is not to let the President fire its head, but should be to abolish the agency altogether.
Ask Benny Netanyahu.
He's running the show here now. The Americans have abdicated cuz the Joos* are all smarter and the ladies formerly in positions of power all know it...
--------
* small cocks and all. They don't have to do any work, much less thinking work. It's all connections and predatory practices now. Ask the cohen boys -- both VERY masculine, lol -- who are faring well it seems in America today. Their mom and her kept man too...
tommyesq said...
In my opinion, the remedy for Congress creating an agency over which neither Congress not the President has control (i.e. "independent") is not to let the President fire its head, but should be to abolish the agency altogether.
The whole point of creating an executive that had control over the bureaucracy was to make sure there was democratic control over the bureaucracy.
The people who wrote the constitution were specifically discouraging unelected decision makers.
Ronald J. Ward said...
Looks like another Trump “King Me”.
What could go wrong?
It is retards like this that argue the President exerting control over the bureaucracy is "authoritarian."
Ronald wants unelected leadership of the country. Aristocracy is always the goal of these people.
They are so stupid they don't even know what they are arguing for.
FDR's last phrase reminded me of the "ministry of confidence" and "responsible ministry" arguments in very late Imperial Russia.
David Starkey says Tony Blair started the UK on the road to ruin by copying our independent agencies to absolve Parliament of responsibility for the dirty work of woke socialism. They even created a Supreme Court.
Hawkins should be overturned. Shielding from politics isn't possible in the first place and The Constitution doesn't give Congress the power to bind the President in this manner. Congress must include in their process the idea that the personnel might get appointed and/or fired by the President at his whim. In my opinion, the Civil Service protections are also unconstitutional and should be declared so. It is important that the voters can vote for a President who can clear out the stables from time to time and necessary that the bureacrats understand this can happen to them at any point.
The very idea of a government entity that is unaccountable is repugnant, both to the Constitution and to the people. Just as no one is supposed to be above the law, even Democrats, no government entity can be allowed to be unaccountable.
This should be no-brainer. People say, "This is Trump's economy," or "This is Biden's economy," but that's only true if we ignore the Fed's say in setting interest rates.
If you're in government and you don't work for the courts or Congress, you're answerable to the chief executive.
Ralph L: David Starkey is da man!!! CC, JSM
Independent agency ? With executive decision making
Power ? Accountable to who?
I’ve never understood the concept that congress can create an executive agency that does not fall under presidential authority and can “contain” the presidents powers. That would seem unconstitutional on its face though I’m sure some
Lawyers along the way were able to figure out how to argue otherwise.
Congress has power of the purse and of oversight. It does not have the power to execute laws nor create its own agencies that create and enforce laws in the form of required doctrine.
The creation of laws and the execution of laws, enforcement, and foreign policy does not sit in the same place. For a reason.
That should have read "Humphrey" and not "Hawkins". I know how I made that mistake but is is weird to me.
Oh noes...anyways
This is coming from people who mandated an untested therapeutic who think free speech is a luxury
More like he copied european institutions which are unaccountable to the people
Blair was slick unlike old line lefties like foot and benn; but he had the same goals using different means
It odd then, how much lefties hate him
Why isn't the proper constitutional enforcement mechanism the withholding of future agency funding by congress?
Take ofcom the ministry of truth it was created by an act of patliament
I stand corrected the queens speech preceded the legislation
When I was young I paid little attention to politics and government. But even young and naive me wondered occasionally; "Independent agency? How can that be? That can't work."
The powers of 1930’s FTC were much more limited than those of contemporary “independent” agencies. For example, back then the Department of Justice represented the FTC in federal court, so the then-current Administration had the agency on a short leash. Not so today. So it is possible for the Supremes to rule in favor of Presidential firings without overruling In re Humphrey’s Executor. That old case would just be a precedent with no practical application to any present “independent” agency. I worked at the FTC in the 1970’s and the staff viewed Humphey’s Executor as an inside joke.
Have any of the "Democrat" judges ever opined on the independent agency issue? Does that make their musings part of "The Progressive Project?" Or is this the usual one-way ratchet?
President Trump has repeatedly ousted leaders of independent agencies despite federal laws meant to shield those regulators from politics" (NYT).
So apparently those "federal laws" don't apply, or don't mean what the NYT wants them to mean.
Did Joe Biden ever "oust" any agency "leaders?" Did the NYT have a problem with that?
I asked Google AI the first question. It's answer:
es, President Joe Biden has fired several agency heads and high-level officials, particularly Trump appointees serving in independent agencies, often before their terms expired.
Key removals include:
Peter Robb: On his first day in office, Biden fired the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) after Robb refused to resign. This was a significant move, as past presidents had traditionally allowed NLRB general counsels to serve their full four-year terms. A federal appeals court later upheld Biden's power to make this removal.
Andrew Saul: In July 2021, Biden dismissed the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (SSA) when he refused to step down. Saul was serving a six-year term that was not set to expire until January 2025. The firing was made after the Justice Department issued a legal opinion, based on a recent Supreme Court ruling, that the President had the authority to remove the SSA Commissioner at will.
Mark Calabria: In June 2021, following a Supreme Court ruling that affirmed the President's power to do so, Biden removed the Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA). Calabria was a Trump appointee serving a five-year term.
Other Officials: The Biden administration also replaced or removed members and heads of various other bodies, including the Federal Services Impasse Panel, the Council of the Administrative Conference of the United States, the National Capital Planning Commission, and the U.S. Commission for Fine Arts. In March 2021, the majority of the Homeland Security Advisory Council members were also let go to facilitate an "orderly transition".
These actions generated some controversy because many of the affected officials were part of agencies traditionally considered "independent" and insulated from direct presidential control through "for cause" removal restrictions, but recent court rulings have generally expanded the President's removal power for such single-headed agencies.
Remember all the NYT editorials expressing deep concern about those firings of "independent" agency heads? I don't either.
Yancey Ward said...
Hawkins should be overturned. Shielding from politics isn't possible in the first place and The Constitution doesn't give Congress the power to bind the President in this manner. Congress must include in their process the idea that the personnel might get appointed and/or fired by the President at his whim.
I think a Congress at the federal level is impractical for a country the size of the United States.
In Collins v. Yellen, 594 U.S. 220, the Supreme Court held that Joe Biden could remove the Trump-appointed head of the FHFA, because a clause in the congressional authorization purporting to restrict the President's authority to fire agency heads at will was unconstitutional. On the day of the decision, President Joe Biden moved forward with replacing FHFA director, Mark A. Calabria, who had been appointed under Donald Trump, "with an appointee who reflects the Administration's values".
Sauce for the goose. Also--Conservative Judges follow the law even when it means that liberals get what they want. Imagine that. (Alito wrote the majority opinion).
I think we are all in agreement that the one thing the president doesn’t have is enough power.
"despite federal laws meant to shield those regulators from politics"
You know who else would be shielded from politics? Kings.
I thought having those was a bad thing.
I think we are all in agreement that the one thing the president doesn’t have is enough power.
Is this an argument? I thought the question was about the constitutional limits of executive authority. But I guess it's about "No Kings!" Fits so much better on a bumper sticker ...
Achilles: "I think a Congress at the federal level is impractical for a country the size of the United States."
What would you replace it with? RLTW - JSM
Its the caliber of the people involved, who on the most part 'cannot keep a republic'
If we turned the Senate back to indirect selection by the state governments, that would certainly help. CC, JSM
It was a progressive innovation like the income tax
"I think we are all in agreement that the one thing the president doesn’t have is enough power."
He should have the power The Constitution grants him which included the power to hire and fire the people for whom Congress appropriates the funds. If Congress doesn't like those hires it can withdraw the money to pay them.
John Mosby is correct- one of the great corruptions of the original intent of the Constitution was changing of the nature of the Senate. It greatly abrogated the power of the individual states as institutions themselves. Today's Senators are just glorified Representatives.
And I will point out that Congress' power of the purse isn't really affected by the President's veto- it can just not pass the targeted appropriations.
john mosby said...
Achilles: "I think a Congress at the federal level is impractical for a country the size of the United States."
What would you replace it with? RLTW - JSM
Personally I would go with a unitary executive who had control over the military and the ability to tax state governments in order to maintain that military. He would have one federal investigative/law enforcement agency. All foreign intelligence would be handled by the military.
The only people the President would be in charge of would be the people who made up the governments of each state.
Then I would allow every state to form its own government. The people and the leaders they elect would create a contract and the President would watch over that contract. The President would have the power to execute and leaders of a state that were deemed to have broken the contract they signed with their people.
The President would be the only Nationally elected person in the federal government. The Supreme Court has been a predictable failure. The Congress hasn't just been a predictable failure, it is a disgrace.
The idea that the Congress can constrain the President's powers is fucking asinine.
And I'd spell that with two esses, but the idiot spell-check won't let me.
Congress has zero power to restrain the President. And neither do the courts.
Especially a court with a sitting judge who committed PERJURY in her confirmation hearing, as did Justice Ketani Jackson Five when asked whether she could define the word: woman.
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.