As I discussed in yesterday’s coverage of the oral arguments in Trump v. Slaughter, the argument went poorly for those who sought to sustain the 90-year-old precedent in Humphrey’s Executor, limiting a president’s power to fire members of independent commissions. It seems unlikely that Humphrey’s Executor will live to see 91 after Chief Justice John Roberts called it “just a dried husk.”
As is increasingly becoming the case, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson stole the show with some of her comments on her view of the underlying constitutional issues. She suggested that “experts” in the Executive Branch generally should not be subject to termination by a president. It is a virtual invitation for a technocracy rather than a democracy.
Jackson continued her signature role in oral arguments by effectively arguing the case of one side. At points, Jackson interrupted counsel to instruct him on his “best arguments” and spoke at length to counter the questions of her conservative colleagues.
What was most striking was Jackson’s dismissal of the executive power claims in such agencies. As with Justice Elena Kagan, Jackson raised “real-world” concerns rather than articulate a clear constitutional theory supporting the creation of these hybrid bodies — part legislative and part executive — resting in the executive branch.
In confronting U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer (who did another masterful job) in a difficult oral argument, Jackson said she did “not understand” why “agencies aren’t answering to Congress.” Jackson simply brushed aside the fact that the president is given authority to execute the laws and that the executive branch is established under the Constitution.
The argument was maddeningly circular: since Congress created the commission, it must necessarily be Congress’s right to dictate how commissioners can serve or be fired. It was conclusory and shallow in its analysis.
Jackson expressed frustration: ‘I really don’t understand why the agencies aren’t answering to Congress. Congress established them and can eliminate them. Congress funds them, and can stop. So, to the extent that we’re concerned that there’s some sort of entity that is out of control and has no control, I guess I don’t understand that argument.”
She then added her support for a virtual technocracy:
I guess I have a very different view of the dangers, and real-world consequences of your position than what you explored with Justice Kavanaugh. My understanding was that independent agencies exist because Congress has decided that some issues, some matters, some areas should be handled in this way by non-partisan experts, that Congress is saying that expertise matters — with respect to aspects of the economy, and transportation, and the various independent agencies that we have. So, having a president come in and fire all the scientists, and the doctors, and the economists, and the PhDs, and replacing them with loyalists and people who don’t know anything, is actually not in the best interest of the citizens of the United States. These issues should not be in presidential control. So, can you speak to me about the danger of allowing, in these various areas, the president to actually control the Transportation Board and potentially the Federal Reserve, and all these other independent agencies. In these particular areas, we would like to have independence, we don’t want the president controlling. I guess what I don’t understand from your overarching argument is why that determination of Congress — which makes perfect sense given its duty to protect the people of the United States, why that is subjugated to a concern about the president not being able to control everything.
The suggestion is that a president should not be able to fire “scientists, and the doctors, and the economists, and the PhDs.” It is a telling statement from a justice who also suggested that the death of the Chevron doctrine would bring ruin to the country.
The use of “real-world consequences” seems to overwhelm any true separation-of-powers protections for presidents against the administrative state. It also allows the Court to delve into effective policy or legislative impacts in support of the expert class over what are framed as ignorant or vengeful presidents. After all, Justice Jackson heralded the choice made by Congress as making “perfect sense given its duty to protect the people of the United States.” Conversely, she portrayed those that the current Administration is seeking to add to the commissions as “loyalists and people who don’t know anything.”
It is difficult to see any limiting principle in any of this, a problem previously raised regarding Jackson’s emerging jurisprudence. It remains more cathartic than constitutional in my view.
The Constitution provides maximal freedom to individuals.
The Constitution provides Congress the power to tax for only debt, defense, and general welfare, general welfare being security and basic infrastructure to enable all, or the whole, to well proceed.
The Constitution provides Congress the power to regulate only “the value of money,” “commerce among nations, states, and Indian tribes,” and “land and naval Forces.”
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”
“…men…do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what [their powers] 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
At this point, the six conservative lawyers on the court who have seized control of our constitution aren’t interested in what makes our country good or bad, workable or unworkable, democratic or undemocratic. What they are interested in is winning arguments for abstract legal concepts like “separation of powers” or the “unitary executive” without any regard to the impact winning their arguments might have on the quality and sustainability of our federal government.
Separation of powers is NOT an abstract argument ANON!! WOW ANON
“At this point, the six conservative lawyers on the court who have seized control of our constitution aren’t interested in what makes our country good or bad, workable or unworkable, democratic or undemocratic.”
Absoluyely correct – that is NOT THEIR JOB. That is NOT ANY JUDGES JOB.
The role of the judiciary is to determine what is legal and what is constitutional.
Whether something is good for the country or bad, whether it is workable or not, whether it is democratic or not NOT legal or constitutional questions. Mostly they are political questions and regardless all of them belong either to the legilature or executive or very rarely both.
“What they are interested in is winning arguments for abstract legal concepts like “separation of powers” or the “unitary executive” without any regard to the impact winning their arguments might have on the quality and sustainability of our federal government.”
While these are NOT abstract questions, and you have added massive spin – you are still correct.
The job of the courts is to decide what is legal and what is constitutional.
We do not have Thousands of cheif executives. The courts do not get to decide what the best way to run the country is.
I would note the structure of the US govenrment is NOT some abstraction – pretty much every single effective institution in the world has a SINGLE chief executive. That is a PRACTICAL matter that our constitution gets right. Why ? Because some things have to be decided nearly INSTANTLY. And very many things have to be decided faster than a commission, or congress or the courts can possibly act.
A large portion of those institutions also have some rought equivalent of a congress – either a board of directors, or actual legislative and judicial bodies that eitehr provide an after the fact oversight and review process or a before the fact legislative process setting the ground rules.
\
\If we find as a practicle matter the lines between the powers of that single executive and the powers of the legislature and judicary have been draw incorrectly, it is the role of the role of the legislature to construct a legislative remedy consistent with the constitution, and if they can not and the issue is that important to state the process of amending the constitution.
Nor is separation of powers in the least abstract. That is precisely how we keep the legislature the executive and the judiciary from getting in each others way anbd leaving rhe country in rudderless chaos.
You raise the issue of democracy – this country is NOT a democracy. Democracies do not work. Not direct democracy – not representative democracy. Again you can go through all the govenrments and institutions in the world and virtually all of them have a single Cheif Executive.
ALWAYS. This countries may lebel themselves democracies – or you may label them democracies – but they are NOT.
You like most left wing nuts are entirely off in left field making arguments over legal constitutional practical and structural issues that have been resolved centuries ago.
The courts are not there to function in the way that you imagine. And every time they have tried to do so , and every where courts have been given the powers you are discussing we have seen disaster.
Put simply the STRUCTURE of government – which is what YOU want to address is a millenia old decided issue that has rarely been revisited and never successfully – the courts are NOT going there.
But Separation of powers which is NOT AT ALL ABSTRACT is of critical importance.
If you listened to the oral arguements the issue the court is addressing is relatively narrow separations of powers issue.
“My understanding was that independent agencies exist because Congress has decided that some issues, some matters, some areas should be handled in this way by non-partisan experts, that Congress is saying that expertise matters — with respect to aspects of the economy, and transportation, and the various independent agencies that we have.”
– KBJ
________
This buffoon doesn’t know that Americans are free to endeavor in all “matters [and] areas” through private enterprises, in the free markets of the private sector, and as private “experts” with “expertise”; that industries must self-regulate for the benefit of their customers and for their own protection; and that Congress has absolutely no power to regulate anything but “the value of money,” “commerce among nations, states, and Indian tribes,” and “land and naval Forces” per Article 1, Section 8.
This harlequin should have been laughed out of Washington, D.C., before she arrived.
Thank God for DJT
“You know when she goes on television, on Fox, they dominate when she gets up there with that beautiful face and those lips that don’t stop — bup bup bup — like a little machine gun,” Trump told the crowd at Mount Airy Casino Resort near Mount Pocono. “When she goes on Fox, they, like, dominate.”
Now who would have thought that if you downplay the Measels vaccine the number of measels cases migiht increase?
https://arstechnica.com/health/2025/12/over-250-people-quarantined-in-south-carolina-as-measles-outbreak-rages/
AFTER 20 MILLION ILLEGALS WERE LET IN
It did not come from immigrants. It came from idiot JFK and trump supporters, science deniers. You must feel so good to help spread communicable diseases to those that are immune compromised, Thereby making them very sick or perhaps killing them. Including perhaps the newborn next door.
Perhaps K is hoping the parents will die then he can addopt and be a pedophile to the teenage girl next door?
SOUNDS like you are the pedophile!! AND A DF
TRUMP supporters gave measles to everyone? That’s a new one from TDS infected ANON!!
ATS – measless was declared eradicated in the US in 2000.
The only way you get measles in the US is from someone who traveled to the US with measels or from someone who was exposed to someone who traveled to the US with measles.
I would further note – that though YOUR article does not address this nearly all measles cases in the US over the past 8 years have been illegal immigrants.
I would note that YOUR article did not say that US citizens were getting Measles – what is said was that because of an outbreak unvaccinated children were being quarantined.
That is a perfectly reasonable way to protect your unvaccinated child from the abysmal immigration policies of the Biden administration.
The South Carolina epicenter, Way of Truth Church in Inman, appears to have zero immigrants in its membership. So, while one of them may have contracted it from an immigrant, the rest got it due to vaccine refusal.
“Of the state’s 27 new cases, 16 were linked to exposure at a church, the Way of Truth Church in Inman. And amid the new cases, new exposures were identified at Inman Intermediate School. That’s on top of exposures announced Friday at four other schools in the region, which led to well over 100 students being quarantined.”
John Say wrote: “I would note that YOUR article did not say that US citizens were getting Measles”
There is no need to note that people in a country are citizens of that country.
It also did not limit it to “children”, specifically:
“Currently, 254 unvaccinated and exposed people are in quarantine, including 43 students at Inman Intermediate School.”
It’s not illegal if they applied for asylum. Notice how ICE is going after moms at daycares and elementary schools? Because they filed paperwork as part of their claims. ICE is even kidnapping those in line to take the citizenship oath, having gone through every legal step to get there.
Notice what doesn’t happen? Shootouts between ICE and MS-13 gangs. Trump wants the gangs to keep the terror up; he’s leaving them alone.
MAGMA – Make America Get Measels Again
ONLY FOR TDS people!! No cure for TDS!!
TDS lowers your immune system. That’s why so many DEMS are SICK!! HA HA
Trump Deranges Supplicants.
ATS – With the border effectively shut down at this point – even with 11-21M new illegal immigrants in the US controlling and re-eliminate measles is not all that difficult to do.
The vast majority of americans of all ages have been vaccinated – the disease does not spread very well in a mostly vaccinated population.
You quarantine the unvaccinated until the local outbreak dies naturally.
Measles deaths last year were still LOWER than deaths from the vaccine.
“Rubella was eliminated in 2004, but can be brought into the United States by people who get infected in other countries.”
The only component of the MMR vaccine that has not effectively been eliminated in the US is mumps and that is because mumps immunity from vaccination is not as effective or long lasting as that of Measles and Rubella.
It is unlikely that we will be able to eliminate Mumps as we have for Measles and Rubella.
But until a disease has been eradicated from Earth – like Smallpox has been, there will still be a risk of a limited outbreak brought in from immigrants and foreign travellers.
We have eliminated 2 of the 3 forms of polio globally but the last is proving extremely difficult to globally eradicate.
Regardless no nations should continue vaccination for ANY disease once that disease has been eliminated from that country – so long as it has a secure border and quarantines those entering the country – particularly from places of significant risk or requires those entering the country to be vaccinated.
“Measles deaths last year were still LOWER than deaths from the vaccine.”
0 < 0?
ATS – if the Measels vaccine has ZERO risk – we should vaccinate everyone.
But the FACT is that it does not.
All vaccines are dangerous. If you vaccinate hundreds of millions of people – the vaccine itself is going to kill some.
Prior to Bidens program of mass illegal immigration there were virtually no Measles cases in the US,
And so long as vaccinations were required for people entering the United States – which means that you MUST have real control at the borders.
It was not only safe NOT to vaccinate – it was SAFER than vaccinating.
I beleive approximately 400 children each year DIE from the Measels vaccine. And a substantially larger number are harmed some temporarily some permanently.
The article you link fixates on alleged connections to specific churches.
But the resurgence of Measels in the US has a SINGLE CAUSE – and that is mass illegal immigration.
You can not bring 11-21M people into the US without heatlh checks and not expect to reintroduce diseases that were effectively wiped out in the US.
You rant about Trump – but the FACT is that YOU and YOUR policies created this problem.
Measles was effectively eradicated in the US. That means that we could completely eliminate Measles vaccination – and the risks associated with them and the deaths caused by the vaccine – so long as we were effective in preventing outsiders with measles from entering the country.
Completely eliminating the Measles vaccine means reducing the number of childrends deaths in the country by a copuple of hundred and year.
Reducing the number of children harmed by the vaccine by thousands.
WE were at or near the point were with effective boarder control we could have been able to eliminate the Measles vaccine.
We are also near the same point with respect to the Polio Vaccine.
“Wild poliovirus cases have decreased by over 99% since 1988, from an estimated 350 000 cases in more than 125 endemic countries to 6 reported cases in 2021. Of the 3 strains of wild poliovirus (type 1, type 2 and type 3), wild poliovirus type 2 was eradicated in 1999 and wild poliovirus type 3 was eradicated in 2020.”
So with only 6 new cases of polio in the entire world each year why are children in the vast majority of countries where poliohas been completely eradicated being giving a vaccine which WILL kill or harm a very small number of them when with efecting border health no one in the US will get polio ?
The same is true of Measles
“Although measles was declared eliminated in the United States in 2000, measles cases and outbreaks continue to occur in the United States due to unvaccinated international travelers.”
The point of origin for ALL measles in the US is from OUTSIDE the united states.
Control the public health of those crossing the boarders and you do not need to vaccinate ANYONE and you will save lives.
But those of you on the left don;t want to actually do that.
“I beleive approximately 400 children each year DIE from the Measels vaccine.”
John, I believe your number is incorrect. Nothing is 100% safe, but deaths from the measles vaccine in healthy children are essentially zero. It’s also generally given as the MMR triple vaccine.
John Say doesn’t care. His job is to spread misinformation.
You are an idiot. I corrected John this one time, if I am correct. He has an excellent record, and let us know up front that he had some doubt when he said, “I believe.” He might be remembering a VAERS report.
You, on the other hand, are full of misinformation and lies. Nothing you say can be trusted.
Jon Say: “I beleive approximately 400 children each year DIE from the Measels vaccine.”
No one dies from the “Measels ” vaccine because there isn’t a “Measels ” vaccine.
Do you not tire from being so often mistaken? Or is the Putin paycheck too good?
Expert Trump Appointees
Paul Ingrassia, a conservative activist who withdrew his nomination to oversee a government watchdog agency last month after POLITICO reported he made racist comments in a group chat, said Thursday he is moving to a new job in the administration.
The 30-year-old lawyer had been serving since February as White House liaison to the Department of Homeland Security. But in an email obtained by POLITICO, he told colleagues that he is leaving to become deputy general counsel at the General Services Administration.
POLITICO reported that Ingrassia made a number of racist remarks in a text message chain from 2023 and 2024. In one of them, he remarked, “I do have a Nazi streak in me from time to time, I will admit it,” according to the texts.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/11/13/trump-ingrassia-gsa-texts-00651340
……………………………………….
This article links a previous article that describes the racist chats Ingrassia engaged in with other Republicans.
And one should note the others were totally turned off by the references Ingrassia made. They wanted nothing to do with him! Yet Ingrassia now has a job with the General Services Administration. He’s another example of the political hacks Donald Trump employs.
If you disagree with its founders, do you disagree with a country?
Were xenophobia and racism unconstitutional in 1789/1790?
– Many American Founders legally and morally held slaves.
– The immigration law of the Founders was the Naturalization Act of 1790.
Asking for a friend.
“Were xenophobia and racism unconstitutional in 1789/1790?
– Many American Founders legally and morally held slaves.”
Yes it was unconstitutional and, no, holding slaves is never moral. But I would not expect slave holders to allow the rights they bestowed upon themselves to reach those they threatened to kill or maim in order to force them to labor.
COMMUNISTS DEMS GIVE US!! Answer that ANON!!
A purveyor of true stupidity.
I can’t believe I wasted a couple minutes reading your diatribe of dribble
It is not racist to say you have a Nazi streak.
Nazi does not ALWAYS mean Genocidal White supremecists.
We often call someone who is a control freak a “little Nazi”.
We do not mean they want to gas jews.
This is one of the problems with those on the left – they not only take everything litterally.
Given a menu of possible meanings they ALWAYS presume the most benign meaning when someone on the left says something and the most vile meaning if someone on the left says something.
And this is why the left is completely devoid of any sense of humor.
I used to love Stephen Colbert – he was funny. He was still on the left, but he was still funny.
But the more crazy the left has gotten and the more speech they have made verbotten, the less funny Colbert has become.
Interestingly John Stewart MOSTLY remains funny – he too is still on the left – but he does not appear to be as afraid to be offensive as Colbert.
Regardless, we REALLY BADLY need Lenny Bruce or George Carlin back.
john Say,
Nazis were not limited to gassing Jews. They were aiming to eliminate anyone handicapped, or lower IQ, or anyone who did not pass their moving goalposts.
If you don’t find Colbert to be funny, that is a lack of a sense of humor on your part.
“Nazis were not limited to gassing Jews. “
True, but Hitler’s hate was against the Jews in particular, so much so, he hindered the war effort by moving resources from the front to the concentration camps. Some say one of the reasons Hitler attacked Russia was to kill the 3-4 million Jews living there.
The above is mine.
Expert Trump Appointees
A federal judge in Virginia suggested on Tuesday that Lindsey Halligan should resign as U.S. attorney after a ruling declared her appointment unlawful, making her the third jurist to challenge Ms. Halligan’s continued claim to the post.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/09/us/politics/comey-james-halligan.html?unlocked_article_code=1.7U8.mxAE.S2XUvlzNAXTL&smid=nytcore-android-share
…………………………………………
Halligan is the former insurance lawyer from Florida that Trump appointed as U.S. Attorney for Eastern Virginia. Halligan took the appointment by promising she would indict former FBI Director James Comey as soon as possible. But with no experience as a prosecutor, Halligan gave erroneous instructions to the grand jury and the case was promptly dismissed.
Halligan stands as a stark example of the political hacks Trump is using to fill important government posts. Yet Johnathan Turley feels political hacks are more effective than true professionals.
Insurance fraud lawyers are really good at what they do. Big insurance has banks of them on board.
Political hacks Trump is using?? Better than men in dresses under Biden!!!
trump is so much better. Imagine Biden pointing his finger in a female reporters face as he yells “Quiet, Quiet Piggy”.
It takes a real committed misogynists to do that. Yea trump. Put women in their place.
REPLYING to yourself again? LAME
The reporter in question had been given her oportunity to ask a question and was trying to usurp the time of other reporters to also ask questions.
Trump’s response was appropriate.
It is irrelevant what sex the reporter was.
Trump had allowed her her ONE question – she tried to get more .
Quiet, Quiet Piggy”.
John Say, Trump never says that to men. Women are “nasty”, “piggy”. And he doesn’t manage to answer the questions from any woman not on the oligarch payroll.
Buydumb pointed his finger at Tara Reade.
Every political hack under Trump has made the news in some way directly related to incompetence as part of their job. Several of them have been convicted. Who can forget the “Four Seasons Lawn and Garden Care” debacle?
Homeland Security Chief Alejandro Mayorkas was great at securing America’s borders under Joke Buydumb.
Border Czar Kamalala Harris was inordinately effective at word salads.
And you prefer
“Quiet, Quiet Piggy”?
Kamalala is now “Unburdened by what has been!”
To reporters who try to usurp the time and oportunity of other reporters to ask questions ? Absolutely.
If you are rude and greedy you should expect to be called a piggy.
John Say,
Trump was just channeling the worst insult he’d been subjected to when he was called “piggy, piggy, piggy” after trying to get out of paying taxes by getting special treatment.
Still, he has no respect for women.
“Trump’s comments fit into a longer habit of open hostility toward reporters, and he called 1996 Miss Universe “Miss Piggy” when she gained weight following her pageant win.”
“In spring 1987, Koch was in a loud development feud with Trump, who wanted tax concessions for an Upper West Side project that Koch wouldn’t give, according to an archived story in New York magazine.
Trump called the mayor a “moron,” and said, “the city under Ed Koch is a disaster,” while Koch said, “If Donald Trump is squealing like a stuck pig, I must have done something right,” and called him “greedy, greedy, greedy,” according to the New York Times archives.
Koch also called Trump, “piggy, piggy, piggy,” according to New York Magazine.”
Trump has a thinner skin than a grape.
You have to read between the lines – but I would suggest that you listen to the Oral Arguments on the firing of the FTC commissioner.
One of the CLEAR lines that pretty much ALL of SCOTUS accepted was that constitutionally and by numerous precidents, the criminal investigative and prosecutorial powers are EXCLUSIVELY the presidents.
The Halligan decision will be overturned. It is wrong on the text of the law and if it were not the law would be unconstitutional.
I would further note there is already case law that allows the successive 120 day appointments of US Attorney’s and AUSA’s
Separately – you rant about Halligans qualifications and tjhe alleged incompetence of Trump appointments.
But Halligan succeeded in indicting Comey and James in a very blue district.
Something a supposed carreer Attorney claim was impossible.
The question of Halligans competence for the job is unrelated to the legality of her appointment.
While it may take months before the Halligan appeal is decided,
The issue of her competence was settled by her success in getting a difficult indictment.
Separately Bove has been confirmed by the Senate as a federal Appeals court judge.
John Sauer a Trump appointee to soliciter General has a 25-2 record with cases at the Supreme court and a 22 straight winning streak.
Faced with your MASSIVE lawfare attack – Trump legal appointees are Slowly winning nearly all cases.
Clearly it is the attornies for the left that are incompetent.
There also was an interesting poll recently.
Public support for blowing narco-terrorists to smiterines is significantly higher than Trump’s own approval.
And one recent Poll gave Republicans a 4pt edge on the midterms.
That may be an outlier – but he pols have been notoritiously bad in the past decade.
And often it is the outliers that prove correct.
Ketanji Brown Jackson is clearly intellectually and constitutionally incompetent to be a Supreme Court Justice.
She is, by her actions, which are beyond the pale, an insurrectionist against the U.S. Constitution and America.
Governmental agencies and departments exist under the executive branch.
All constitutional governmental power is in one of the three constitutional branches of government.
Ketanji Brown Jackson must be impeached and convicted.
________________________________________________________________
Merriam-Webster
insurrection
: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Article 1, Section 1
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Article 2, Section 1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Article 3, Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
*. Isn’t that exactly the scenario imposed by the democrats in the coup? Fired and then hired DEI within the judiciary, key hires within bureaucrats, universities, colleges, congress funded by pacs, banks, and other?
KBJ can use her speech to say anything from the bench and elsewhere. She can interpret any way she wants from her platform for a lifetime.
Wait until there are Muslims and Hindus and Atheists interpreting the Constitution. You’ll like that.
Pre- WWII, you’ve waited too long and nations have closed their doors. Patagonia?
“Interpretation” does not exist in the Constitution; the word is nowhere to be found. To the “dictatorship of the juristocracy,” “interpret” equates to amendment. Justice Louis Brandeis et al. “interpreted” the absolute right to private property out of the Constitution and “public welfare” into that document. The sole power of the judicial branch is to judge—to ensure that actions comport with law. The judicial branch enjoys no power to amend the Constitution—but it does so continuously.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Merriam-Webster
judge
verb 1: to form an opinion about through careful weighing of evidence and testing of premises
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
‘”BALANCING PRIVATE RIGHTS WITH PUBLIC WELFARE.”
– The Judicial Branch
________________________
The singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
Rights and freedoms are absolute in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
They are not qualified and are absolute; they are the possessions of American citizens.
The courts have illicitly and antithetically insisted that they have the power to “interpret” law; “interpret” does not exist in the Constitution.
Change is inherent in “interpret,” and the judicial branch has no power to legislate, modify, amend, or modify by “interpretation” fundamental or statutory law.
In the early 20th century, communist justices began “interpreting” private rights, such as the absolute right to private property, to no longer be absolute.
From that point, the Constitution was incrementally nullified by the judicial branch.
The severe limitations and restrictions on government in the enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8, and the absolute 5th Amendment right to private property have been deeply eroded if not completely destroyed.
The communist American welfare state has been illicitly and unconstitutionally established by the judicial branch.
Below, read that justices like Justice Louis Brandeis “emphasized balancing private rights with public welfare.”
That is not dissimilar and is most similar to Karl Marx’s maxim, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”
One of the best examples of the diminution of rights is the decreasing ability of the owner of private property to determine wages, prices, rents, tenants, buyers, customers, services, products, etc.
Another is the corrupt, anti-American, and wholly unconstitutional regulatory state.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
AI Overview
While no single justice definitively declared property rights non-absolute in a famous quote around that time, the evolving understanding, especially with cases like Muller v. Oregon (1908) and New Deal era cases (1930s), saw justices like Justice Louis Brandeis, who often emphasized balancing private rights with public welfare, and Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., who championed judicial restraint and legislative supremacy over economic matters, chipping away at absolute property interpretations in favor of social regulation, though specific quotes on “not absolute” are hard to pinpoint to one person.
^^^ “independent agencies” as kbj suggests do exist and
they are private entities and can be hired, employed. This is what kbj probably meant.
Prevaricate much?
Kbj wants to privatize the departments. Hire as needed.
The biggest failure currently is education. Children should not be forced to attend public schools. IMO
Oh h— yes! That makes perfect sense in “KBJ World.”
The problem here is that America is the “Constitution World.”
Donald Trump and his oligarchs are working to privatize. This is the goal – to take public education money and give it to Christian nationalist indoctrination schools that won’t allow the undesirables enter. To gut the United States Postal Service and give the retirement fund to the highest-bidding billionaire before shutting it down completely. To remove all restrictions on quack medicine and undermine the ability for most people to afford medical care. Recall that Trump has a concept of a plan, a concept as yet unshared, for the replacement of the ACA?
My, my, my, you’ve worked yourself up into a real lather, haven’t you? You sound like little Chicken Sh*t, oh the sky is falling in! All based on the opinion pages of the Woke media, eh?
Take two aspirin and come back tomorrow.
KJB still hasn’t gotten that she was put in this position because it was assumed SHE would be an expert.
It’s the highest court, the highest, the authority! and she wants to put off her decisions onto experts??
Is this some kind of joke?
The entire left does not grasp that there is no successful technocracy anywhere in the world ever.
There is no doubt that experts are valuable,
But everywhere and in everything final decisions are Always made by others – usually NOT experts – atleast not in the specific domains of technical decisions.
At the top of nearly every decision tree – is a Generalist. Someone usually very knowledgeable about many things – but rarely expert in one field.
People who listen to the domain expertise of many people and make decisions that involve MULTIPLE domains – not merely a single one.
Even assuming that the public health experts got their opinions on Covid perfectly correct,
They are NOT expert in the impact of their decision on the economy, on mental health on national security, on things beyond public health.
It is virtually never the case that what needs to be done is dictated by expertise in a single domain.
We do not just do what the experts tell us – because no one is an “expert in everything”.
It is the people like parents, business owners, entrepeneurs, CEO’s Mayors, Governors, Presidents. that have the job of consulting all the experts and making final decisions.
The other problem with rule by technocracy is that, how do you know the experts are benign? The same could be said of politicians, but they are accountable to the voting public at the ballot box, which is the final check on pernicious leadership. With rule by expert, that check goes away, in which case you’d rather them not have expertise since their knowledge can be being used against you.
“Rule by technocracy” is unconstitutional, as all agencies and departments exist in the executive branch, of which all power “is vested in a president of the United States” exclusively.
How do you know that any one is benign?
Those experts in government aren’t unreachable. This is the function of Congress, to oversee the Executive Branch. They can write a law that eliminates funding and can override a veto if it matters. With rule by a Presidential idiot there are far greater problems to overcome.
You’ve heard the joke “I spent 20 years studying microbiology just so I could get a yokel to wash their hands.” That’s the knowledge that’s being used against you. Asking that you wash your hands.
Every economic expert said that tariffs were a terrible tool to just unleash on every other country and every product and now we have Trump giving socialist payouts to farmers who lost business because of the predicted backlash. Trump doesn’t listen to the experts who are making America better; he’s listening to the ones who make Trump wealthier.
The only thing voters really get is a 4 year lock-in and no guarantee that in that 4 years the President will do anything they asked for. So far – Trump has done nothing that people asked for. He is notably slacking at removing the violent immigrants, with very few exceptions costs of everything have continued to rise, and nothing has been done to deal with health costs and availability. Oh, right, same as his first term.
This is especially true when there cannot be another term, which is why Trump is now gutting the majority of the Federal government that works to help the lower and middle class and passing the savings right to the oligarchs that supported his campaign.
Thank goodness RFK Jr got ride of the experts at CDC and FDA. Who needs an education to realize that vaccines kill people? Facts be damed, let em die from Measels.
There has never been a successful system of government in any civilization. They have all failed eventually and there is no expectation that any current one will not also fall.
There have never been any final decisions. Some last longer than others, but all are fleeting.
At the outbreak of the COVID pandemic, when the techologists were saying “Stay separated, minimize contact, slow the spread by wearing masks to decrease the effective radius,” then the “final decision” was made by Trump telling his followers to ignore all of those and to crowd together and pray because God would save them and, in doing so, to spread it to the sane people and ultimately killed more than a million Americans.
He wanted to keep the economy open while people were dying, 25,000 a month or more, so he could claim success on the heaps of the dead.
Yes, it’s evident she’s not up to the task.
There’s corruption galore and if privatized the entities will take payola.
What’s the text on these jobs? 4 years but shall not be less than 4 years? No it isn’t. Then they can be fired or privatized and done when the consult is done. Universities receive money, consult them.
Hochul is packing the jobs in NY before she’s fired. They’re claiming territory quite seriously.
It’s truly bizarre. Women have done a face plant.
I don’t know how Justice Jackson can have any knowledge of “real-world consequences”, since she does not sound or appear to live in the “real world”, but one of her own making or wishful thinking.
ok Karen. wait, who does Harlan crow lavish with gifts and trips and who knows what else? totally real world
Clarence Thomas was born in a small wooden Shack in poverty in Georgia in 1948.
He has lived in a Real World that Jackson and you are completely clueless about.
And? he moved out when? worked and lived where? and how long? Tell me about his real world life style?
Many of your questions are answered in the documentary, Created Equal: Clarence Thomas in his Own Words.
I’ve seen it and it is quite good. It is basically his life story. Fascinating.
Maybe you don’t know this, but her father was a lawyer for the school district in miami and mom was a principal. I’d say comfortable, but I think anybody would cosider that real world. Would you consider being lavished with gifts by billionaires “real world”?
So, you’re saying, “They have went to colage?”
Quiet, Quiet Piggy.
For more than 125 years and counting we have been predominantly governed by “experts” supposedly better equipped than our elected representatives to determine what is best for us. It is a principle that lies at the heart of the 20th Century left-leaning political philosophy that came to be defined as “progressivism.” The problem with that axiom has always been: Who are to be the “experts” relied upon? Will it be those who are free from political passions, impartial, and unbiased in providing expertise to lawmakers, or those who are merely influencers of power exerting dominance over political processes?
As an unconditional “progressive”, Ketanji Brown Jackson is very much committed to preserving and protecting the Administrative State from the constraints of the Constitution. Just one among many others who have followed in the footsteps of Thomas Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Lyndon Baines Johnson not so much as to preserve the Constitution, but rather to displace it.
right thank goodness for fdr, LBJ and Wilson’s wife (19th Amendemnt). cause that ahole was immoble from a stoke and woulda never passed the 19th
There were prior posts which brought the Fed into the conversation:
From: https://www.federalreservehistory.org/…. ‘The Treasury-Fed Accord’ {Independence and insulation from political pressures are essential to the ability of a nation’s central bank to conduct monetary policy….}.
The Accord was the foundation of the modern feds independence separating governmental debt management from monetary policy.
President Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act December 1913; the act created a Federal Reserve Board to oversee the Federal Reserve System of up to twelve banks. The board would consist of two ex officio members (secretary of treasury and controller of currency) and five members appointed by the president. There have been subsequent laws since inception, but I’m certain nowhere can be found the removal of the president’s rights as the executive to appoint or remove members from the board they have appointed (recognizing the Presidency, not the partisan).
On to independence of the Fed, if you think the fed is independent of political ideology, either left or right matters not, then I got a $3 bill I’ll sell you for a steep discount of $1.5, just think you’ll make a bundle and control inflation at the same time. Just to CMA that’s a joke. The Fed and the Executive got together during WWII and came to an understanding about the fed’s rate keeping it in the 2.5% range, now the president has little control at this critical period where debt is approaching catastrophic proportions to GDP, and the remedy being proposed by President Trump is being stymied by the Federal Reserve obstinacy of their rate.
We can debate whether the Fed is effective – it is not, it has done no better than what preceded it – arguably worse.
The core question that we are dancing at the edged of in this case is, whether the fed is constitutional.
That is much easier – no it is not.
All of Jackson and others claims – even if true are irrelevant. The creation of the Federal Reserve as it exists today required amending the constitution.
The constitutional alternative is that their “independence” is myth or tradition, and these commissions are subject to direction and firing by the president. If that gives the president too much power – then congress can limit that power or terminate these commissions.
Congress may not tax for or fund banking or financial enterprises, and Congress enjoys no enumerated power to regulate the banking industry.
The Federal Reserve Act is less constitutional and more unconstitutional than the relevant portion of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that was struck down by Marbury v. Madison.
Please cite Article 1, Section 8, or any other locus in the Constitution, for any power to regulate banking or enact a Federal Reserve Act.
For God’s sake – stop putting women in judgeships, and in particular on the Supreme Court! They are not wired for logic, only emotion. Logic and the law be damned.
Women are in fact more wired for logic, not less.
Rabble:
Ah yes, the logic of “You cheated on me in my dream; you must apologize.” That’s why we have so many good examples of prehistoric hunter/gather groups, all the way to modern days, of having women leading the charge, the hunt, and technological innovation. Like, uh… um… #MeToo?
“Among adults, males have slightly higher verbal and reasoning abilities than females and a more pronounced superiority on spatial abilities. If the three abilities are combined to form general intelligence, the mean for males is 4 IQ points higher than the mean for females.”
This approximately means that if you pick a man and a women at random 48 times out of 100 the woman will be more intelligent and 52 times the man will.
However those differences are amplified at the tails. If you take the top 10% of humans by intelligence – more than 75% of them will be males.
Just to be clear – that is NOT opinion it is fact.
You can work it out quite simply.
Draw a bell curve for the distribution of intelligence in women.
Move 4 pts to the right and draw the same curve for men.
Go to the extreme right and work backwards until you have 10% of the area of the two curves.
You will have far more men in the top 10% than women.
This will be true ANY time you have an attribute that distributes on a bell curve and there are small distinctions between different groups.
It is why the overwhelming majority of professional athletes are black as an example.
Blacks are not massively better than whites overall. But small differences at the media become massive differences i the extremes.
Great idea !!!
While we are at it we should get rid of the 19th amendment.
Why should women be allowed to vote ???
We also need to repeal the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974.
We need to get back to the good old days when women were not allowed to have their own bank accounts or credit cards or take out loans.
What makes these pesky women think they have any rights at all.
By the way, I assume you are an incel.
Repeal Karl Marx’s “Reconstruction Amendments.”
Repeal America all the way back to the Constitution and Bill of Rights of 1789.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
“The workingmen of Europe…consider…that it fell to…Abraham Lincoln…to lead his country through the…”RECONSTRUCTION OF A SOCIAL WORLD.”
– Letter to Lincoln, Karl Marx, 1865
_______________________________________
“If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher.”
– Abraham Lincoln, Lyceum Address, 1838
_______________________________________________
Abraham Lincoln was the author and finisher.
Abraham Lincoln was the author of America’s destruction and Karl Marx’s communist “Reconstruction.”
Yea lets get back to the 13 states at the start, real America. All these problems come from you foreigners joining our country.
My ancestors initially arrived in America in 1607.
The prime illicit foreigners were deployed as a foreign standing army on U.S. soil on January 1, 1863, when American immigration law evidently denied them admission to become citizens, which, ultimately, required their compassionate repatriation.
In a society of laws, the laws must be strictly adhered to.
Archie has the answer to your questions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxL23b1zeQo&t=1s
https://genius.com/The-grateful-dead-women-are-smarter-lyrics
There are women with amazingly logical minds: Heather MacDonald, Naomi Wolf, Carol Swain, Maria Bartiromo, Kim Strassel, Kari Lake, to name a few of the most prominent and illustrious, currently.
Your insults are better aimed at PROGRESSIVE women, who evidence everything from clinical depression to outright mental-illness, to violent virtue signaling and incivility (remember the mask-maniacs who openly slapped people in public for not “complying’).
Logic, you say?
Men endeavor.
Women make the men who endeavor.
Or not.
The American fertility rate is in a “death spiral,” which means that America is in a “death spiral.”
Do women have any duty to a country?
While Professor Turley focused on Jackson he ignored Sotomayor who pointed out a significant problem if the court grants Trump more power. By overruling Humphrey they will give Trump the ability to go beyond the law and that caught the attention of many in the courtroom while Sauer tried to be dismissive of the notion. She was not wrong given Trumps penchant to dictate everything and his obsession to control the Federal Reserve especially. Even the consevvatives on the bench are wary of giving Trump that ability and why they are willing to apply a double standard with independent agencies. The court is going to make a mess by ruling in Trump’s favor.
“By overruling Humphrey they will give Trump the ability to go beyond the law”
Because magic ?
Regardless of how this case is decided – the law will still apply.
What will be restored if Humphries executor is overruled is the unconstitutional nonsense that we can create these hybrid agencies that are not really answerable to anyone.
With respect to Jackson’s arguments – regardless of the outcome of this case Congress has always been free to conduct oversight,
and always free to impose constraints on executive agencies whose excercise of congressionally delegated powers it is unhappy with.
Congress is also always free to rescind the delegation of legislative power from the executive.
Jackson’s observations about what Congress did, establish that congress is only impotent if it chooses to be.
Reversing Humphies executor will not change that.
(John, you might want to look at your third sentence….) lin.
I am not sure what you are refering to, but if you think I have made an error, either accidentally saying something I did not intend, or that I am just wrong.
Please correct me.
You have established a reputation here as an honest and thoughtful poster.
Whether I always agree with you or not.
No two people agree on everything.
But those like you who express yourself honestly have my respect.
Hey, thanks for responding, John Say.
I do not know what you intended to say, but this is what you did say:
“…if Humphries executor is overruled, “the unconstitutional nonsense that we can create these hybrid agencies that are not really answerable to anyone…will be restored.”
Is that what you are saying?
Lin – I think he meant to say if Humphries Executor is *not* overruled.
Thank you. You are correct – what I intended was the unconstitutional nonsense will be ended and constitutional governance restored.
The core problem with ALL of Judge Jackson’s remarks – and Sotomayor’s and this “Reality” argument, and ALL arguments claiming that commisions of independent experts is a good idea and what congress intended is that even if true – THAT DOES NOT MATTER.
It is not the role of the courts – to decide whether the decisions of congress or the president are wise.
It is to decide whether they are constitutional.
Jackson, Sotomayor, and congress can have these “independent commissions” and the FED as they are by amending the constitution.
While that process is simple, it is also difficult to get the required number of congressmen and state legislatures to agree to make changes to the constitution.
But if Jackson etc are truly correct – that is what MUST be done.
We can not change the constitution by either congressional or judicial fiat.
Personally I think this concept of independence within the executive it idiocy.
There is no amount of education and no experience, no intelligence that will result in people who are not accountable for their decisions making good decisions. We got an absolutely fantastic lesson in that with Covid – the experts in government public health – well educated, intelligent, and experienced still managed to get pretty close to EVERYTHING wrong.
This is NOT an anomaly – it is what happens when there is not personal cost to discipline decisions.
One of the reasons that Comey, Fauxi and others must be prosecuted – even if not convicted is to make it clear their are consequences for lying to congress.
The driving force of the free market that makes it better than anything else is that if you make good decisions – you benefit personally, if you make bad ones you pay a cost personally.
The cost need not be extreme – just enough to overcome the moral hazard that occurs when bad decisions have little or no cost.
Regardless of my personal views – which are arguably dictated by ACTUAL reality – not whatever Jackson sees.
We are as a country free to govern ourselves as well or badly as we choose.
But structural changes to our government can only be accomplished by amending the constitution.
Our constitution is NOT unarguably the perfect govenrment. But it is what we have chosen, and it must be followed until we choose differently.
Changing it is hard – because structural changes to almost anything ARE always hard.
That is how it should be.
The debate over whether Trump or some other president gets too much power – which I think is absolutely correct, is also irrelevant.
The excess power in the presidency was delegated to it by congress. Congress can take it back. It can do so without changing the constitution.
But these “independent commissions” are NOT constitutional.
If that is what we truly want – we must amend the constitution.
If that is what congress intended – they should have proposed a constitutional amendment.
Sotomayor made the very same arguments as Jackson, though perhaps, not sounding as bad in the execution of her comments and questions for U.S. Solicitor General Sauer. — We really ought to put Sotomayor’s feet to the fire more often.
Granting presidents more power over the Federal reserve will be disastrous.
Leaving the Federal reserve alone has proven disastrous.
The frequency of recessions since the advent of the Fed has been slightly lower.
But the worst depression in US history and the worst recession in US history both came under the FED’s watch.
Further in the about 130 years that we had no federal reserve – the US experiences mild deflation – and that is GOOD.
In the 110 years singe the creation of the federal reserve we have had mild inflation all the time and significant inflation often.
And that is BAD.
We are NOT going to abolish the FED. But the EVIDENCE is that we should.
The FED has done worse accross its history than the mess where congress and the treasury controlled money supply.
There are better ways to control money supply – but neither the courts nor congress are going to choose them.
Federal agencies and departments are part and parcel of the exercise of executive power.
The executive power is vested in a president of the United States, exclusively and completely.
Congress enjoys no enumerated power to regulate the banking industry.
The Federal Reserve Act is more unconstitutional than the relevant portion of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that was struck down by Marbury v. Madison.
John Say, the Fed was created by Congress as it’s within its power to do so. There is no need to create a constitutional amendment for it to exist.
The reason why it exists is because prior to its existence. Banks were a hodgepodge of independent organizations. Your free market ideal. However the panic of 1907 and prior financial catastrophes seem to be an example of the free market. Not working as you would expect. The fed was created to ensure financial stability and ensure monetary elasticity. Something not possible with the free market idea. That’s why even SCOTUS recognizes that allowing Trump to fully control it would be a disaster.
Please cite the Constitution for any power of Congress to regulate the banking industry.
Of course, you cannot because the Constitution enumerates no power to Congress to regulate the banking industry.
“The fed was created to ensure financial stability . . .”
You’re either grossly ignorant or, yet again, pathologically dishonest.
What catastrophic financial collapse came shortly *after* the creation of the Fed?
What Jackson is absolutely wrong about – both constitutionally and with respect to reality, is that
The constitution does NOT have some special provision granting independent power to so called experts.
In reality the track record of public experts is abysmal – WORSE than politicians.
There is this delusion on the left that education alone makes people better able to make decisions – especially regarding the lives of others.
Education is a contributing factor to making wise decisions. Actual experience is also a factor. But the most critical factor is being subject to the consequences of the decisions you make.
Restoring the presidents power to fire so called “public experts” restores their accountability and incentivizes them to make better decisions.
You rant over the fear that Trump will make bad decisions – and he may – all people, all presidents, all experts make bad decisions on occasion.
Politicians are generally accountable to voters – while so called public experts are not.
But high profile politicians – and particularly presidents are accountable to history.
As even YOU note – Trump is an incredible egotist.
He desperately wants to be remembered. He desperately wants to disprove YOUR assessment of him.
The way to do that is to SUCCEED.
MAGA is more than a slogan – it is what Trump sees as his identity. He sees himself as the person who is Making America Great Again.
79 year old Billionaires are not striving to “get even richer” – If Trump spent a million dollars a day he would likely die with billions left.
Trump is more ambitious than most presidents. but ALL presidents seek to be remembered.
And they do not wish to be remembered as villains or failures.
Read the federalist papers – the design of the constitution is to pit ambition against ambition. It is to harness ambition to serve the interests of the people.
John Say,
Great comment.
UF – thank you.
There is alot I like about our constitution.
There are things I do not like.
Absent the history of the past 110 years you MIGHT have been able to convince me in 1916 that the Federal Reserve was a good idea.
It is NOT all that different from what preceded it. Before the Fed, Congress and treassury decided US monetary policy – usually badly, and the wealthiest of americans and their banks bailed everything out when things went to h311.
This worked – and while the uber wealthy took huge risks bailing out the country – often betting the entirety of their personal fortunes to “save the nation” they also profited imensely – because they were inherently buying low and selling high when they did.
Besent has argued the same thing with respect to securing the Argentine Peso.
Argentina has actually defaulted twice. Despite that Argentines creditors have ALWAYS been repaid.
Turns out that even nations can not just walk away from their debts without consequence.
The US did not give argentina $20B – we invested $20B in argentia and there is virtually no way that we do not significantly benefit from that investment.
The current Fed is a strange quasi independent public private partnership. Most forget that The Federal Reserve is a PRIVATE Bank That the US government controls half the board members of. Fannie and Freddie are setup much the same way.
Nothing in the constitution allows that. But if that is truly what we want, we can amend the constitution to allow it.
NO GIRLS ALLOWED
Please, PT, Clearly give the case referenced in the opening- this is Trump v. Slaughter! It is not NREC V. FEC.
Thank you
^^^ In defense of kbj she has said what her role is on the court is as a speaker and the court is her platform. Dried husk of Humphries might well be used by jackson as the dried husk of the white man’s Constitution.
Has she broken an oath?
As with most Democrats these days, she does not really believe in the system and wants to fundamentally change it.
Did you just make the case for a a personal dais, a soapbox court, a pulpit for race baiting, ? No oath needs to be broken to reveal KJB’s insubstantiality.
The conservatives are creating a double standard that will certainly will certainly be used to go ahead and fire Federal reserve members. Becuase the the Fed’s independence relies specifically on the protections of the Humphrey decision. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Trump administration decides to start firing Fed reserve board members once the Court issues it’s ruling later in the year.
GREAT!
The Liberals are creating a double standard
_______________________________
Like what a women is.
X, you need to keep up. The subject is KJB: Moron or evil? Discuss.
“The conservatives are creating a double standard”
No they are ending an unconstitutional double standard and an unconstitutional experiment that failed.
” that will certainly will certainly be used to go ahead and fire Federal reserve members.”
Yes – that is the point. Those with power in government MUST be truly answerable.
Members of the executive are answerable to the president.
The president is answerable to the congress, the public and history.
“Becuase the the Fed’s independence relies specifically on the protections of the Humphrey decision.”
The FED should not exist.
You rant about the Feds independence – yet here we have the monetary policy of the United states placed in the hands of so called experts – whose track record is WORSE than that of congress and the treasury in the 130 years the US operated without a federal reserve, so called experts who are accountable to no one. That has not worked out that well.
The worse depression in US history – was caused by the FED. the worst recession in US history – was cased by the FED.
The FED is directly responsible for the inflation during the Biden administration by printing the money that enabled Biden’s profligate spending.
No where in the constitution is there a 4th branch of government. There are 3 independent branchs – each with some over site over the other.
There is no independent Federal Reserve, no independent FEC, there is nothing that is independent of the 3 branches of govenrment anywhere in the constitution.
” I wouldn’t be surprised if the Trump administration decides to start firing Fed reserve board members once the Court issues it’s ruling later in the year.”
Probably. So what ?
The political structure of Communism starts with a Central Committee, which make collective decisions. There are variant paths to a decision, as exampled in China: CCP Politburo Standing Committee and the CCP Politburo, direct the CCP Central Committee and the CCP Secretariat who then direct lower departments.
The Democrats crawl towards Socialism (i.e. Communism) has become mainstream in the parties’ everyday utterances. They have become so brazen they have elected a self-professed Social-Communist to lead the Financial Capital of the World: NEW YORK CITY.
Trump and the MAGA mob is constantly whining about China ripping off the US and stealing our technology.
Yesterday, Trump approved the sale of Nvidia H200 AI chips to China. These chips are far superior to anything China has been able to produce.
What do you think they will do with these chips ????
Obviously they will deconstruct them and copy them.
So, who exactly is at fault here for facilitating China’s “theft” of our technology ????
Of course, you could also say that if Trump gives away our technology, then how can it be theft.
Trump is the prime instigator of the problem he is whining about.
Let me guess…you are a globalist…but only if it suits your argument…I got that right?
You are adept at shooting yourself in the foot. Your own comment, “These chips are far superior to anything China has been able to produce,” tells me how naive you are. YOU have NO idea what new chip technology is capable of, including tracking, translating and data-penetrating capabilities, notwithstanding new anti-hack and anti-destruction improvements.
Just like selling your horse and buggy when gas-powered cars came out, or selling your old clunky stoves when microwaves came out. Making a few bucks (or a few $billion) on obsolete technology is fair game, isn’t it?
You should learn the monenclature of the chips offered and the ones not, before making such a statement.
Try being pro-se before The Honorable Crook, Liar and Hypocrite, Juan R Sanchez, fortunately retired Eastern District of Pennsylvania, completely incompetent “judge” who played games with laws he didn’t understand, but made sure you got screwed.
The Mob dons black nightgowns these days, never fires a shot, yet pump billions into the pocket books of their lawyer peers who got them “elected” into their capo duties.
We are in deep trouble