Supreme Court Seems Likely To Rule That the President Has Control Over, Get This, the Exectutive Branch

" " " Reformers " " " decided that the actually-responsible, actually-elected political leaders were too corrupt so we should give power to appointed bureaucrats who, of course, cannot be corrupt and only want What's Best for Everybody.

A plethora of "independent" agencies were created. Into these agencies were poured executive power, taken from the actual Executive. And it was claimed the actual president could not fire the commissioners of these agencies, even if they were appointed by previous presidents and were now working to thwart the will of the current elected president.

It's this last part that got the most attention from the Supreme Court during oral arguments today. What kind of a system, they wondered, allows prior presidents, who no longer have any constitutional power -- like Joe Biden -- to essentially continue governing through the commissioners he appointed, stopping the actual Chief Executive of the United States from carrying out his duties?

Why is the dead hand of the last president allowed to strangle the current one?

The Supreme Court's questions seem to indicate that they find this bizarre arrangement to be unconstitutional and will reverse a 1935 precedent called Humphrey's Executor and find that the executive power of the United States is entrusted to the elected Chief Executive and the appointments of prior presidents cannot bind him.

The Supreme Court signaled Monday that it's prepared to hand President Donald Trump another win in his drive to consolidate his power over federal agencies.

During arguments over Trump's dismissal of Federal Trade Commission member Rebecca Slaughter, the high court's conservative majority appeared intent on overturning or effectively gutting a 90-year-old precedent that upheld restrictions on the president's ability to fire leaders of independent agencies across the executive branch.

"I think broad delegations to unaccountable independent agencies raise enormous constitutional and real world problems for individual liberty," Justice Brett Kavanaugh said during the arguments.

Overturning that precedent, known as Humphrey's Executor, has become a key goal for conservatives.

"The text and structure of the Constitution confer on the president the exclusive and illimitable power to remove executive officers, and as a result of that Humphrey's should be overruled," Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the justices on Monday, repeatedly calling the 1935 ruling "a decaying husk."

The White House told Slaughter in March that she was fired, without citing any concern about her performance or conduct. A federal appeals court ruled that Slaughter should be reinstated, but the Supreme Court said her dismissal could take effect while it considered the merits of her claim -- and now seems poised to rule against her.

...

Kavanaugh sought reassurances that such a ruling wouldn't allow presidents to fire Federal Reserve governors.

"We recognize and acknowledge ... that the Federal Reserve is a quasi private, uniquely structured entity that follows a distinct historical tradition," Sauer said, calling the Fed "sui generis," or in a category by itself.

The Supreme Court has also lined up for argument next month a case over Trump's attempt to fire Federal Reserve Board member Lisa Cook. The justices signaled in May that they were inclined for historical reasons to give the Fed more autonomy than other agencies. And in October they issued an order that allowed Cook to stay in her job until the court resolves that fight.

Justices Samuel Alito and Amy Coney Barrett suggested the court could rule for Trump in the FTC case, while leaving the knotty issues around some other agencies for another day. Alito proposed that the court could "reserve decision on those agencies that may not come before us in the near future, or perhaps at any time in the future."

Eric Daugherty @EricLDaugh

🚨 BREAKING: Justice Brett Kavanaugh intellectually PUMMELS DEI Justice Ketanji Jackson at the Supreme Court on whether President Trump can fire a Democrat member of the FTC 🔥

JACKSON: I don't understand why the president gets to control everything and outweigh Congress' authority and duty to protect the people!

KAVANAUGH: "When both houses of Congress and President are controlled by the same party - them creating a lot of these 'independent' agencies with or extending current independent agencies, into these situations, to THWART future presidents of the opposite party..."

TRANSLATION: DEI Jackson wants single party rule to destroy Article 2 under the guise of "independence," Kavanaugh warns that's antithetical to the presidency.

Low-IQ Justice Jackson "doesn't understand" a lot of things.

It's not just that she's stupid. It's also that this is preferred method of left-wingers to passively-aggressively disagree. Instead of saying "I disagree," they almost always say "I don't understand why..." and then specify the thing they disagree with.

She is constantly, constantly saying "I don't understand why..."

Gorsuch rejects the Democrats' claim that there is a "fourth branch of government" -- the federal bureaucracy, which Democrats hold may shackle a Republican president. (Republican bureaucrats cannot, of course, bind a Democrat president).

The bureaucracy has no power except what the President devolves to them, and they may only use that power in the way that the Chief Executive decides.

In related news, the Supreme Court has agreed to review the issue of birthright citizenship.

posted by Ace at 06:23 PM

| Access Comments