• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Corrupt Supreme Court headed to more authoritarian power for trump

Craig234

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2019
Messages
59,556
Reaction score
30,425
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
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
 
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.
 
As always, the buck stops with the Supremes.
 
Mycroft said:
As always, the buck stops with the Supremes.
Click to expand...

“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
 

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.
 
Mycroft said:
As always, the buck stops with the Supremes.
Click to expand...

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

Power, yes, but don't confuse power with legitimacy.
 
Athanasius68 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Power, yes, but don't confuse power with legitimacy.
Click to expand...
It's not about "power". It's about the Constitution.
 
Athanasius68 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 said:
It's not about "power". It's about the Constitution.
Click to expand...

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.
 

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.
 

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.

Athanasius68 said:
The same principle is here. The Executive enforces the law.
Click to expand...

Who writes the law, scholar?
 
LOL!!

Great discussion. Thanks.

Bye.
 

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?
 
Athanasius68 said:
It's also explicitly mentioned in the Constitution that the Executive enforces laws.
Click to expand...

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

Athanasius68 said:
So how does Congress write a law saying somebody ELSE enforces the law?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Athanasius68 said:
If Congress has the authority to pass such a law.
Click to expand...

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

Athanasius68 said:
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?
Click to expand...

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).

Athanasius68 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Being the Chief Executive doesn't give the President the power to enforce the law however he sees fit.
 
multivita-man said:
A typical MAGA response: Ha! Ha! We've got the power. Sucks for you.

Power, yes, but don't confuse power with legitimacy.
Click to expand...
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.
 
CSharp said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 

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.
 
Athanasius68 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…