Last week, I wrote a column questioning the legal basis for the opinion by Judge Amy Berman Jackson in favor of fired Special Counsel Hampton Dellinger. It appears that the D.C. Circuit agrees. An appellate panel just permitted the removal of Dellinger just four days after Jackson declared the removal “unlawful.”
Judge Jackson had a good-faith reliance on her narrow reading of existing precedent. However, the precedent is far from conclusive and brushes over some striking conflicts with prior rulings of the Supreme Court.
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.
The D.C. Circuit agreed to stay the order of Jackson pending appeal and included this language in the short order:
“FURTHER ORDERED that the emergency motion for a stay pending appeal be granted, and that the district court’s March 1, 2025 order be stayed pending further order of the court, except to the extent that order vacates the Temporary Restraining Order entered by the district court on February 12, 2025. This order gives effect to the removal of appellee from his position as Special Counsel of the U.S. Office of Special Counsel.”
Dellinger is now likely to appeal and the matter can go to the Supreme Court.
As I wrote earlier, I do not believe that this fight is ultimately about Dellinger. Once again, I have little doubt that he will be removed. The only question is when and how.
The real interest of the Administration, in my view, is to challenge long-standing limits put by the Court on presidential authority under Article II. The most obvious target is Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935), which established the right of Congress to create independent agencies. As I noted in the prior column:
“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.”
The question is whether Dellinger wants to risk being the vehicle for such a potential major reframing (and enhancement) of presidential power. I viewed the Jackson order as not just expected but welcomed by the Administration. If it wanted to challenge these cases, the Jackson opinion was the ideal foundation for the Administration.
Even if Dellinger drops his case, there are other cases in the works that could bring the same review by the Court. However, in my view, Dellinger is the best option for the Administration in offering a clean, threshold question on the scope of presidential authority to fire executive branch officers.
I awoke this morning and looked outside to see if the Sky had fallen, no it was just first sight of dawn, w’oooh I thought, but of course I hadn’t read the paper, looked at my phone, computer or turned a radio or TV on yet! Then I opened the paper, wouldn’t you know it the Sky is falling, fools running about in the swamp of DC ranting how President Trump lassoed the Sky and is dragging it to doom. The above is a tale of the absurd in which we live.
I think it is more akin to, “Who ate my Chhese.”
Chelsea Clinton, Clinton Initiative USAID $84.6M. Since when did Americans agree to pay taxes to support foreign countries?
Get out of the UN.
Chelsea Clinton was the administrator for the Clinton Foundation.
Chelsea raked in about $30 million. Bought a $15 million apartment in NYC and banked the rest.
OT
Elon Musk describes Social Security as the “biggest Ponzi scheme ever.”
“A Ponzi scheme (/ˈpɒnzi/, Italian: [ˈpontsi]) is a form of fraud that lures investors and pays profits to earlier investors with funds from more recent investors.[1],” Wiki.
If Social Security and Medicare were economically and financially viable and constitutional, why didn’t the American Founders enjoy a governmental retirement plan and governmental old-age healthcare?
Because “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” is the primary communist slogan of Karl Marx and nowhere to be found or even hinted at in the Constitution.
Americans are free to be self-reliant and purchase all the retirement and healthcare plans they like in the free markets of the private sector.
DOGE finds new SS scammers collecting SS payments: Moses, Noah, Enoch and Elijah just to name a few.
Just when I was about to offer some quotes from the Seila Law LLC decision, I see that Hampton Dellinger has today stated that he does not plan to appeal to SCOTUS.
While his decision may be premised on external advice and/or his own legal reasoning of a likely loss before SCOTUS,
I am more open to believing that there is a fear that SCOTUS could indeed not only have upheld his own firing, but also have provided further fleshing out of its Humphrey’s, Morrison and Seila decisions (to the detriment of others like Dellinger), thus enabling more firings by Trump administration. In other words, let sleeping dogs lie.
This is not just about firing people like Dellinger.
It is about restoring the constitutional structure of our govenrment.
Congress does not have the power to constrain the president’s excercise of executive power.
Conversely Congress must retake the legislative powers it has delegated to the executive.
Johhny-this is about firing people like Dellinger.
SCOTUS cannot issue advisory or academic opinions regarding the scope of “the president’s excercise (sic) of executive power.” SCOTUS can only rule on a specific plaintiff presenting specific question, and affects Dellinger first, then all others in the same situationn who fall under the reasoning of the Court’s scope. Clarify, not “restore,” john-boy.
ATS
“Johhny-this is about firing people like Dellinger.”
Nope
“SCOTUS cannot issue advisory or academic opinions regarding the scope of “the president’s excercise (sic) of executive power.” ”
Correct, they issues opinions cases on the cases that come before them.
In those opinions they express the scope of executive power with respect to the issues before them.
Sometimes those opinions are narrow – such as “The president can fire the individual head of an agency created by congress”. Sometimes those oppinions are more broad – “Congress can not constrain the presidents excercise of executive power within the executive branch”
Those opinions resolve the case before them but they also provide the courts, the executive, the legislature with guidance regarding similar future cases.
“SCOTUS can only rule on a specific plaintiff presenting specific question,”
False SCOTUS selects the cases they wish to hear – and they select the question they wish addressed.
SCOTUS is not a trial court, and they are not a typical apeals court.
There is no right to have SCOTUS hear your case – SCOTUS regularly refuses thousands of cases many of which are decided wrongly. It is not their job to right every wrong. It is NOT even their job to confine their decisions to the issues relevant to the litigants.
SCOTUS decides which cases to take, what issues the parties are to address, and then what their decision is.
“and affects Dellinger first, then all others in the same situationn who fall under the reasoning of the Court’s scope. Clarify, not “restore,” john-boy.”
Obviously you pay no attention to supreme court cases.
Neither Party in Dobbs was asking SCOTUS to overrule Row (or Casey). The Plantiffs were challenging the states power to limit abortions after 15 weeks. The state was trying to expand the window that Casey gave states to restrict abortions.
Did the state hope that SCOTUS might overturn Row (Casey) sure. But they did not outright challenge Casey.
nor was the decision specific to that state or that states law.
That is just ONE example. Heller and MCDonald established a framework for ALL federal and state restrictions on the 2nd amendment. They did not merely decide whether Heller and McDonald could posses handguns in their homes
johnny, looks like you are saying what Lin said, only it took you 2,0000 words and it took her about 75.
ATS chose to disagree with both Lin and I.
Most of my post was a point by point rebutal of ATS’s remarks.
Further Lin’s post was correct but limited to employment – this administration and possibly SCOTUS are seeking a decision bigger than just employment. Again something ATS got wrong.
Lin IMHO
That doesn’t make sense, with this decision it now comes to Trump’s frontal assault to any and all these useless bureaucrats that President Trump wishes to remove. I don’t believe Trump needs more, it may be challenged to the SC but we’re all seeing the appellate ruling over this at the onset. It’s a Trump win either path and if it’s pushed higher it would most likely be supported and clear it up for future Presidents. The problem with sleeping dogs is if you step on their tail they bite you!
Hello Traveler: Just coming back online and I must not have written very clearly, cuz I see these responses, including yours.
All I was trying to say was that perhaps Dellinger would not appeal to the SCOTUS because he and others are fearful that SCOTUS may agree with the DC Cir. (this is speculative because no decision at DC level yet), with its extrapolation(s), and thereby dispositively endanger the positions of others going forward. That’s what I meant by letting sleeping dogs (SCOTUS) lie.
–of course all of this appears premature. In reality I question whether SCOTUS would consider the case at this stage, as there are two somewhat competing arguments raised from two different appellate panels of the DC Circuit: compare.
From Feb 25: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25537315/appeals-court-ruling-in-hampton-dellinger-case.pdf
From March 5: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25552116/dellinger-order.pdf
Maybe a petition for an en banc ruling will be filed with a party brief first?
In the latter Order (the one JT references), the appellate court is granting amici briefs, etc. and no final case decision has been rendered, (notwithstanding appellate review in granting a stay is premised on the “likelihood of prevailing on the merits”).
Both Appellee and Appellant briefs are not even due until April 2025…
So I didn’t quite understand what you say “doesn’t make sense,” sorry.?
p.s.
re: the Feb 25 Order, I refer to the dissent from the third Cir. Judge Katsas, starting @ p.16.
Hey Lin thanks!
I’m a professional but not a lawyer so alot of the procedural stuff goes beyond me. What I was getting at is that this outcome will not slow Trump from fleshing out further sleepers in his House. It was a win either way, if it were appealed it would eventually make it to the SC where I have to believe the Executive Branch would prevail. If it doesn’t, Trump will continue and set a precedent, right?
Lots of what Trump is doing is win-win.
As I have said repeatedly – he is rope-a-doping democrats and they are biting.
Dellinger aparently dropped the case. I think that means Trump has won big.
Dellinger has possibly the strongest case of anyone that Trump fired that is not represented by a Union.
If Dellinger dropped his appeal – it is unlikely others will even go to court.
What MAY follow is Trump firing someone on the FEC, FCC, FTC or other “bipartisan” offices created by congress and run by a board. That would be a direct challenge to Humphries executor.
Frankly Humphries needs to be overturned, and this concept of an independent agency within the executive branch tossed out the window.
Nor should this be a partisan issue – Biden “illegally” but “constitutionally” fired the head of Social Security.
Republicans may not like that. I may have been a very bad decision – are they any biden decisions that were good ?
But it was constitutional.
The recent SCOTUS spending freeze decision was a mistake – though a better case make come.
The RIGHT decision was to vacate the order to pay as premature, require the matter to be litigated and then address the core issue of presidential powers when the appeal hits the supreme court.
I would be shocked in like the Dellinger case – Trump’s lawyers are not trying to shepard a good case to address presidential power regarding spending.
I am not sure that the existing supreme court cases are decided wrongly – but they are read way too broadly.
The president does NOT have the power to replace congressional priorities and policies with his own.
But he has absolute power to reduce waste fraud and abuse.
Further congressional budget amounts should be a ceiling on spending not a floor.
The does not appear to be alot of legislation historically – probably because Presidents RARELY seek to cut spending,
And rarely seek to spend budgeted funds more efficiently.
The NORMAL conflict over spending between the president and the congress is over what policies to spend on.
Both the executive and congress tend to be aligned in trying to spend as much as possible – regardless of what they say.
Regardless we need incentives in Government to CUT spending, to Challenge waste fraud and abuse.
We need both actual law, case law, and possibly constitutional amendment to create as much incentive and as much oportunity to cut spending as we have to raise it.
We need the impetus to cut spending to outlive Trump.
We need to CONSTANTLY be looking to eliminate agencies that have failed, polices that have failed, ….
And we need to NOT have to pray for a Trump to be elected to see that happen.
John
Doesn’t Trump have the ability to declare a financial emergency due to the insurmountable debt and a $2T annual deficit? Call it for what it is, an economic disaster. The Executive has a primary duty to American taxpayers and that is to assure that our taxpayer dollars are not wasted, subjected to fraud and abuse. USAID has revealed allof the above with 80% of Congress on the theft wagon. Would he not have an open avenue to pursue draining the swamp in this manner?
Yep, I think Jonathan’s Post had scared him off. To bad for Dellinger, it was a chance for him to prove himself, win or loose it would be case law, and with a SCOTUS decision that question would have been put to bed.
Better to have tried and lost, than not try at all.
#74. A person, anon , said he was a very old litigator. He’s well worth reading.
The question remains : How and why has the executive branch grown to 3+ million employees? 2 million are permanent. It’s absurd.
What will happen at State levels after its dismantled? California and New York will work for everyone else and globally hoping they can keep 25% of their earnings? Is that what you want?
Think.about it as congress votes as 2 blocks with maybe 10 votes willy-nilly. Cut the House to 3 people in such a case. It’s absurd. Go back to your red or blue States and no one gets shouted down. Wheel and deal as you please.
“What will happen at State levels after its dismantled? California and New York will work for everyone else and globally hoping they can keep 25% of their earnings? Is that what you want?”
Not sure where yo are going with your 25% commission speculation. If you are thinkng that the Big Blue states will hire the Fedgov castoffs and profit on doing that, my comment is that a good look at who is running those states clearly shows that they aren’t smart enough to do that. NTM that, while there may well be competent employees cast off, the majority are going to be be useless baggage, both because of the prevalence of those attributes among that group, and because the selection of dismissals should represent at least a little bit of a sorting mechanism. My expectation, if NY & CA (et al) follow through with this initiative, is that those states will operate even less efficiently than the current abysmal standard, costs and taxes will soar, and the departure of productive taxpayers will escalate to become a hemorrhage. Couldn’t happen to a better set of chumps.
Back in the 1980’s I worked for a defense contractor. I thought I had a job for life. I ended up getting laid off twice. I was married, had 2 kids and a mortgage. Nobody went boohoo for me. That’s life and you adjust.
In the early 2000s I worked for a tile contractor. I did 10 hour days, had no medical benefits package, no vacation benefits and got laid off multiple times. So I went to my local public college, got my degree in IT project management, have now worked for 3 companies with each being a step up — full benefits plus ongoing professional development. I have a wonderful home, college funds accounts for my kids, and a great retirement package. I don’t understand when people complain about “being left behind.” It takes effort and totally doable. I didn’t rely on elected leaders to do anything. I stepped up.
Yes, and young people see that and aren’t willing to take such risks.
O T – Let’s return to the subject of classified documents.
Trump was subject to prosecution for possession of classfied documents taken by him from the White House (like every President since the classification system started under Truman). When it was pointed out that Obama was still in possession of classified documents we were told that NARA had belatedly taken permanent possession of those documents and shipped them to its facility in the Washington DC area. But was even this true? Regarding the troubled Obama library in progress in Chicago, The Daily Mail writes today: “NARA uses its temporary storage site [the Obama library in waiting] for tens of millions of documents, classified records, and more than 35,000 artifacts and gifts accumulated by the Obama family during his eight years in office.” https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14468919/doge-cancel-lease-barack-obama-library.html
If DM is correct, there are still classified documents in the Obama playhouse, 8 years after he left the White House!
Is anyone in Washington DC keeping track of the Obama classified documents, where they are, who is watching or protecting them, who has access, what is their condition, what is missing etc.? If we don’t really care about Presidential classified documents, which seems to be true, why can’t we all just admit that the Trump prosecution was a sham and a disgraceful abuse of power?
Obama is a direct and mortal enemy of the American thesis of Freedom and Self-Reliance, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, actual Americans, and America. Obama must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for abuse of power, usurpation of power, subversion, sedition, treason et al. for conducting the ongoing Obama Coup D’etat in America and conspiring to thwart the two-term limit on his presidency by insinuating Obama “holdovers” into the Biden administration.
The prosecution of Trump was a sham – every president since Washington has OWNED the WH documents of their administration – classified or not.
There is alot of case law post Nixon – but it is all about the current govenrment gaining ACCESS to the documents of the prior presidency – not taking ownership.
The PRA was passed primarily to relive ex presidents of the financial burden of preserving WH documents. It allows the president to give CUSTODY of WH documents to NARA – it STILL requires the current administration to get a warrant to access past presidents documents in NARA’s custody. Regardless as Judge Jackson found 10 years ago – the PRA did not alter the ownership of those documents.
Ex presidents can take whatever WH documents they wish as they leave – classified or not.
It is scary how many MAGAs celebrate Trump’s dictatorial purging of non-partisan civil servants and pretend this is no big deal because their warped view of four words in the Constitution. And yes, I consider members of SCOTUS in that list of those with warped fascist views.
Trump’s cuts to the executive will still be LESS than the number of people Biden added.
I would separately note that those of you on the left have a problem.
Either these people are actually non-partisan – ROFL in which case they are being RIF’d.
Or they are partisan, and they are being canned for that.
Dellinger is obviously partisan.
Regardless we see ample evidence every day for these terminations.
DOGE is finding LOTS of waste fraud and corruption.
Not only o we have whistleblower statutes – but there is laws that allow someone reporting waste fraud and corruption within government to personally recover part of that money.
Yet no one came forward. If you were in the federal governmwent and you approved, participated in or merely were aware of and failed to report this nonsense – you should be fired. In some cases prosecuted.
This is the money of taxpayers. If you can not take care how it is spent – you should be fired.
” … many MAGAs celebrate Trump’s dictatorial purging of non-partisan civil servants …”
******************************
They serve at the pleasure of the POTUS and POTUS ain’t happy with them. Sayonarra!
PS: Did you freak out when Bill Clinton sacked 426,000 between 1993-2000? Consistent minds want to know?
If you were not such parasites on the American taxpayers, you would not have this problem. You are, trolling on the good professor’s blog, on a government provided computer. On a government provided internet link. On government time. Time paid by us taxpayers. Remember, you should be answering to us. Us, those who pay your paycheck. What have you done this week to justify your employment? Trolling the good professor’s blog for our taxes is not a good answer. For that matter, you are precisely why we voted for DOGE. To fire, useless government employees whom do little to nothing for the betterment of us taxpayers.
What am I doing to justify myself? I am fighting fascists in every way I can. We are not allowed to mow them down like we did in the early 40s, but I will do what I can now.
You should have to justify yourself to us, the taxpayers who pay for your job. You are the fascists that we, The People, voted against. We reject your evil. Of supporting violent, criminal, illegals that assault and rape women and children. Of voting against protecting women in women’s sports. We, the People reject your evil to promote pornography in elementary schools. We reject your evil of mutilating children. You, are the party of evil.
Own it.
Trump is a criminal who raped woman and children. You are ok with that.
Your fighting fascism ? So you are fighting against the democratic party.
Fascism is
“everything in govenrment,
nothing outside of govenrment
nothing against government”
Benito Musolini
Just remember, we, the taxpayers, dont really need you. You need us. You are a useless, parasitic, burden on us, the American taxpayer. You are evil.
Own it.
Have you never heard of downsizing? Have you never worked in the private sector? Have you ever taken care of yourself without the assistance and support of the government taxpayer funded paycheck? There are only two things in this life that are sure, death and taxes.
You are a loser dude…
There is massive bloat (like a drunk tick), fraud and abuse on the government construction projects. Supervisors and project mangers playing on their phone, pretending to work. Incompetence is their motto.
We are like a ship that is laden with barnacles. And there is rot within.
Precedent constitutes unconstitutional amendment.
It is not precedent but the Constitution that holds dominion and is “the supreme law of the Land.”
The supreme Law of the Land vests the executive power totally and exclusively in “a President”; it vests no executive power in the legislative or judicial branch.
No legislation or adjudication that exercises any aspect, facet, degree, or amount of executive power is constitutional.
The Constitution distributes the unassailable absolute power of the King in distinct and particular areas of governance.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Article 2, Section 1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Article 6
This Constitution…shall be the supreme Law of the Land;….
Really. There are plenty of ways to post here anonymously without being, ‘Anonymous’, by tagline. Sure wish the salient ones would do that. We scroll past you even though you have good things to say.
I have doubts that Dellinger will proceed to the SCOTUS. He’s tainted and he knows it (Skeletons in his closet of the past 4 years). Unless the DNC, ACLU, or Other Legal Organizations* completely gets behind him and supports it through. The Question should go forward but without Dellinger it can’t. So we must to wait and see if Dellinger has the; personal-resolve, dedication, regard & respect to the Order of the Coif to litigate it (Is he a true Lawyer?).
*Advocacy Groups:
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
American Center for Law and Justice
American Constitution Society
Alliance for Justice (AFJ)
MacArthur Justice Center
Center for Supreme Court Advocacy (NAAG)
#74. It’s easy to amendment the money of other people. Of course they’ll take it to scotus. It’s fun.
I still have doubts about ‘Him’. the issue is his reluctance. Whether the case prevails or not, It is a chance for him to prove himself (is he true to his convictions). In the eyes of post-gov. employment Employers, that will be the question. He’s cornered himself. IMO he has but one choice – to do it, win or loose for the sake of his reputation.
Did have to wait long for that – He’s not going for it (No Balls – just 15 minute of Fame).
His reputation is Mud.
* spend
Professor Turley’s comments on congressional Dems disrupting Congress during the censure of Green for disruption of Congress: “Rage overcoming reason, lunacy overcoming civility.”
https://www.foxnews.com/video/6369682610112
Let’s see now, you believe that members of Congress should be “civil” to a convicted felon who lied about bringing down the cost of groceries immediately just to sway enough moderate voters to vote for him? Someone who lied abgout Project 2025 being his agenda because the majority of Americans objected to it, and who has implemented those provisions? Someone who insulted sitting members of Congress to their teeth, who lied about millions of people over the age of 100 receiving Social Security benefits? Someone who just can’t seem to stop lying about everything and who cheated his way into office is owed–what–exactly? Less than 2 months in and Americans are already sick of Donald Trump, and they are making their voices heard via their elected representatives. Town halls are mobbed with people demanding that something be done. People are picketing all over the country, and at Tesla dealerships. Trump mades braggadocious and grandiose statements like “we” will “retake” the Panama Canal–something that never belonged to the US in the first place. Then, there’s the outrageous claims that “we” will take Greenland because it has minerals and strategic uses. Or, how about taking over Canada and turning it into a state? Trump is an outrageous TV performer, a liar, racist, womanizer and felon. He belongs in prison. His presence in Congress was sacreligious–people SHOULD object every time he shows his face–because “rage” is the proper emotional reaction to something as odious as Trump.
” you believe that members of Congress should be “civil” ”
I beleive members of congress should be judged by their behavior.
You appear to be happy with the behavior of democrats. The majority of americans are not.
I think that works out fine.
“about bringing down the cost of groceries immediately”
Do you really think it is wise to repeatedly point out to everyone that Biden/Harris, democrats, the left drove inflation up to nearly 10%
and that we are STILL stuck with just under 3% inflation.
Trump may have misstated how easy it is to fix inflation – but he did not cause it – YOU DID.
Why you would keep calling attention to that.
Do you honestly think Moderate voters went “I am voting for the guy who will bring the price of eggs down over night, not the one who caused the price of eggs to shoot through the roof ?”
Moderates did not vote for Trump because he promised to bring inflation down immediately. ‘
They voted for him because inflation in Trump’s first term was essentially zero over 4 years.
Inflation under Democrats was approximately 27% over 4 years.
This is not a difficult choice.
“Someone who lied abgout Project 2025 being his agenda”
Trump’s platform -= Agenda 47 was his “agenda” – what has he done that was NOT something he publicly promised voters.
The majority of americans do not object to project 2025 – they do not even know what it is – nor do you.
Regardless, they are by large margins supportive of what Trump is actualy doing.
You are fixated on labels.
Trump is doing what he promised. Promises he made loudly and vocally everywhere he went.
No one is surprised by Trump’s actions – there is no hidden agenda.
And the overwhelming majority of Trump’s agenda is more popular than he is.
“who lied about millions of people over the age of 100 receiving Social Security benefits? ”
If you beleive that – then you will have no problem with Musk conducting a full and through audit and stopping payments to people who are not real or who died long ago. If you really beleive that – then you will have no problem prosecuting those who ripped off social security by collecting money that was not owed to them.
This is pretty simple Gigi, NO ONE – atleast not yet, is proposing reducing benefits to
those who are legally entitled to collect SS or HI. Merely purging fraudulent claims by people who do not exist or who are dead.
Why would anyone object to that ?
“Less than 2 months in and Americans are already sick of Donald Trump”
Rassumussen has had Trump at 50% or above since november.
He is more popular than republicans in congress, far more popular than democrats in congress and more popular than the supreme court.
“they are making their voices heard via their elected representatives.”
Public reception of Trump’s speech was incredibly possitive.
Public reception of the conduct of democrats was overwhelmingly negative
Even some MSM networks felt it necescary to condemn democrats.
” Town halls are mobbed with people demanding that something be done.”
Sorry Gigi – you have actually been caught PAYING people to protest at town halls and bussing them in.
“People are picketing all over the country”
Not anywhere I have seen.
“Tesla dealerships.”
Car sales are down a bit – Telsa’s LESS than Fords.
“Trump mades braggadocious and grandiose statements like “we” will “retake” the Panama Canal–something that never belonged to the US in the first place.”
Of course it did. Please read history.
“Then, there’s the outrageous claims that “we” will take Greenland because it has minerals and strategic uses.”
Please read the Monroe Doctrine – that was NOT written by Trump – he was not even borne yet.
“how about taking over Canada and turning it into a state?”
How about it ?
INFLATION was 21% over 4 years!
My concern about Trump is that he is not doing enough fast enough.
US debt is increasing by $1T every 100 days. The US debt is 150% of GDP and rising.
almost 2 decades ago economists Roggoff and Reinhart found that debt over 80% of GDP reduced the rate of increase of standard of living as it grew – leading to stagnation.
Japan’s debt is 200% of GDP and it the Japanese economy has not grown in 30 years.
Because the US is the worlds largest economy and because the Dollar is the worlds reserve currency it is probable that we can screw up more than other nations before the consequences become severe.
But we can not continue the path we are on. Even our advantage are not enough that we can behave irresponsibly forever.
Government should grow slower than the economy – IF AT ALL. It certainly should not grow faster.
No one is currently talking about cutting anything but waste and Fraud from Social Security and Medicare.
But if we do not do enough now – we will have no choice but more dracoian cuts later.
“Trump mades braggadocious and grandiose statements like ‘we’ will ‘retake’ the Panama Canal–something that never belonged to the US in the first place.”
Please take the time to read up on the creation of Panama in 1903 (severed from Columbia), the concurrent 1903 Hay–Bunau-Varilla Treaty (creation and appurtenant rights regarding the Panama CANAL ZONE), https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/pan001.asp and the controversial Torrijos-Carter Treaties (1977)
CONVICTED FELON. GIGI? 34 Felonies that were made up. NO PUNISHMENT- must have been SEVERE felonies. ha ha ha
LOL, stupid Americans. Market crashing again. Trump could tell you that feces is delicious and you’d eat it saying how yummy it is.
^ crybaby loser retard troll ^
LOL
DJIA
1/1/2025 42302
3/6/2025 42715
CRASHING??? ha ha ha About 6% off their HIGHS on the DOW JONES!!! 42,000 is crashing??? BOZO!
Breaking: Trump claims, without evidence, that 2 plus 2 equals 4. Not so fast, experts say
Full story on Trump’s wild claim here:
https://babylonbee.com/news/trump-claimed-without-evidence-that-22-makes-4-not-so-fast-experts-say
Excerpt:
Experts sounded the alarm on the president’s bold statement. “You can’t just go around claiming to have the answer to complex math equations without demonstrating how you came to that conclusion,” said former CNN Chief Media Analyst Brian Stelter. “It is very irresponsible for a commander-in-chief to throw numbers around willy-nilly like this.” Mathematicians said while there are indeed edge cases in which 2 + 2 = 4, making a blanket statement to that effect was irresponsible because it ignores the world of modular arithmetic and abstract algebra where “2” can be whatever you want.
Yes, Biden’s DOJ begs Trump and the SCJs to change the laws in support of Global Warming. They clarified further, specifically the laws of physics…
All I have to say is, again, I can only presume the current administration knew full well in advance some of their actions would go to court, and they wanted it to set legal precedent, and I am grateful they pushed through.
Turns out our modern globalist left is actually only focused on the short game, intent on doing things mainly through fiat and brute force. The Obama era and all it represented can not die soon enough. All of the entropy we are currently seeing is the result of the collective past 16 years; may we right the ship with solid backing so that it never, ever happens again. Just 2020 nearly destroyed us, and it will take a very long time to fix. Makes Carter look like a political genius, frankly.
If we did not have our Constitution and separation of powers, and if Kamala had won, we’d be in the same boat. It is spooky how close we came to being a communist country, the like of which we stood against during the Cold War, just like that.
Oh, and younger people with no education will never understand how their asses were saved literally in November, even just looking at the budget and deficit, all of the other nonsense, of which there is a great deal, aside.
Winning NEVER gets tiresome with Trump and Elon.
Free Derek Chauvin
Governor Walz is unlikely to do that.
Trump can
Breaking: Federal Judge in DC declines to immediately spare USAID contractors from firings.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5180024-judge-usaid-contractors-firing/amp/
OMFK
What was it Dennis was telling us Trump awoke to? He’s the gift that keeps on giving! CNN had Trump approval at 70+%…
They got nothing, America now sees them for what they are!
“ Many scholars and judges believe that a president either has Article II authority to fire executive branch officials or he does not.”
And they are?….. Turley ignores one glaring problem. The constitution does not grant the president unlimited power to fire anyone unilaterally within the executive branch. Particulary when agencies or departments are created and funded by Congress.
Turley fails to mention that the constitutionality of Humphrey’s Executor is supported by Myers v. United States, which ruled that the president can fire someone he appointed without the need for Senate advice and consent. However, it’s important to note that Trump did not appoint Dellinger; Biden did. The Office of Special Counsel (OSC) was created by Congress, and the law specifies that Trump can only fire him for particular reasons, none of which Trump cited when he dismissed him.
If the Supreme Court approves the firing, it could set a precedent allowing a Democratic president to dismiss anyone appointed by a Republican president, regardless of the independence of the agency. Turley is making an unreasonable argument that would grant the president nearly unlimited authority over Congress, despite the fact that the Constitution does not provide the president with such power.
Furthermore, Myers vs. United states only talks about the unconstitutionality of firing an executive officer by requiring the advice and conset of the Senate. It does not say anything about the fact that Congress, both houses. passing legislation limiting the president’s power to fire officers of independent agencies created by Congress. They can set limits since they created and fund the agency in question. Trump as president is only there to make sure the agency or office is run the way Congress intended. Not usurp the the step beyond the authority Congress set for the president.
Hello, there is one chief executive. And the entire authority of the executive branch of the United States is vested in that person (the president).
Congress can appropriate funds for a specific agency to operate within the executive branch with some basic guidelines for how that agency will operate. Once housed in the executive branch though, the president has ultimate authority over how that agency will be administered. To think otherwise is to claim that Congress can somehow appropriate executive branch authority. It cannot.
If Congress disagrees with the way that an agency is being run, or who is running it, they can withhold funding, or completely dissolve the agency. That is their recourse. End of story.
I’m sure you know by now that George comes here every single day to discredit Turley’s posts with various accusations of Turley, e.g., “disingenuous” or “fails to” or “is naive” or “ignores” or “mistakenly” or whatever.
For some strange and befuddling reason, George fails to start his own blog where he can draw the more erudite and educated among us, who might agree that George’s thoughtful analyses are more accurate than Turley’s.
George…especially weak sauce. Try again.
“The constitution does not grant the president unlimited power to fire anyone unilaterally within the executive branch. ”
Unlimited – no. Nearly unlimited – absolutely. The executive power of the united states is vested in the president.
This is loosely lie the CRO of a corporation – the shareholders elects tghe board – like voters elect congress. The board hires the CEO,
The CEO can fire and hire whoever they please – consistent with general employment law and employment contracts.
In the case of the federal executive, the president must comply with civil service laws – for those employees covered.
He must comply with union contracts – though usually failure to comply does NOT reverse a dismissal it just results in monetary damages.
He must comply with the appointments clause of the constitution for “officiers of the united states”. That is pretty much it.
Congress has very limited ability to interfere with the EXECUTIVE functions of the federal government. They can control funding.
They can dictate policy goals, and the purpose for funding.
But they have very little power over hiring and firing.
“Particulary when agencies or departments are created and funded by Congress.”
Funding decisions do not give them power over executive functions like hiring and firing.
“Turley fails to mention that the constitutionality of Humphrey’s Executor is supported by Myers v. United States, which ruled that the president can fire someone he appointed without the need for Senate advice and consent. However, it’s important to note that Trump did not appoint Dellinger; Biden did. The Office of Special Counsel (OSC) was created by Congress, and the law specifies that Trump can only fire him for particular reasons, none of which Trump cited when he dismissed him.”
And Trump is challenging the constitutionality of that law – as well as seeking to reverse or limit Humphrey’s executor.
Dellinger is NOT appealling the DC appelate court reversal of Jackson – because he is unlikely to win and SCOTUS likely will reverse Humpries – which was wrongly decided.
WE have ONE president at a time. It is irrelevant WHO hired someone in the executive – ANY current president can fire them.
The Dellinger case was a huge loser. Jackson’s oppinion was self evidently garbage. Oversight of the president is by CONGRESS.
Yes, President’s can “bully” employees. That may not be a wise choice but it is a constitutional one.
“If the Supreme Court approves the firing, it could set a precedent allowing a Democratic president to dismiss anyone appointed by a Republican president, regardless of the independence of the agency.”
Yup, Biden already dismissed the head of Social Security that Trump appointed.
There is no doubt that SCOTUS would overrule jackson – the only question is whether they would go so far as to toss Humphey’s
There is no such thing as constitutional independence within the executive.
Congress is independent, the Judiciary is independent.
Many executive agencies have a TRADITION of independence – but that is ALL that it is. That is part of the problem with Humphiey’s
Independence within the executive DOES NOT EXIST.
Despite the tradition – we have LOTS of counter examples going all the way back to Adams and Wasington.
” Turley is making an unreasonable argument that would grant the president nearly unlimited authority over Congress, despite the fact that the Constitution does not provide the president with such power.”
The constitution provides the president with unlimited executive power – it is Congress that has infringed on that.
The executive power of the United states is vested in the president.
The legislative power is vested primarily in the legislature.
The president does not have power over congress – he has power over the executive.
Congress has power over congress.
“Furthermore, Myers vs. United states only talks about the unconstitutionality of firing an executive officer by requiring the advice and conset of the Senate. It does not say anything about the fact that Congress, both houses. passing legislation limiting the president’s power to fire officers of independent agencies created by Congress. ”
If congress can not prevent the president from firing someone who the constitution required their consent to appoint. They can Not usurp the the step beyond the authority Congress set for the president. They clearly can not usurp that power for those they did not have to consent to.
“They can set limits since they created and fund the agency in question. ”
Nope – they control the funding and the purpose of the agency – not its staffing.
“Trump as president is only there to make sure the agency or office is run the way Congress intended. ”
No, he is there to administer the agency to acheive the policy goals that congress specified.
The management and employment is the presidents business.
There’s a reason Trump and Musk don’t understand how government works. Although both are experts at business, both are essentially “sole proprietors” (owners) of their large corporations. Most CEO’s of most large companies are “employees” and shareholders are the “owners”. These two are unique even among corporation leadership.
Using a government metaphor:
Trump and Musk are failing because in the government model, both are now the CEO “employees”. Trump is the “employee” taking constitutionally-legal orders from voters and Congress. The “owners” are the American voters and Congress is essentially the “Board of Directors”.
Trump dictator model only works in the “Sole Proprietorship” model of business. Which the federal government is not! Most corporations are not either!
Except that Trump and Musk are not falling, they’re succeeding.
Trump is an employee of Congress? He must take orders from Congress? Have you read the Constitution?
Anon – the person you’re responding to is not talking about the United States, but about a different country with a completely different Constitution. That country exists in his imagination, where Congress employs the Executive Branch, including the President. It is a little odd, I’ll admit, that in his fantasy he decided to make Trump the head of that (imaginary) Executive Branch, but whatever.
Anonymous 12:02PM
The federal government is obviously not a business but can be run like a business in many ways. The road map to understanding how the “business of government” works is the constitution. Congress is not the board of directors because they are not voted in by all shareholders. Each congressman and senator is voted in by a small minority of the shareholders whereas in most businesses the board is voted upon by all shareholders and the President can only be removed by impeachment and conviction for specific actions and not just the lack of the board’s confidence or wanting to move in a different direction. Congress is co-equal to the president and is not a supervisory board that gives orders to a CEO on how to run the country. They allocate funds and how they wish the funds to be spent. They can be specific or vague.
Granted some Boards have the CEO on the Board and/or acting as Chairman.
Also most corporations that I know of have no ability to command the military. And the Supreme Court sits separate and equal from congress and the president.
So yes we would like to see more business like performance especially in spending of money but the government is not a business.
Also Musk operates no differently than the various Czars Obama set up in 2009 after his election, which also did not need to be confirmed by the Senate.
The DOGE is just the renamed Office of Digital Services set up by Obama.
Musk is taking no salary, I believe.
Lastly the voters can fire the President when he runs again, or not.
Right now the voters do not seem to be inclined to do that but they get a chance again in 2028 with Trump’s successor.
“. . . both are essentially “sole proprietors” (owners) . . .”
Uh, both Truth Social (DJT) and Tesla (TSLA) are publicly traded companies.
Care to concoct a different contorted metaphor?
If Congress had passed legislation granting a president authority to reduce 10% of the staff of a particular agency. If that legislation were passed by Congress and signed by a president (becoming law), then Trump would have the carry out that act of Congress, authority to reduce that agency by 10%.
Under Article One Congress controls the money. Congress designs tariffs. Congress is required to fully fund the postal service. Congress controls the military. All powers of Congress, presidents then execute those actions approved by Congress.
Congress never authorized cutting USAID staff by 97% in order to disable entire agencies. Only Congress can do that.
In its legislation did Congress specify the size of the staff? Could you provide a citation to the US Code to support that?
Anonymous 11:42 am- “Congress controls the military”. No. They fund the military and confirm the commissions of the officers. The President is Commander in Chief and can lead the Forces of the US personally (if he so chooses) as Washington did during one brief rebellion. Congress was not out there leading or giving orders.
“Congress controls the military.”
Not sure which constitution you’re reading from. The one I have says this:
“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States . . .”
“ Judge Jackson had a good-faith reliance on her narrow reading of existing precedent.”
Turley is just sidestepping what is really the issue. That “good-faith reliance” is firmly set in legal theory. The law states specifically for which reasons Dillinger could be fired. The DOJ is not addressing that and the judge is correct pointing out that the law created by Congress and specifically mentions the only reasons Dillinger can be fired. Even a Textualist would be very hard pressed to argue that was not what the law says.
The Trump adminstration did not show that Dillinger failed to meet the specific criteria spelled out in the law. Even trying to claim Article II authority does not authorize Trump to fire Dillinger for just cause.
The idea that this is what the Trump adminstration wanted to push for a decision by the Supreme court still runs into the problem of the specific criteria spelled out in the law that requires the adminsitraton to specify which of the reasons Dillinger failed in order to have the authority to fire him. Turley conveniently ignores the simplest point. Trump fired Dillinger without cause when the law does not allow for that. Congress can set limitations with legislation and Trump is attempting to sidestep it by decree rather than by rule of law.