Late Saturday, D.C. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson ruled that President Donald Trump violated federal law in firing Hampton Dellinger, head of the Office of Special Counsel. Jackson’s decision is forceful, well-written, and challengeable under existing precedent. Indeed, it may have just set up an appeal that both presidents and professors have long waited for to reinforce presidential powers.
Appointed by President Joe Biden (and son of the respected liberal scholar and Clinton acting Solicitor General Walter Dellinger), Hampton Dellinger was confirmed by the Senate for a five-year term beginning in 2024. He sued after receiving an email with a perfunctory termination notice shortly after the inauguration. The various inspector generals were also terminated and, at the time, some of us raised concerns over compliance with underlying federal statutes. The issue was not likely the outcome but the process for such removals. However, while many objected to the Helter-Skelter approach to such terminations, there may be a method to this madness. Indeed, this ruling may be precisely what the Trump Administration is seeking as the foundation for a major new constitutional challenge.
Dellinger’s claim is based in large part on the Civil Service Reform Act, which provides that the Special Counsel “may be removed by the President only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” 5 U.S.C. 1211(b). The notice gave none of these grounds for the termination even though “inefficiency” and “neglect” are a fairly ambiguous and malleable rationale.
Judge Jackson held that the firing clearly violated the controlling statute and that the Act itself was constitutional. She emphasized that, while there are grounds for presidents to claim the power for at-will terminations, those cases have tended to be offices that carry out executive functions. Jackson described the Special Counsel as an essentially harmless office vis-à-vis executive authority: “Special Counsel acts as an ombudsman, a clearinghouse for complaints and allegations, and after looking into them, he can encourage the parties to resolve the matter among themselves. But if that fails, he must direct them elsewhere.” She noted that earlier cases supporting the executive power to fire executive officials involved “restrictions on the President’s ability to remove an official who wields significant executive authority. The Special Counsel simply does not.”
Judge Jackson has a good-faith reliance on her narrow reading of existing precedent. Moreover, she is right that this is not in compliance with the statute. If the statute holds (and it might), the Administration will have to start the process again.
However, the precedent is far from conclusive and brushes over some striking conflicts with prior rulings of the Supreme Court. Jackson insisted that a contrary ruling would undermine the very point of the Special Counsel office: “its independence,” However, that is the very point that has irked both Democratic and Republican presidents for years.
In 1978, President Jimmy Carter objected on these grounds. The Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel explained that, “[b]ecause the Special Counsel [would] be performing largely executive functions, the Congress [could] not restrict the President’s power to remove him.” 2 Op. O.L.C. 120, 121 (1978).
It is unclear whether the current Supreme Court would agree with an exception for minor or de minimus intrusions. Many scholars and judges believe that a president either has Article II authority to fire executive branch officials or he does not.
Notably, there are only four single agency heads who were given tenure protection by Congress: the Directors of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), the Commissioner of Social Security, and the Special Counsel. In 2020, the Court ruled in Seila Law LLC v. CFPB that Congress had violated Article II by granting tenure protection to that sole agency head: “The CFPB’s single-Director structure contravene[d] [Article II’s] carefully calibrated system by vesting significant governmental power in the hands of a single individual accountable to no one.” Id. at 224.
Then, in 2021, in Collins v. Yellen, the Court rejected the same claim as to the director of the FHFA. That opinion came with directly opposing language to Jackson’s rationale. The Court found that Seila Law to be “all but dispositive” on the question and expressly rejected the argument that this would change depending upon “the nature and breadth of an agency’s authority.” The Court held that the “[c]ourts are not well-suited to weigh the relative importance of the regulatory and enforcement authorities of disparate agencies.”
Given these cases, lower courts clearly got the message – a message amplified by President Joe Biden who appointed Dellinger. On the third “independent” position, the Commissioner of Social Security, Biden’s Office of Legal Counsel declared that “the best reading of Collins and Seila Law” is that “the President need not heed the Commissioner’s statutory tenure protection.” Two circuits (the Ninth and Eleventh) have ruled consistently with that interpretation in favor of executive authority to remove such officers.
Ultimately, Dellinger can be removed even if this decision stands. The Trump Administration could have easily cited a basis like inefficiency or neglect. While I know of no such allegations against Dellinger, the Administration may believe that it has a basis for such allegations. The law is vague on how or whether such an allegation can be contested.
The question is why it decided not to do so. Clearly, it could just be a chainsaw approach to cutting positions. However, it may also reflect a desire for some in the Administration to challenge lingering case law limiting executive powers. In other words, they seem to be spoiling for a fight.
The reason may be Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935), which established the right of Congress to create independent agencies. It found that Congress could, without violating Article II powers, provide tenure protection to “a multimember body of experts, balanced along partisan lines, that performed legislative and judicial functions and was said not to exercise any executive power.” The Court in cases like Seila Law cited that precedent for one of the exceptions to executive power. It also cited an exception for giving tenure protection to “certain inferior officers with narrowly defined duties,” under Morrison v. Olson (1988). Jackson cited both cases and those exceptions in shoehorning the Special Counsel into a narrow band of quasi-executive positions.
What may be overlooked in the filings of the Administration before the Supreme Court in the Dellinger case was this line in a footnote: “Humphrey’s Executor appears to have misapprehended the powers of “the New Deal-era [Federal Trade Commission]” and misclassified those powers as primarily legislative and judicial.” It went on to suggest that the case is not only wrongly decided but that the Justice Department “intends to urge this Court to overrule that decision.”
Described by the Court as “the outer-most constitutional limits of permissible congressional restrictions on the President’s removal power,” the Trump Administration appears set to try to redraw that constitutional map.
That is why Jackson’s opinion may not only be expected but welcomed by the Trump Administration. It is hunting for bigger game than Dellinger and Judge Jackson just gave it a clear shot for the Supreme Court.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
N.B.: A version of this column also appeared on Fox.com
“[T]he Civil Service Reform Act, which provides that the Special Counsel ‘may be removed by the President only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.’ 5 U.S.C. 1211(b).”
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Civil Service Reform Act constitutes an unconstitutional usurpation and exercise of executive power.
The Civil Service Reform Act is unconstitutional.
The Civil Service Reform Act is an improperly ratified and unconstitutional amendment to the Constitution.
The executive power is vested exclusively in the president.
Any and all court “precedents” that exercise executive power are similarly unconstitutional; the judicial branch retains no executive power.
Roe v. Wade was a deliberate and flagrantly unconstitutional act by the partial and corrupt Supreme Court of 1973.
The singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Article 2, Section 1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
#74. Doesn’t it have a sunset date attached?
#74. It was replaced by CFR.
Jonathan: Who is actually “spoiling for a fight”? DJT pledged he would not touch SS, Medicare or Medicaid. But Elon Musk, the real power behind the throne, has other ideas that contradict what the de jure President has been saying all along. Musk is definitely “spoiling for a fight” over SS because he is the one actually in charge.
Last Friday Musk was on right-wing podcaster Joe Rogan’s show. In a jumbled word salad that shows Musk doesn’t know what he is talking about he claimed SS is the “biggest Ponzi Scheme of all time”. He went on to claim that 20 million dead people are are receiving SS benefits. FACT CHECK: SS is not a Ponzi scheme. Bernie Madoff ran a Ponzi scheme. Every SS recipient gets back pretty much what they put in, depending upon their tax bracket. A lot of people who invested in Madoff’s schemes got back nothing!
And 20 million dead people are not receiving SS benefits. Musk’s data dumpster 20-somethings haven’t a clue about how to interpret SS data. As Justin Wolfer, a professor of public policy at the Gerald Ford School, points out. Musk is a “propagandist” and “it’s transparently obvious that he’s misinterpreting or misrepresenting the data”.
Of course, this doesn’t mean SS has not mistakenly paid benefits to dead people. But it is in the thousands, not 20 million. That was caught in an audit by the SS IG last year. But that was before IG Christie Grimm was fired by Musk on 1/24 in the “Friday Night Massacre” where 17 IGs in various agencies were fired! Musk is a self-fulfilling prophesy–first you identify waste and abuse and then you fire the very people who could do something about it. Makes perfect sense!
Please cite the Constitution for any legal basis or authority for Social Security or Medicare.
Social Security and Medicare address merely 18.7% of the American population and may not be taxed for as “general Welfare.”
Financial and healthcare services are abundant and available in the free markets of the private sector.
Congress has no enumerated power to compete as, operate, regulate, or mandate a financial services or healthcare enterprise.
Government exists, under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to provide maximal freedom to individuals while government is severely limited and restricted to merely facilitating that maximal freedom of individuals through the provision of security and infrastructure only.
FACT CHECK Dennis – Social Security and Medicare are ABSOLUTELY a PONZI scheme.
A deliberate one. Maddoff ACCIDENTALLY transformed a legitimate investment into a ponzi scheme.
“A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that pays existing investors with funds collected from new investors. ”
That is LITTERALLY how SS and HI are designed.
Musk may be gunning for Social Security – so WHAT ? Musk is not president. He has no actual power. He is their to search for waste fraud and corruption and to propose recomendations.
“Last Friday Musk was on right-wing podcaster Joe Rogan’s show”
ROFL – Joe Rogan – who endorsed Bernie Sanders is a right wing podcaster ?
“In a jumbled word salad that shows Musk doesn’t know what he is talking about he claimed SS is the “biggest Ponzi Scheme of all time””
Musk is not a great public speaker. He does better in tweets than in public speeking. Regardless he is correct SS is the biggest Ponzi Schem oe all time.
“Every SS recipient gets back pretty much what they put in, depending upon their tax bracket.”
Both false and irrelevant to the defintion of a ponzi scheme. AGAIN”A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that pays existing investors with funds collected from new investors. ” that is precisely how SS works.
“A lot of people who invested in Madoff’s schemes got back nothing!” Correct. As SS is currently run benefits will soon have to be cut by 30% or money will have to come from somewhere other than SS taxes to pay for SS. Again litterally a Ponzi Scheme.
And if WE do not address the problem – eventually SS recipients will get nothing.
“And 20 million dead people are not receiving SS benefits.”
Because you say so ?
“Musk’s data dumpster 20-somethings haven’t a clue about how to interpret SS data.”
ROFL – you do not interpret data. DATA speaks for itself. Regardless, Musks DOGE employees are smarter than you, they are smarter then me,
These are people who before they reached their 20’s accomplished more than you have in your life.
” As Justin Wolfer, a professor of public policy at the Gerald Ford School”
Who is Prof. Wolf ? Has he figured out how to use AI to read Scrolls from Pompei that have been burned to ash?
Does he have NAY accomplishments comparable to Musk or his “data dumpster 20 somethings”
Being a professor of public policy is practically a confession of incompetence.
How well has public policy worked ?
“it’s transparently obvious that he’s misinterpreting or misrepresenting the data”.
If that is true – it will be trivial to demonstrate that. Something that is “transparently obvious” – is something so obvious anyone can easily see it.
“But it is in the thousands, not 20 million.”
And you know that how ?
“That was caught in an audit by the SS IG last year.”
Who to Trust ? SS IG or the man who catches giant rockets hurling to earth with copsticks ?
Or the kid who figure out how to read burned greek scrolls from Pompei ?
My bet is that the Computer Geniuses are probably right about analyizing Computer Data.
“But that was before IG Christie Grimm was fired by Musk on 1/24 in the “Friday Night Massacre” where 17 IGs in various agencies were fired! ”
Musk has not fired a single person – Trump has.
Regardless, lets say Musk is wrong about 20M illegally receiving SS – that will eventually get sorted out.
But if Grimm is wrong – without people like DOGE it will NOT get sorted out.
“Musk is a self-fulfilling prophesy–first you identify waste and abuse and then you fire the very people who could do something about it.”
Could you possibly say something stupider ?
If the system is rife with waste fraud and abuse you absolutely FIRE all those who allowed that.
Jonathan: Who is actually “spoiling for a fight”
Jonathan, it certainly isn’t your close personal friend Dennis McIntyre. Your friend Dennis is a craven coward – he comes here to drop hid daily deuces of Democrat excrement, and then runs away to hide from the rebuttals he gets
Dennis is the lowest grade Democrat troll being hired to troll you, Jonathan.
I suspect Humphrey’s Executor will go down. If it doesn’t there may actually be a constitutional crisis with the executive claiming its own interpretation of the Constitution and the judiciary and its political/activist judges losing much of their pretend powers.
Judges claiming executive powers must be stopped.
They can be let down gently by the Court or very hard by Article I and Article II entities, probably with the support of the people who have had enough of these tyrants.
A sound decision by the Court is the easy way out and I hope it is taken.
Young,
Question: Couldn’t congress simply re-write the judiciary act so that it eliminates “forum shopping”, nationwide injunctions by district judges, etc? I think if indeed the judiciary is the single biggest problem in modern day America, that might be the simplest way to reign in their power and restore some balance to this Constitutional Republic.
Obviously, we need a judicial system, but when the men & women in black robes deign to be legislators and not impartial arbiters and referees, we no longer have the checks & balances our founders intended. If judges can call the shots, why do we even need Congressmen, Senators, and a President?
Ron,
That’s why I referred to Article I action.
The only court required by the Constitution is the Supreme Court but Congress is allowed to create lesser courts. A state superior court is a court of general jurisdiction with the power to hear essentially all matters of law but a federal district court is a court of limited jurisdiction and should only hear matters allowed by Congress. It should be possible for Congress to limit the jurisdiction of federal trial courts.
So far the system didn’t require much tinkering but with the appointment of radical judges by Jacobin Democrats it appears that the entire system needs repair. Ideally that would be done by the Supreme Court but Congress or even the President may have to intervene. Personally I would like to see the DC courts abolished altogether. Getting rid of DC home rule would be an improvement as well.
Ilya Shapiro has been sounding the alarm about Critical Legal Theory in law schools turning out future lawyers and judges who are like the extremists we see the Jacobins judge shopping for now. A lot has to be done to right the entire system. I’ve had lunch with lawyers who thought we no longer have common law. A friend who is a prominent partner in a law firm told me over dinner conversations that he was puzzled that the Supreme Court sometimes cited Blackstone. Their law schools have much to answer for.
I also think it will go down. The Thomas concurrence in Seila Law says as much.
Daniel,
Thank you for that. America is fortunate to have Justice Thomas.
These Wordsmithing clowns in DC have mired us in a $37T debt, stripped us of our freedom through excessive taxation, and made themselves wealthy by stealing our money.
Statutes you say? I say drain the swamp of these nepotistic criminals and follow the money that’s been stolen, start with the Bidens and USAID!
Constitutional debt cannot possibly achieve the level of $37 trillion.
Per Article 1, Section 8, Congress has the power to tax for and fund ONLY debt, defense, and “general Welfare.”
The best example of “general Welfare” is roads which are the very definition of ALL WELL PROCEED.
The whole of the population performs and proceeds well with general or ubiquitous police, fire, roads, water systems, electricity grids, internet, and other commodities and services that are required by all or the whole and are not readily available in, or otherwise practical for, the free markets of the private sector.
The singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
“commodities and services that are required by all or the whole and are not readily available in, or otherwise practical for, the free markets of the private sector. ”
How is it possible to determine that a given commodity or service is “not readily available in, or otherwise practical for, the free markets of the private sector.” when government reserves provision of the commodity or service to itself as a matter of law? Is government to be trusted to be the sole referee of a game in which it manifestly has a critical interest? If the basis does not refer back to a list of specific, unembellished, Constitutionally enumerated powers, then the only thing that government can be trusted to do is attempt to subsume all human activity.
Did you have a question?
If you understand roads, you understand “general Welfare.”
If Congress is limited by the judicial branch to taxing for debt, defense, and “general Welfare,” Congress will be taxing very little; Congress will be taxing for next to nothing.
Congress will have nothing to do and it may go back home on vacation and stop bothering once-free Americans.
“The singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.”
The singular American failure is to allow the continued existence of the former Confederate, and now Marxist-Soviet, Democratic Party. And every one of their online apparatchiks, stooges, and Useful Idiots that arrive here to post, riding in the clown short bus used by Jerry’s Kids, that brings the Three Democrat Stooges to post their performative vaudeville theater here.
Didn’t we get in deep trouble when we stormed the Bastile?
Jonathan: In 2024 Biden appointed Hampton Dellinger to a 5 year term as head of the OSC. As special counsel Dellinger was responsible for enforcing whistleblower and civil service statutes designed to protect federal employees from political reprisals. DJT doesn’t like whistleblower protections (see the Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman case when DJT fired him in 2020 for testifying under subpoena in the impeachment hearings).
So now DJT has fired Dellinger in a one line email. No reasons given. That’s a violation of the APA that provides the SC can only be fired for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance”. As you mention DJT has taken a “chain saw approach” to most of his firings while ignoring the law.
Now DC US District Judge Amy Berman Jackson has held the Dellinger’s firing by DJT was illegal and has order reinstatement, citing Humphrey’s Executor v. US, a 1935 SC case, in which the Court held presidents cannot dismiss members of independent regulatory bodies. As Jackson pointed out in her decision: “In sum, it would be antithetical to the very existence of this particular agency and position to vindicate the President’s Article ll power as it was described in Humphrey’s Executor: A constitutional license to bully officials in the executive branch into doing his will”.
So the DJT administration is appealing Jackson’s order all the way to the SC, hoping the right-wing majority will endorse the idea that a president can ignore the law, get rid of officials he doesn’t like politically, and impose his will over every agency decision. If the SC endorses such a sweeping claim of unlimited power we will not be living in a Democracy but a dictatorship!
Ever wondered why those to claim to care about government waste are so eager to get rid of those who expose government waste?
What part of Clinton legacy fid you miss? Nepotism, Cronyism and Racism seem to be a straight ticket to the cash chauffeurs. Every President aligns their own political comrades to high paying positions knowing they share ideological views. Look at what that has delivered us. Skin it and start back with one ideology, making opportunities for America’s citizens to be safe, healthy, educated, sober and prosperous to their own ability. Shake off the worlds ticks and fleas, America first and foremost.
Does that mean that Trump;s ideological views include retaliation against those who expose government waste?
If they don’t align with the EXECUTIVES agenda and/or are complicit in aiding fraud, abuse and waste…crush them without mercy.
So as long as the waste, fraud, and abuse is inline with Trump’s agenda it is ok?
Ok to crush them? Hell yes! Trump’s agenda seems to align with America first to me, does it not? The lid has been torn off of this scam and the free for all corruption stealing our tax dollars is exposed for all to see. I pray justice is served to each and every one of these thieving pricks and pricketts!
The president either has power over the executive branch or or he doesn’t.
False choice. Congress can put limits on the power of the president over the executive branch. It is not all or nothing.
Legislation that usurps the power of the executive branch is unconstitutional.
The legislative branch has the legislative power; the executive branch has the executive power and never the twain shall meet.
The judicial branch has no power to legislate, modify legislation, modify by “interpretation,” amend fundamental or statutory law, or exercise executive power at any time or at any step – not before, during, or after.
Try reading the Constitution.
BaBoooom!
The President has no independent authority under the Constitution (other than pardons). There ain’t much there to usurps. There is no such thing as “core presidential powers”. The Constitution makes the Executive Branch weaker than the Legislative.
THE EXECUTIVE POWER, THE WHOLE EXECUTIVE POWER, AND NOTHING BUT THE EXECUTIVE POWER, SO HELP YOU GOD.
The executive power is vested exclusively in the President.
Legislation and adjudication that usurp the power of the executive branch are unconstitutional and must be struck down.
Legislation that exercises any aspect, facet, degree, or amount of executive power is unconstitutional.
Adjudication that exercises any aspect, facet, degree, or amount of executive power is unconstitutional.
The singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
“…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”
“…men…do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what they forbid.”
“[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
– Alexander Hamilton
_________________________
Article 2, Section 1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
#74. The executive branch is the largest employer in the USA. I don’t think.the founders had that in mind.
Aparently you have not read the constitution or supreme court decisions all the way back to George Washington.
The legislative branch can’t overrule the executive branch?
The legislative branch has no executive power because all of the executive power is vested in “a president.”
No legislation that exercises any aspect, facet, degree, or amount of executive power is constitutional.
After legislation, the exercise of executive power is accomplished exclusively by the president.
“The legislative branch can’t overrule the executive branch?”
depends on the issue. The legislative branch has close to no power over the executive functions of the executive branch – that would include hiring and firing EXCEPT those positions subject to the appointments clause of the constitution.
But congress has pretty much unlimited power to dictate how the regulatory powers that it has delegated to the executive are carried out.
Where is the authority for Congress to put limits on the power of the president? And, where is that authority given? Thank you.
But it wouldn’t be a dictatorship if the actions were taken by a D, right? And don’t go and say that none of them would do it.
That canard is getting a little long in the tooth – you guys need to come up with a new lie to cause fear and dissension
Biden had the executive power to appoint during his term as president.
Any appointment that exceeds January 20 is unconstitutional.
The executive power was relinquished by Biden and vested in President Trump on January 20, 2025.
The singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
D. McIntyre:
This case is not so much a matter of a president “ignoring the law,” but rather a legislature that ignored the Constitution in the first instance, which is a much more grievous harm to our form of government.
Interesting how a person can show evidence of erudition without actual understanding issues.
colon-copycatter clown
Do you have an argumen?
Excellent
It would be a truly unusual dictatorship where the rule of law was decided by the highest court in the land.
The judicial branch has the judicial power which only allows it to ensure that actions comport with law; it shall not legislate or exercise executive power.
Dellinger has been fired. Cheif executives everywhere fire employees.
Happens all the time. Ass Turley noted Trump had the ability to fire Dellinger for any number of reasons but chose to do so without providing a basis specifically to set up a challenge to past bad supreme court decisions.
It is irrelevant what Dellinger’s job was. Someone else will eventually have that job.
The Fact that you are idiotic enough to Raise Vidman and Ciarmello demonstrates YOUR stupidity. These are NOT Whistleblowers.
Whistleblower protection does NOT extend to people who disagree with the {Policies of the executive.
But WORSE we have now found that the whole Trump first Impeachment was a Deep state OP invloving news stories PLANTED by USAID.
Vindman was NOT “fired” carreer military do not get “fired” without a courtmarshall. He was transfered from duties at the WhiteHouse.
More so than anywhere in the Federal govenrment – the President power to hire and fire within the Whitehouse is at its apex.
If you are at odds with the policies of the president – even a tiny bit, you do not belong in the WhiteHouse.
“So now DJT has fired Dellinger in a one line email. No reasons given.”
Yup, the constitution allows that – A supreme court case from George Washington’s tenure established that Congress does not have the power to restrict the presidennts ability to fire members of the executive.
“That’s a violation of the APA that provides the SC can only be fired for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance”.”
That provision of the APA is unconstitutional and the firing of Dellinger was SPECIFICALLY done to bring that to the Supreme court and reverse the unconstitutional Humpfries executor New Deal decision that is loosely to the contrary. :Presidents for 75 years have sought to whittle away at Humpfries executor which is a anti-constitutional New Deal Court decision, That hopefully will be overturned.
I would note that Pres. Biden fired the head of Social Security which is similar protected by Congress and the courts upheld that firing.
I would further note – this is a losing case for the left. While I am not sure that SCOTUS will take this oportunity to reverse Humpfries executor, there is not a snowballs chance that they are going to allow Dellinger to remain. The simplest means for SCOTUS to dispose of this case is to deny standing. As YOU noted this is purported a dispute over law passed by congress regarding the administration of the executive branch.
ONLY Congress has standing to challenge the president on a separation of powers issue. Congress has NOT challenged Dellinger’s firing.
” As you mention DJT has taken a “chain saw approach” to most of his firings while ignoring the law.”
Correct – Trump was elected in 2016 with the expectation that “You’re Fired” would echo through the executive branch. Trump failed to do so and that was a MAJOR failure of his first administration. He is not making that mistake this time.
You are also correct – Trump is violating atleast SOME peoples interpretation of the law. But he is fully within his role as the cheif executive of the US government. He is complying with lower court decisions, while apealing – appeals he will near certainly win.
“Now DC US District Judge Amy Berman Jackson has held the Dellinger’s firing by DJT was illegal and has order reinstatement, citing Humphrey’s Executor v. US, a 1935 SC case, in which the Court held presidents cannot dismiss members of independent regulatory bodies.”
Jasckson has made innumerable errors – including being at odds with her own reasoning in decisions like JW V. NARA.
I would note as have several others here that the courts have already ruled that the president CAN fire people such as Dellinger.
I would further note that NOWHERE in the constitution is there a fourth branch of govenrment for “independent regulators”
It is unconstitutional and a violation of separation of powers for Congress to create offices within the Executive Branch that are “Independent”.
The US constitution requires that EVERYONE within the government falls under the DIRECT control of either Congressmen, The president or the Supreme court. The ONLY unelected positions within the constitution that are “independent” are those of Supreme court justices.
Every single other employee of the federal government – whether in the judicial, legislative or executive branch is subordinate to and must answer to those at the pinacle of the branch of govenrment they are apart of.
“Independence” such as that of the FBI or DOJ is a TRADITION and occasionally has some support in the law. But it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Further as a practiucal matter while it is SOMETIMES wise for superiors – whether in government or in business to defer to subordinates, to allow them “independence” it is absolutely NEVER a requirement. You can not make ANY institution work if “independence” becomes codified.
” As Jackson pointed out in her decision: “In sum, it would be antithetical to the very existence of this particular agency and position to vindicate the President’s Article ll power as it was described in Humphrey’s Executor:”
While Jackson is wrong regarding the existance of OSC – if she was right – then OSC is unconstitutional. The Oversight of the executive is a role of CONGRESS. Congress can not constitutionally plant an agency in the executive to perform a legislative function.
“A constitutional license to bully officials in the executive branch into doing his will”.”
That is precisely what the constitution gives the president. It is absurd nonsense that you can have within any executive structuire – public or private inferior actors who are NOT answerable to their superiors in particular the cheif executive.
Hampton Dellinger was not elected. There is NO OSC in the constitution, and even those Executive offices that ARE in the constitution are inarguable answerable to the President.
As Article II S1 specifically states – ALL executive power in the United states Vests in the president.
There is no constitutional provision for independence within the executive.
I would further note that with the specific exception of Congressmen, Presidents, and Supreme court justices EVERYONE ELSE in the federal govenrment is answerable to someone.
“So the DJT administration is appealing Jackson’s order all the way to the SC, hoping the right-wing majority will endorse the idea that a president can ignore the law, get rid of officials he doesn’t like politically, and impose his will over every agency decision. ”
Correct – aside from the spin. The Trump administration is not “hoping” they are expecting the supreme court to reverse a prior unconstitutional decision. This is not about “right wing majorities”. Yes the president can fire anyone in the executive he does not like politically, and he can impose his will over any agency decision. Again all executive power in the United states is vested in the president.
“If the SC endorses such a sweeping claim of unlimited power we will not be living in a Democracy but a dictatorship!”
This is not a sweeping Claim of unlimited power. It is just re-establishing the president as the cheif executive of the united states as specified by the constitution.
This has ZERO impact on congress or the legislatures oversite functions – except that they must conduct them themselves.
It does not alter the fact that legislative power exists solely within congress, It does not alter the fact that presidents must follow the law – which Trump is doing, even when that law is unconstitutional as this one is, until the courts strike down the unconstitutional law.
I do not know if Trump will get his wish and see Humphries executor reversed.
But the odds of SCOTUS deciding that a person within the executive has executive power independent of the president is new zero.
I would further note that though Trump hopes to strike down Humphrey’s executor, that case does NOT apply in this case.
Humphrey was a member of the FTC – an agency created by congress with multiple board members. The Humphreis executor decision SPECIFICALLY only applied to congressionally created offices with a board of governors. As many other people have pointed out – there are numerous instances of presidents firing the head of an office, every single one has been upheld by the courts – all the way back to George Washington.
Judge Jackson is wrong on the law, wrong on the constitution, inconsistent with her own prior decisions and with certainty going to be reversed.
Whether Trump gets his way and SCOTUS reverses Humphrey’s executor.
Well, I’m hardly an expert on this matter, but anything that came out of the Roosevelt era is suspect.
Alger Hiss was absolutely and irrefutably a communist in Roosevelt’s administration (i.e. Witness, Whittaker Chambers).
The multitudinous de facto other communists in the Roosevelt administration were unnamed.
The vast majority of acts by Roosevelt constituted unconstitutional communism.
Again, the singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court, all of whom swore an oath to support the Constitution.
They have not.
They do not.
Communism in America must have been nipped in the bud at Lincoln’s denial of not prohibited and fully constitutional secession, “interpreting” for the “benefit” of particular and favored outcomes, and reprehensible slavery notwithstanding.
In Humprhey, the Court “found that Congress could, without violating Article II powers, provide tenure protection to ‘a multimember body of experts, balanced along partisan lines, that performed legislative and judicial functions and was said not to exercise any executive power.'”
There may be multimember bodies of experts, and they may even be balanced along partisan lines, but none them fail to exercise executive power. By their very nature, they exercise executive power and, accordingly, should be subject to the President. For any reason, stated or not, he should be able to remove them.
The OSC works to prevent protected personnel practices, like retaliating against whistle-blowing and those who point out waste, fraud and abuse. If the president could fire the head of the OSC at will then that would undermine the entire point of the OSC and allow the executive branch to silence those very people who the US is dependent upon for reporting abuses. Article II is not a green light to any and all presidential abuses of power.
Franke exposes herself as a commie clown: The OSC works to prevent protected personnel practices, like retaliating against whistle-blowing and those who point out waste, fraud and abuse.
That’s true Franke – for once. What you dishonestly left out is that Dellinger, as head of the OSC, did absolutely NOTHING to protect the Biden Administration whistleblowers from the DoJ, FBI, IRS, etc who exposed how the heads of those agencies were hiding Biden criminality and corruption, blocking investigation of the Bidens, illegally spying on Americans, etc.
Franke: for wilfully refusing to do his job; that alone is more than sufficient reason for ANY president to fire Dellinger.
And you have once again exposed yourself as a Cheap Fake Democrat Clown.
While I believe Judge Jackson is a stinker, and a hack, she seems to be on viable legal ground on this one. I hope SCOTUS reverses her, but there are good arguments not to.
Far be it from me to weigh-in on any legal counsel’s ‘inefficiency, neglect or malfeasance’ but I’ve known some really dim-witted, back-stabbing, bottom-dwelling lawyers over the years (not you Floyd.). As a general rule, trust them about as far as I can throw them.
That said, and off my chest, not, necessarily, a big fan of unassailable Unitary Executive Authority, either. I just want to know where the buck stops.
*my opinion in this case; if only the Executive can hire them (i.e. special counsel), then it must follow, as night follows day, he can fire them. .. absent clear law and/or judicial review to the contrary.
Well, I was as bottom-feeding as any other attorney. To my credit, I did try to not lie to people, or egg them on for extra legal fees. But, I was far worse before I became an attorney. In the business world, I did bad, rotten things on behalf of the people I worked for. Luckily, I never got caught, and none of us ever went to jail.
But at least you can spell, Floyd, and compose sentences that are polysyllabic, cogent and well reasoned. All of us are impure, except for Democrats, and the Gigi/Dennis/Franke/George train of troll sockpuppets….lily white!
😉
THE EXECUTIVE POWER, THE WHOLE EXECUTIVE POWER, AND NOTHING BUT THE EXECUTIVE POWER, SO HELP YOU GOD.
D.C. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson is a partial and corrupt political agent and criminal of high office who must be impeached, convicted, and removed for abuse of power, usurpation of power, corruption, subversion et al.
The executive power is vested exclusively in the President.
Legislation and adjudication that usurp the power of the executive branch are unconstitutional and must be struck down.
Legislation that exercises any aspect, facet, degree, or amount of executive power is unconstitutional.
Adjudication that exercises any aspect, facet, degree, or amount of executive power is unconstitutional.
The singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
“…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”
“…men…do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what they forbid.”
“[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
– Alexander Hamilton
_________________________
Article 2, Section 1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
If you read the Constitution without any preconceived notions, you will find that the President has no independent authority under the Constitution (other than pardons). Every authority the President has comes from Congress. Every position in the Executive branch (other than P and VP) were created by Congress. The proponents of the imperial presidency take a few words out of Article II and ignore the rest of the document.
So it’s the Constitution of the State of Franke or it’s the Constitution of the United States of America.
Of course, it has nothing to do with the mental meanderings of Franke and everything to do with the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Article 6
This Constitution…shall be the supreme Law of the Land;….
The Senators and Representatives…and all executive and judicial Officers,…shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;….
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Article 2, Section 1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
“…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”
“…men…do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what they forbid.”
“[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
– Alexander Hamilton
The executive authority granted to the President was drafted by people who at that time had the executive power of a king in mind. It is very broad.
A king they spent eight years fighting because they did not want to be under a king. And you think that is an argument for a king-like president? That argument is just as bad as people who try to interpret laws by looking at how things were before that law was passed. Dude it goes the other way.
It is the power, the whole power, and nothing but the power of the King, in each designated area, so help you God.
Franke says: A king they spent eight years fighting because they did not want to be under a king.
Dudette: you can’t blame you Democrats’ vicious police state fascism on a monarch. Just as you can’t blame the repression of the colonists on the powerless monarch of the day.
Let’s help you out yet again, Franke. The colonists were not oppressed by and ultimately at war with a monarch. Since the Brits lopped the head off the last monarch in public after he attempted to push parliament aside to claim the divine right of kings, monarchs since then have had no power other than to be figureheads representing the will of the elected parliament.
Colonists well knew that King George had absolutely nothing to do with taxes levied, troops garrisoned among them, and their countrymen serving as troops making war on them. He just signed whatever government documents parliament put before him. Just as the current monarch does, and every future monarch will.
They were oppressed and ultimately at war with a repressive, freely elected government, elected to power by their fellow countrymen. An elected government of their countryman that these days reasonable people would call police state fascists.
Just as Biden was allegedly fairly elected to Obama’s Third Term by our American countrymen in a free and fair election.
Whereupon Biden also oppressed Americans with police state fascism. Just as the elected English parliament did their countrymen/our founders, 250 years earlier.
Simple enough for an angry defeated communist to figure out, even if they’re still struggling to make their way through Grade Three in a unionized public school in a blue state.
” Every authority the President has comes from Congress. “
One needs to write a book to correct all Franke’s errors. Just taking one of the President’s powers, it can veto a Congressional bill.
The analogy to Trump trying to be a king or dictator is not totally accurate.
In 17th Century England, in the 1600’s, kings were actually forced to FOLLOW the English Bill of Rights and follow English laws. The previous (lawless) king was actually killed by England.
So leading up to the American Revolutionary War, citizens and colonists (Americans) of England were ruled by law abiding kings. Not lawless kings. When King George III took over the throne, he became a lawless king violating the English Bill of Rights.
This lawless governing by King George III is what inspired and created the American “Declaration of Independence” and led to the American Revolutionary War.
Trump is apparently modeling himself after the lawless kings (enemies of Americans) – perceiving himself as above the U.S. Constitution and above laws. If history is a guide, this won’t end well.
Don’t you recall a narcissist claiming that he had a pen and a phone? Were you as upset about that?
When King George III took over the throne, he became a lawless king violating the English Bill of Rights.
King George III had exactly ZERO authority to set taxes on the colonists and make war on them since the earlier Glorious Revolution or at any time since then. You willfully expose your pathetic ignorance/dishonesty by claiming Trump is modeling himself after a “lawless king”,
King George III as the figurehead of England’s parliament, signed whatever that freely elected parliament put in front of him.
Claiming that George was supposedly a lawless king who made the tax laws and other acts of oppression is to display ignorance of the debates that went on within parliament concerning colonial America.
There would be no debates on record if it was King George at the time who made the decisions and set the policies towards the Brits living in the American colonies.
Lets shed some light on this: Do you remember THIS?
On May 2, 2022, Politico released a leaked 98-page draft opinion authored by Associate Justice Samuel Alito in a highly watched abortion case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which had five votes to overturn Roe v. Wade.
The Trump Administration knows where ‘The Leak’ was and from whom the Leak originated. When Hampton Dellinger was tasked with investigating this ‘He looked the other way’ while in the Office of Special Counsel (OSC). He and Elizabeth Prelogar both know where ‘The Leak’ was, yet they/he failed in their duty to announce it (report It – Hence the neglect of duty, and/or malfeasance in office) wherein they should have under the very appointment they were assigned to, that being the Whistleblower Protection Act ~ (OSC).
Then there is the Issues of all the Election investigations from Robert S. Mueller III to John Durham, and everything in between (Pres. & Hunter, etc..). While Hampton Dellinger was at the OSC. So its easy to flush this out and expose this Guy (Dellinger) publicly. I don’t think He has thought it through, Trump will legally make it public ‘Why Dellinger’s removal by the President for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” 5 U.S.C. 1211(b).
Curiosity & Transparency Killed the Cat.
Lawfair Cover Up has it’s casualties, Dellinger should “Pick up his sticks and go home”.
United States Office of Special Counsel (OSC)
The United States Office of Special Counsel (OSC) is an independent agency of the U.S. federal government. It is a permanent, investigative, and prosecutorial agency whose basic legislative authority comes from four federal statutes: the Civil Service Reform Act, the Whistleblower Protection Act, the Hatch Act, and the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). OSC’s primary mission is to safeguard the merit system in federal employment by protecting employees and applicants from prohibited personnel practices (PPPs), especially reprisal for “whistleblowing”. The agency also operates a secure channel for federal whistleblower disclosures of violations of law, rule, or regulation; gross mismanagement; gross waste of funds; abuse of authority; and substantial and specific danger to public health and safety. In addition, OSC issues advice on the Hatch Act and enforces its restrictions on partisan political activity by government employees. Finally, OSC protects the civilian employment and reemployment rights of military service members under USERRA. OSC has around 140 staff, and the Special Counsel is an ex officio member of Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE), an association of inspectors general charged with the regulation of good governance within the federal government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Office_of_Special_Counsel
United States Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Justice_Office_of_Special_Counsel#History
Special Counsel
In the United States, a special counsel (formerly called special prosecutor or independent counsel) is a lawyer appointed to investigate, and potentially prosecute, a particular case of suspected wrongdoing for which a conflict of interest exists for the usual prosecuting authority. Other jurisdictions have similar systems. Special prosecutors also have handled investigations into those connected to the government but not in a position of direct authority over the Justice Department’s prosecutors, such as cabinet secretaries or election campaigns.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_counsel
Anonymous – You are just amplifying what Turley has said. Trump had plenty of for cause grounds to remove Dellinger – which the courts could not have overcome.
Trump did NOT chose to do so.
Turley is arguing – I think OBVIOUSLY and CORRECTLY, that Firing Dellinger is INTENDED as a vehicle to challenge the new deal Humpries Executor decision.
The entire point of firing Delinger is NOT to get rid of Delinger as that was easy to do.
It was to re-establish that Congress CAN NOT restrict the presidents ability to fire people in the executive branch.
There are precidents going back to a few years after the constitution was ratified that make that clear.
John Say, take it as Trump has Plan-B in his back pocket over this matter, when he chooses to exercise it. The Cats in the Bag (Hampton Dellinger)
The Office of Special Counsel does not investigate leaks, especially leaks in a different branch of government. Normally their job is to protect leakers (if the leak was legal).
The OSC is a subrogate of the DOJ. The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) is under the leadership of the Attorney General of the United States, who is appointed by the President. The Attorney General is a member of the President’s Cabinet (At the time of this under Biden).
The U.S. Department of Justice is controlled by the U.S. Attorney General, who oversees federal legal matters and law enforcement. Within the DOJ, agencies such as the FBI operate under this leadership. When the FBI investigates the Judaical Branch they work together with the OSC, as to keep within guidelines of Federal Employment (Civil Service).
I’ll refer you again to this first paragraph on the United States Office of Special Counsel (per Wiki):
The United States Office of Special Counsel (OSC) is an independent agency of the U.S. federal government. It is a permanent, investigative, and prosecutorial agency whose basic legislative authority comes from four federal statutes: the Civil Service Reform Act, the Whistleblower Protection Act, the Hatch Act, and the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). OSC’s primary mission is to safeguard the merit system in federal employment by protecting employees and applicants from prohibited personnel practices (PPPs), especially reprisal for “whistleblowing”. The agency also operates a secure channel for federal whistleblower disclosures of violations of law, rule, or regulation; gross mismanagement; gross waste of funds; abuse of authority; and substantial and specific danger to public health and safety. In addition, OSC issues advice on the Hatch Act and enforces its restrictions on partisan political activity by government employees.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Office_of_Special_Counsel
Frank, I’m Shocked and Chagrined by your missive.
Certainly you can think of a dozen reasons why Joe Biden left Hampton Dellinger as head of the Office of Special Counsel as the Pres skipped out of D.C..
Is Judge Dellinger the granddaughter of David Dellinger, the radical attorney who was involved in the Chicago 7 case among many others?
The U.S. Constitution – the supreme law of the United States – was also designed by the Founding Fathers to be a “wartime governing charter” with wartime emergency clauses already built into the charter.
So even during wartime, the U.S. Constitution is to be followed. For times of anarchy or mass chaos, this governing charter even allows Congress (not the Executive Branch alone) to temporarily suspend Habeas corpus rights.
For example: Congress following this wartime governing charter could legally suspend Habeas corpus on September 11, 2001 and maybe extending (temporarily) into October 2001 on most rights. What’s unconstitutional and blatantly illegal under the U.S. Constitution is to suspend Habeas corpus for 20 years.
On Inaugural Day 2025, Trump made a promise to GOD to follow this wartime governing charter (U.S. Constitution) and faithfully follow the laws enacted into federal statutes by Congress when he took the Oath of Office.
Trump violated and was disloyal to his Oath of Office the very same day, signing an Executive Order to subvert the 14th Amendment – bypassing Congress and bypassing the constitutional amendment process. That alone merits impeachment and removal by Congress.
Trump should have instead started a debate about amending the 14th Amendment legally. Republicans who love their country more than political parties should oppose Trump’s disloyal actions.
If this precedent is allowed to stand by the U.S. Supreme Court, any future president could overturn 2nd Amendment gun rights in a single day with a single Executive Order. Trump did it to the 14th Amendment so no rights are safe if allowed to stand.
Sorry, but the EO about birthright citizenship does not overturn the 14th, so you fearmongering about 2A is bunk
Yes it literally does overturn the 14th Amendment plus over 100 years of court cases. Trump created the most frivolous lawsuit a president could ever make.
As a taxpayer, why should we pay for blatantly frivolous lawsuits using government attorneys? Trump should pay out of pocket for doing this.
Why aren’t the state level bar associations disbarring any government attorneys participating in such frivolous lawsuits?
Trump is likely to lose that EO – though I do not think he cares – it is red meat for the base regardless and while a big issue politically it is a tiny issue in reality. It is like the lefts fixation on Mass shootings. These are incredibly rare and ZERO basis for making new laws.
But the left uses the anguish of mass shootings as the justification for restricting the 2nd amendment and for political gain.
Trump is on the wrong side of the 14th amendment – there is no argument that as president he can modify its reading.
It also would be bad for the country for him to win. Birth right citizenship – despite its problems is good for the country.
That dais he is NOT completely off base. Numerous legal scholars including a few on the left have said that Congress could by law take away the citizenship of those born here of parents who were not here legally.
I think that reading is wrong too. However there is lots of precedent that congress has a fair amount of power regarding defining the conditions for birth right citizenship. Congress as an example made Indians citizens by statute – not constitutional amendment.
Regardlkess, Trump is WRONG, he is not however derilict in his duty.
“It also would be bad for the country for him to win. Birth right citizenship – despite its problems is good for the country.”
Why? It might meet the results of certain ideological arguments but they are penny ante.
#74. Why would DJT want to lose the birth issue?
What does your question have to do with my response to John?
And roe v wade had decades of precedent and was overturned. Trump is correct because of that little clause (under the jurisdiction of) that the prog/left so conveniently omits every time because it deflates their argument and I believe the SCOTUS will end this debacle of wrong interpretations of the 14th once and for all. If you cannot see the wisdom of that little phrase – under the jurisdiction of – and its implications then you are a willingly ignorant fool.
IF THE U.S. CANNOT COMPEL A PERSON TO JURY DUTY, THE U.S. DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The UnConstitutionality of Citizenship by Birth to Non-Americans
The Fourteenth Amendment
“The constitution of the United States does not grant citizenship at birth to just anyone who happens to be born within American borders. It is the allegiance (complete jurisdiction) of the child’s birth parents at the time of birth that determines the child’s citizenship–not geographical location. If the United States does not have complete jurisdiction, for example, to compel a child’s parents to Jury Duty – then the U.S. does not have the total, complete jurisdiction demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment to make their child a citizen of the United States by birth.”
By P.A. Madison
Former Research Fellow in Constitutional Studies
February 1, 2005
____________________
14th Amendment, Section 1
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States….
Rest assured the big game is all DJT and his staff are focused on! This case is the conduit to the End game of removing the Deep State that the Democratic National Communist say doesn’t exist….
You’re absolutely right, MRR. Every major action taken within Trump’s first 100 days will have been war-gamed within a shock and awe strategy. It’s been a beautiful thing to watch.
Agree
I agree but I also do NOT think this is truly that important or earth shattering.
As Turley notes – Biden removed the head of SS using Selia and Collins.
I expect Trump to win a reversal of Humphries, and I think that is the real goal.
But that gain in power for Trump will also be a gain in power for the next democrat.
It just means a larger number of positions that the president can fire and appoint when he comes into office.
This is NOT an earth shattering change that will disempower the deep state.
But it is a small step towards more constitutional government and reversal of another bad new deal made up decision.
The more important legal fight is over cutting waste fraud and inefficiency.
There is no doubt that the Nixon impoundment case is improtant and in some framework correct.
But there SHOULD be no doubt that a president is NOT bound to spend every dollar that congress budges.
The president MUST fullfill the budget/policy goals passed by congress – he can not use impoundment as a kind of line item veto.
But the president CAN constitutionally say – I can do the job Cheaper. Or I can get rid of waste fraud and corruption.
This is far more important. This has atleast small promise as a vehicle to thwart the unstoppable growth of government that is built in to the current interpretation fo the constitution which CLEARLY is not what our founders intended.
“But that gain in power for Trump will also be a gain in power for the next democrat.
It just means a larger number of positions that the president can fire and appoint when he comes into office. ”
Hopefully Trump, Musk and DOGE will see to it that the total number of positions to which you refer is a far smaller number than it was on Inauguration Day.
I admire that the leftist female activist with a robe was able to write a coherent decision. But as Professor Turely noted she skimmed over or did not mention cases that contradicted her opinion. He also noted that she narrowly interpreted the law. Given those two caveats it certainly seems, as usual with the DC anything in court, the judge would find a way to rule against the current administration. I have absolutely no trust in anything that the DC court rules on.
Article II is clear. Congress makes the laws and the President executes/enforces them. Nothing there about some “independent” fourth branch of government.
Judge Jackson, biased Left Wing DEM, was looking for a way to find for Dillonger and go against the DOJ. In fact I think she knows she will be over ruled, but still to maintain her place in the Washington DC circles she ruled against Trump. Yes, Jackson/DEMS/Lawfare fell into it, win the first round but to LOSE in the Supreme Court. Each time Trump wins in the Supreme Court or in the Courts it adds to his strength, foolish DEMS.
Agreed. Her allegiance is to the neo-Marxist Democrat Party.
Didn’t get beyond- “justice” Jackson. 🤮
Have fun
Get ready to replace 2 (for sure Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor) to 3 (Samuel A. Alito, Jr) Supreme Court Justices.
It’s going to be a full schedule for Trump, now the time to get shopping for replacements. Change the things you can.
The lame stream is calling Trump a “Russian plant”, in the aftermath of that Zelenskyy dog and pony show. I can only imagine how they will be howling over his next Supreme Court nominee, assuming there will be one.
“Get ready to replace 2 (for sure Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor) to 3 (Samuel A. Alito, Jr) Supreme Court Justices.”
I suspect that Thomas has so much respect for the Court that he would be willing to try to hold off retirement until a suitable replacement is assured. Possibly Alito would do the same, but I have slightly less confidence in that. Sotomayor is reported to be in failing health, and could well be the first to go (one way, or another).
Let us hope & pray she is first, the demon-o-crats will spit 🔥and lose, then the others!
It seem like this decision creates a paradox of legal decisions whereby an excellent decision leads to it appeal and subsequent reversal. Curious.
That’s the yankee government, for you – catch 22.