Corrupt Supreme Court headed to more authoritarian power for trump

[Craig234]

For a century, our government has had the idea of independent agencies as a way to have better government not subject to each president's replacing the board. In 1935, FDR fired an FTC commissioner. The right-wing Supreme Court ruled 9-0 he did not have the power to do that, the rule ever since. Now trump tried to fire two FTC commissioners, and this corrupt court allowed it, and plans to re-visit the ruling.

Humphrey's Executor v. United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Craig234]

The judge who heard the case ruled trump had acted illegally. The appeals court ruled 2-1 he had acted illegally. The one judge who agreed with trump was appointed by him, showing again the problem of corrupt trump judges.

 

[Mycroft]

As always, the buck stops with the Supremes.

 

[Bok Tuklo]

As always, the buck stops with the Supremes.

“There is hardly any political question in the United States that sooner or later does not turn into a judicial question."​

~ Alexis de Tocqueville from Democracy in America

 

[Athanasius68]

For a century, our government has had the idea of independent agencies as a way to have better government not subject to each president's replacing the board. In 1935, FDR fired an FTC commissioner. The right-wing Supreme Court ruled 9-0 he did not have the power to do that, the rule ever since. Now trump tried to fire two FTC commissioners, and this corrupt court allowed it, and plans to re-visit the ruling.

Humphrey's Executor v. United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Humphreys Executor will be revisited as it had no real rational
defense.
The Constitution is the Supreme law of the land. And it assigns the power of law enforcement with the Executive, not some independent agency.

 

[CimpleMan]

Trump Is Getting Closer to Having an ‘Infinite Money Pit’

If the president takes over the Federal Reserve, he will have extraordinary power to reward his friends and destroy his enemies.

www.theatlantic.com

Trump gaining control of the Fed would be bad news.

 

[multivita-man]

As always, the buck stops with the Supremes.

A typical MAGA response: Ha! Ha! We've got the power. Sucks for you.

Power, yes, but don't confuse power with legitimacy.

 

[multivita-man]

Humphreys Executor will be revisited as it had no real rational
defense.
The Constitution is the Supreme law of the land. And it assigns the power of law enforcement with the Executive, not some independent agency.

It's Congress who writes laws that dictate what the President can and cannot do with federal employees. The President can enforce Congressional statutes, yes, but he cannot make up his own laws, which is what you and the SCOTUS majority seem to be arguing -- with absolutely nothing in the Constitution to back it up. Of course here's where you say, Well, the SCOTUS is the final word heh heh!

Yes, indeed they are. If a partisan Supreme Court majority and the President, both connected by the same political ecosystem, decide to collude and basically ignore the Constitution, there's nothing in the Constitution that can prevent it -- because nothing in the Constitution can prevent people from ignoring the Constitution or ascribing to the Constitution principles that the authors never intended it to enshrine.

At the risk of invoking Godwin's law, the Nazis never rewrote the Weimar Constitution; they simply ignored it and made up the law as they went along. That seems to be where we're headed. A country not bound by law, but by the rule of mostly men and a handmaid.

 

[Mycroft]

A typical MAGA response: Ha! Ha! We've got the power. Sucks for you.

Power, yes, but don't confuse power with legitimacy.

It's not about "power". It's about the Constitution.

 

[multivita-man]

Humphreys Executor will be revisited as it had no real rational
defense.
The Constitution is the Supreme law of the land. And it assigns the power of law enforcement with the Executive, not some independent agency.

It's Congress who writes laws that dictate what the President can and cannot do with federal employees. The President can enforce Congressional statutes, yes, but he cannot make up his own laws, which is what you and the SCOTUS majority seem to be arguing -- with absolutely nothing in the Constitution to back it up. Of course here's where you say, Well, the SCOTUS is the final word heh heh!

Yes, indeed they are. If a partisan Supreme Court majority and the President, both connected by the same political ecosystem, decide to collude and basically ignore the Constitution, there's nothing in the Constitution that can prevent it -- because nothing in the Constitution can prevent people from ignoring the Constitution or ascribing to the Constitution principles that the authors never intended it to enshrine.

At the risk of invoking Godwin's law, the Nazis never rewrote the Weimar Constitution; they simply ignored it and made up the law as they went along. That seems to be where we're headed. A country not bound by law, but by the rule of mostly men and a handmaid.

 

[multivita-man]

It's not about "power". It's about the Constitution.

Oh the **** it is. You don't even believe that yourself. The MAGAs of the SCOTUS majority are barely concealing their Cheshire cat grins at this point. The Supreme Court majority is making up its own doctrine and trying to convince the rest of us that generations of past jurists got it all wrong, that they know better.

 

[Athanasius68]

It's Congress who writes laws that dictate what the President can and cannot do with federal employees. The President can enforce Congressional statutes, yes, but he cannot make up his own laws, which is what you and the SCOTUS majority seem to be arguing -- with absolutely nothing in the Constitution to back it up. Of course here's where you say, Well, the SCOTUS is the final word heh heh!

Yes, indeed they are. If a partisan Supreme Court majority and the President, both connected by the same political ecosystem, decide to collude and basically ignore the Constitution, there's nothing in the Constitution that can prevent it -- because nothing in the Constitution can prevent people from ignoring the Constitution or ascribing to the Constitution principles that the authors never intended it to enshrine.

At the risk of invoking Godwin's law, the Nazis never rewrote the Weimar Constitution; they simply ignored it and made up the law as they went along. That seems to be where we're headed. A country not bound by law, but by the rule of mostly men and a handmaid.

If Congress were to pass a law saying that the senior civil servant in the Defense Department would henceforth be the commander in chief of the armed forces, nobody would agree that Congress had such authority.
The Constitution is clear: the president is commander in chief of the armed services regardless of a statute passed by Congress. They would have to ammend the Constitution to get that change.

The same principle is here. The Executive enforces the law. If Congress creates an agency that wields the Executive power of law enforcement, then the president must be able to name and control the person wielding that power. Congress can't give, by statute, somebody else law enforcement power independent of the president.

 

[multivita-man]

If Congress were to pass a law saying that the senior civil servant in the Defense Department would henceforth be the commander in chief of the armed forces, nobody would agree that Congress had such authority.
The Constitution is clear: the president is commander in chief of the armed services regardless of a statute passed by Congress.

Commander in Chief of the military. You might have a point there. That power is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.

But we're talking about agencies that were created by - wait for it - acts of Congress. There is no EPA in the Constitution. No Department of Labor. No Department of Justice. No Department of the Energy, of Education, of Commerce, of Transportation. Those acts were proposed by Congress and signed into law by previous presidents. You're basically arguing that the statutes that Congress passes are meaningless, that a sitting President (with a complicit SCOTUS majority) can basically nullify Congress' statutes as it pleases.

The same principle is here. The Executive enforces the law.

Who writes the law, scholar?

 

[Mycroft]

Oh the **** it is. You don't even believe that yourself. The MAGAs of the SCOTUS majority are barely concealing their Cheshire cat grins at this point. The Supreme Court majority is making up its own doctrine and trying to convince the rest of us that generations of past jurists got it all wrong, that they know better.

LOL!!

Great discussion. Thanks.

Bye.

 

[Athanasius68]

Commander in Chief of the military. You might have a point there. That power is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.

But we're talking about agencies that were created by - wait for it - acts of Congress. There is no EPA in the Constitution. No Department of Labor. No Department of Justice. No Department of the Energy, of Education, of Commerce, of Transportation. Those acts were proposed by Congress and signed into law by previous presidents. You're basically arguing that the statutes that Congress passes are meaningless, that a sitting President (with a complicit SCOTUS majority) can basically nullify Congress' statutes as it pleases.



Who writes the law, scholar?

It's also explicitly mentioned in the Constitution that the Executive enforces laws.
So how does Congress write a law saying somebody ELSE enforces the law?

 

[multivita-man]

LOL!!

Great discussion. Thanks.

Bye.

Oh wow, another cogent rebuttal.

 

[multivita-man]

It's also explicitly mentioned in the Constitution that the Executive enforces laws.

I'm getting the impression you really have no ****ing clue what enforce the laws means.

So how does Congress write a law saying somebody ELSE enforces the law?

It means enforce the law as it's written by Congress in the statute. Meaning that if Congress prescribes the manner in which an Executive can or cannot fire an employee, the Executive has to follow the language of the law, not whatever impulse he has at the moment. That's why the call it the rule of law, not the rule of the President or the rule of MAGA or the rule of Stormy Daniels.

 

[Athanasius68]

It means enforce the law as it's written by Congress in the statute. Meaning that if Congress prescribes the manner in which an Executive can or cannot fire an employee, the Executive has to follow the language of the law, not whatever impulse he has at the moment. That's why the call it the rule of law, not the rule of the President or the rule of MAGA or the rule of Stormy Daniels.

If Congress has the authority to pass such a law. What's the point of a system to amend the Constitution if Congress can pass whatever statute it likes based upon whatever impulses it has at the moment?

The issue here is that Congress is saying that the commissioner, and not the Executive, enforces the law. Yet only the Executive has the constitutional power to enforce the law.

 

[multivita-man]

If Congress has the authority to pass such a law.

Jesus ****ing Christ? What do you think Article I is?

What's the point of a system to amend the Constitution if Congress can pass whatever statute it likes based upon whatever impulses it has at the moment?

Article I is in the Constitution. Pretty plain to see. Congress writes the laws, the President enforces them - but he enforces them as they are written (previous Presidents signed them into law, by the way).

The issue here is that Congress is saying that the commissioner, and not the Executive, enforces the law. Yet only the Executive has the constitutional power to enforce the law.

Being the Chief Executive doesn't give the President the power to enforce the law however he sees fit.

 

[CSharp]

A typical MAGA response: Ha! Ha! We've got the power. Sucks for you.

Power, yes, but don't confuse power with legitimacy.

The problem is that, eventually, the dems will be back in power. ****ing current republicans and retard magas can't see past the noses on their stupid faces.

 

[multivita-man]

The problem is that, eventually, the dems will be back in power. ****ing current republicans and retard magas can't see past the noses on their stupid faces.

Republicans are working to rig the system so that Democrats never get back in power - at least not for the foreseeable future. That's the end-game here. The MAGA administration, the Republicans in Congress, the Republican state legislatures and governors, Republican state attorneys general, and the Republican Supreme Court, through their intricate ecosystem of megadonors and think tanks, all in on this plot. One party rule from here on out.

 

[Athanasius68]

Jesus ****ing Christ? What do you think Article I is?



Article I is in the Constitution. Pretty plain to see. Congress writes the laws, the President enforces them - but he enforces them as they are written (previous Presidents signed them into law, by the way).



Being the Chief Executive doesn't give the President the power to enforce the law however he sees fit.

Article I doesn't give Congress the authority to pass a law saying that the speaker of the House becomes the commander in chief of the armed forces.
Even if a president signs it.

 

[multivita-man]

Article I doesn't give Congress the authority to pass a law saying that the speaker of the House becomes the commander in chief of the armed forces.

Cite me the bill where Congress has attempted to do that. Otherwise, I'll just chalk this passage above as more bullshitting and abject inability to argue your position coherently. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Unfortunately, because a Supreme Court majority has decided that it has the power to lend its credibility to such nonsense, a lot of people will believe that whatever opinion they author has validity. In the strictly legal sense, such nonsense, however far it detours from Constitutional law, does unfortunately have validity, but only because people are people and people with absolute power to declare the law can become corrupted absolutely.

 

[Athanasius68]

Cite me the bill where Congress has attempted to do that. Otherwise, I'll just chalk this passage above as more bullshitting and abject inability to argue your position coherently. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Unfortunately, because a Supreme Court majority has decided that it has the power to lend its credibility to such nonsense, a lot of people will believe that whatever opinion they author has validity. In the strictly legal sense, such nonsense, however far it detours from Constitutional law, does unfortunately have validity, but only because people are people and people with absolute power to declare the law can become corrupted absolutely.

I have no idea if Congress ever tried making the speaker the commander in chief of the armed forces.
I would doubt it.
Congress does not have absolute power.
They lack the power to overturn the Constitution.

Well, as previously pointed out, the Constitution gives the power to enforce law expressly to the president.
And nobody else.

As such, Congress can't give law enforcement power to another person. Even if Congress wrote the law that way, and even if a previous president had signed the legislation.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Trump Is Getting Closer to Having an ‘Infinite Money Pit’

If the president takes over the Federal Reserve, he will have extraordinary power to reward his friends and destroy his enemies.

www.theatlantic.com

Trump gaining control of the Fed would be bad news.

The clearest signal of what the MAGA wing of the Supreme Court is doing is that they're handing Trump the firing power over everyone in the federal government EXCEPT for the Federal Reserve.
Trump's MAGA justices want to remove any barriers to Trump's mission of changing America into a white Christian nationalist kleptrocacy.
But unlike voters you're always hearing about who are so stupid that they bought Trump's reality tee vee image of a business genius, the justices do know that he's a serial business failure who doesn't know how to run an economy.