Supreme Court Allows Trump to Fire Remaining Democrat On FTC (npr.org) 180
The Supreme Court has temporarily allowed President Trump to fire Rebecca Slaughter, the last Democrat on the FTC. "The court's action is technically temporary, since the justices said they will hear arguments in the case in December, but every indication is that the conservative court majority will use the case to reverse a major Supreme Court precedent that dates back almost a century," reports NPR. From the report: Congress created the FTC and lots of other agencies to be multi-member, bipartisan regulatory agencies. And the Supreme Court in 1935 upheld those statutes ruling ruled against then-President Franklin D. Roosevelt's claim that he could fire FTC commissioners at will. In a unanimous opinion at the time, the court said Congress acted within its powers in declaring that a commissioner could only be fired for misconduct -- not for a policy disagreement. But now, prodded by President Trump, the court's six-member conservative majority seems poised to remake the way independent agencies operate. And if the handwriting on the wall is as clear as it seems to be, the independent agencies won't be independent. Their membership will be subject to the will of the president.
The court's action Monday was hardly subtle. While the lower courts had ruled that the president could not fire Slaughter, under the court's 1935 precedent, the conservative Supreme Court majority allowed the president to fire her. Indeed, her name isn't even on the FTC website anymore. And the court so far has allowed Trump to fire other agency board members. In short, the justices are not playing hide-the-ball. And it's a good bet that the court will reverse the 1935 precedent, which until now had been reaffirmed multiple times. The result will be that whereas in the past, these agencies had to be bipartisan, with a minority of opposition party members, now there will be no such requirement. In short, Trump can name all the agency members. And if his successor is a Democrat, he or she can fire all the Republicans.
The court's action Monday was hardly subtle. While the lower courts had ruled that the president could not fire Slaughter, under the court's 1935 precedent, the conservative Supreme Court majority allowed the president to fire her. Indeed, her name isn't even on the FTC website anymore. And the court so far has allowed Trump to fire other agency board members. In short, the justices are not playing hide-the-ball. And it's a good bet that the court will reverse the 1935 precedent, which until now had been reaffirmed multiple times. The result will be that whereas in the past, these agencies had to be bipartisan, with a minority of opposition party members, now there will be no such requirement. In short, Trump can name all the agency members. And if his successor is a Democrat, he or she can fire all the Republicans.
Three different reasons this is bad (Score:5, Informative)
There are at least three different reasons this is bad.
First, this is one more sign (of about 15 court cases at this point) that this court is willing to give Trump massive powers simply because he is pushing for them and they agree with him politically. And there's no reason to remotely think he's going to stop.
Second, it means that the Presidency (already an already too powerful office in the modern form for any one person) is going to be even more powerful under for the first time under a far more authoritarian person without any safeguards in place.
Third, is more subtle: even if we get through this with Trump with only some damage, the long-term damage and threat to stability is massive. In general, parliamentary systems or presidential systems with somewhat weak presidencies are more stable than those with powerful presidencies. One sees this in for example the high instability in many presidential republics in Central America and South America. The standard explanation for this is that when there's functionally a winner-take-all system, the stakes becoming higher and the degree to which any side has an incentive to moderate becomes small. One question then is why this hasn't happened in the US? One explanation is that the US had the illusion of a not deeply strong President, in part because everyone (including the Presidents) agreed tacitly not to push the limits of their authority that much. The precedent breaking nature here undermines that illusion, and makes it more likely that we'll have years (possibly decades) where the Democrats and Republicans will even more than usual treat everything as a zero sum game with no respects for democratic norms.
The bottom line is that everything about this is bad.
Re:Three different reasons this is bad (Score:5, Insightful)
It is not lost on me that during the Biden and Obama administrations the supreme court tended towards limiting Executive power, then during the trump administrations have leant towards a massive expansion of them.
When sane government eventually returns i think it would be prudent for congress to actually set out some clear boundaries as to executive power, and work towards a separation of public service from executive power. Because this is all bullshit. In MOST countries while there will be ministers in charge of things, government departments will tend to hire independently of politics so as to remain strictly neutral. The government wins by a strengthening of democratic norms, and the people win by having a government that isnt tied up with shit politics.
And the supreme court needs to fuck off with this partisan judge bullshit. Again, this "democrat" or "republican" judge thing is another american special and boy is it an error. Judges should be impartial interpreters of the laws and constitutions, not the corrupt activists dominating the supreme court right now.
Re:Three different reasons this is bad (Score:4, Insightful)
When sane government eventually returns
Ah, you dewy eyed optimist . . .
I'm really afraid that this is the beginning of the end of the 250 year experiment. Oh, well, we had a pretty good run.
Re:Three different reasons this is bad (Score:5, Insightful)
It has already failed. People just refuse to see the truth. The voters are incompetent and corrupt so they get the government that reflects them. It's that simple.
Can it revert to functioning again? Possible but unlikely. Rome died over 300+ years. They don't die instantly.
NOTE- most Americans won't realize until it's so bad they can't deny it and some will never get it even if he does Musk's Nazi Salute because they are still in denial over that.
Modern despotism has a fake democratic element so the lower third of the bell curve don't participate in any resistance or help defend the despotic "democracy."
Re: (Score:3)
The voters are incompetent and corrupt so they get the government that reflects them. It's that simple.
No, really; Fuck you.
This was all planned and effected over a 70 year span. Some people in the 1950s recognized the 'baby boom' and how that could be taken advantage of. Well, they did take advantage and the 'boomers' were the first and primary victims. Now that they have been stripped of their wealth (and many just dead), there is little left for their children and grandchildren.
You can not expect undirected groups to succeed against the machinations of a concentrated and intentional push over time by a gr
Re: (Score:3)
undirected groups
Thus the destruction of the 'free press' in favor of the 'corporate media'. Where once every small town had its own newspaper, television station, and radio broadcaster owned and managed by local people, and larger towns had multiples of each, people managed to stay fairly well informed. Now 4 international media conglomerates own around 90% of all of it, and most of the new Internet media as well, so unless one is willing to put a fairly large amount of time into it staying even minimally informed is alm
Re: (Score:3)
Spot on ...
And even when Rome became a empire, with full autocratic rule, the motto SPQR (Senatus Populusque Romanus, "[For
Re: (Score:3)
Modern despotism has a fake democratic element so the lower third of the bell curve don't participate in any resistance or help defend the despotic "democracy."
There's more to it than that. The US also has a weird mix of social values that purport to be "Christian" and politics, which canny politicians can exploit with only the most hollow of gestures. Post a photo of Trump holding up a bible, and half of the south are convinced he's a devout family man sent to them by God. The willful blindness is just distressing to any rational observer.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I know you had a civil war, but was it really? (Score:2)
You weren't "United" at that point? There was a union and a confederacy, effectively two countries? It was not citizens of the same country fighting?
We Brits had a proper Civil war. We lopped a king's head off. His son, who got asked back later and fcuk knows why, dug up the man that did it, Cromwell, and dragged his corpse around London before executing it again.
Come on American cousins, keep up. Your levels of brutality are lacking.
Re:Three different reasons this is bad (Score:5, Insightful)
It is not lost on me that during the Biden and Obama administrations the supreme court tended towards limiting Executive power, then during the trump administrations have leant towards a massive expansion of them.
Trump has been batting 1000 at the Supreme Court when it comes to executive power, or executive immunity. Either our Constitution was designed to have an elected King, and we only discovered that fact 230 years later, or our Supreme Court is supremely corrupt. I tend to believe the latter, as it seems there are only two rules at the Supreme Court: (1) There are no rules, and (2) Trump always wins.
Re: (Score:2)
A king doesn't have to be a dictator, look at the current European kings
Re:Three different reasons this is bad (Score:5, Informative)
After WW1, the kings and queens in Europe saw their political power greatly reduced, and by the end of WW2 the few monarchies that survived had their monarchs limited to ceremonial duties, with real political authority being wielded by the countryâ(TM)s equivalent of a prime minister. The exceptions are microstates - Liechtenstein, Monaco, Vatican - the last one the only absolute monarchy left in Europe.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a wonderful movie about that. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0... [imdb.com]
I suggest everyone watch it.
Re: (Score:2)
The constitution wasn't designed not to have an elected King, since there don't seem to be any functional systems for preventing it. This might be a byproduct of it being designed to maintain the balance of power in favor of white male landowners.
Re: (Score:2)
When you are right you are right. Like usual, if you read the Constitution you find out that these "Stand Alone" agencies likely aren't Constitutional! What you say? Well there are just 3 parts of the government defined - you won't find those agencies described or the mechanisms Congress created in the Constitution if you go look. So they have to exist SOMEWHEE within one of the three branches. If the President is the on that gets to nominate the "principal officers" that are the folks that run these agen
Re: (Score:2)
If it's that simple, why did SCOTUS create an exception for the Federal Reserve?
Re: (Score:2)
why did SCOTUS create an exception for the Federal Reserve?
Fear of bullets. Anyone time someone poses a credible threat to the Federal reserve system, they tend to end up dead!
Re: (Score:2)
good thing we have a convenient conspiracy theory to cover the situation when logic fails.
Re:Three different reasons this is bad (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem is that our government has evolved well beyond what was spelled out in the constitution and said evolution was largely based on gentlemen's agreements and precedent to maintain the spirit of separation of powers. While this is sloppy as fuck what's happening now should not be celebrated. The old agreements and the appreciation of precedent have all gone out the window.
The practical effect of what this ruling does here is it fully politicizes the bureaucracy. Now instead of career bureaucrats that are experts at their job we'll get incompetent political cronies appointed for the duration of a presidency only to be turned over by the other political party when they come to power. It's a recipe for government incompetence.
It is also worrying in the context of the completely unprecedented (at least during peacetime) powers Trump is building up under himself. This along with Congress essential ceding their job to Trump creates very few limits on the presidency when one of the points of our constitution was to prevent such a singular powerful individual in our country.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that our government has evolved well beyond what was spelled out in the constitution and said evolution was largely based on gentlemen's agreements and precedent to maintain the spirit of separation of powers. While this is sloppy as fuck what's happening now should not be celebrated.
I used to agree, but I'm not sure I do now. The world is too complex and there are too many loopholes for laws for this kind of thing to be iron clad. For example, take the Supreme court. In terms of iron clad la
Re: (Score:3)
It's true that explicitly stated rules are not infallible but then again I don't think anything in this world is. That doesn't mean they arent far better then the nebulous shit we had built up. As we are seeing now it is all too easy to tear it all down in a moment and worse still, the people doing it can claim they are playing by the rules even though they are clearly violating the spirit of them.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, I suppose I'm not sure. The UK had a similar system of course. But what I don't know if more robust systems actually do exist. My feeling is that once the country moves towards tearing it all up, actual laws are barely harder than convention.
It's a feeling I have, though, not a fact or anything.
Re:Three different reasons this is bad (Score:5, Interesting)
The thing is, most of the other western powers arent having these problems. Hell, Australias constitution just has a bit of stuff about separation of powers between the states and the feds, some immensely dull nonsense about the political organization of taxes and yeah its all dull procedures. No bill of rights or whatever. THAT part the judges kinda had to fudge by declaring that since it says we are a democracy theres some implied rights to free speech and yeah. But the thing is, it all runs just fine because those boring details in the constitution actually put a bunch of checks and balances in to limit the prime-minister to someone whos answerable to the parliment , the judiciary as being fully impartial, and so on. Even the relationship to the british crown has a check and balance (The prime minister can fire the govenor general, and the govenor general can fire the prime minister [and, as the joke goes, the CIA can fire them both]).
Basically, the US was one of the first modern democracies, so its got a pretty good excuse that theres a lot of flaws in the system. But maybe its time to look around at how other countries do things and plan up a version 2.0 update to the operating system. Because version 1.0 is starting to crash.
Re:Three different reasons this is bad (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it has not "evolved beyond" what is framed in the Constitution. Congress has created the laws and institutions to implement the powers it is given. It's as simple as that. Go read Article I.
Re: (Score:2)
Our government has changed immensely since our founding. If you want to live in denial of that fact that's fine with me.
Re:Three different reasons this is bad (Score:5, Insightful)
The practical effect of what this ruling does here is it fully politicizes the bureaucracy. Now instead of career bureaucrats that are experts at their job we'll get incompetent political cronies appointed for the duration of a presidency only to be turned over by the other political party when they come to power. It's a recipe for government incompetence.
That's the goal. Republicans will prove that government is incompetent, even if it means sabotaging it themselves.
Re: (Score:3)
Okay facist!
Okay idiot!
It is just strait up lying to say the intent was not have the executive chose a staff friendly to him and his agenda, presumably the agenda supported by the majority who elected him/her.
No it's not. It straight up took a supreme court decision to make this change. Try to keep up better with the news.
Progressives had congressional majorities, often significant one for most of the later 20th century, you know that era where modernization started happening far more rapidly and all those "gentleman's agreements" were used to run the country. They certainly could have tried to create some more Amendments and codify those but they did not. It is almost as if these oh so brilliant advisors and minds did not see this coming.
The lack of codification is certainly a problem when dealing with dishonest actors isn't it? Whelp, lesson learned for the Dems I guess. Of course this is exactly what I was getting at.
Elections SHOULD have consequences. People should get what they vote for, that is not compatible with a parochial group of Ivy Grads making all the important policy decisions without any real direct accountability to voters.
Our political system was very specifically designed so as to not have these crazy, rapid changes that Trump is pushing through. The founding fathers very specifically put all sorts of things in place t
Re: (Score:3)
Ha, "autopen". Yeah, you sound super objective with this question starting off with that manufactured nonsense.
As for your question though, did Biden rapidly destabilize the country in one year to the point that we've had multiple political assimilations and even more attempts? No he did not and that alone should make him a better president to any thinking person.
Re: Three different reasons this is bad (Score:3)
Better than the autopenis? Yes. That's not even a question. If he can't find a teenager he'll fuck a flag.
Re:Three different reasons this is bad (Score:4, Insightful)
People should get what they vote for
I voted for USAID. It became the law of the land, through Congress and the process outlined in the constitution.
Donald Trump, in direct violation of the laws of the United States, destroyed it.
A system where the election results of only one office has consequences is both unconstitutional and a recipe for disaster.
Re:Three different reasons this is bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Aside from the constitution being flawed and totally not a religious document as some idiots believe, the Congress is the most powerful branch of government. This co-equal BS is like saying apples and oranges are equal.
The congress writes the laws; which is the greatest power and that is why so many people share that power. The "CEO" only can execute those laws; not rewrite them or interpret them. It's supposed to be a much weaker position and still a design flaw that other governments improved with ministers. The courts settle misinterpretations (2nd most powerful, split over multiple people;) especially, intentionally stupid interpretations - they can't invent new laws. If they do, congress can clarify with new law and if they get ridiculously corrupt, they get fired by congress. If the "CEO" gets out of line, they can fire the president too; being like the board of directors.
The "CEO" doesn't have invented powers beyond the rules or even the policies and it doesn't matter what a corrupt court says because the "board" can fire them all at will with only the "shareholders" to keep them in check at elections... when the system works and the voters are not too gullible. Which they are.
Trump may as well start firing congressional staffers too; since he ignores all the laws anyway. I bet the GOP won't even push back if he fires all their staff...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the Congress is the most powerful branch of government.
It would, and should be; however, money has altered that and granted the sitting president the power of a king. The mechanisms are not perfect yet, so there is some friction, but expect there to be no more friction after the current sitting king is gone. The precedent has been set so the population will allow it.
Re:Three different reasons this is bad (Score:4, Interesting)
I am not a Constitutional scholar... so this is just an amateur reading. The Constitution doesn't say a lot of what a president does, especially with respect to laws passed by Congress.
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America
And the President swears
to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States
The Constitution says that Congress makes laws (and the procedure for passing them or vetoing them, etc.). While this isn't explicit, "protecting and defending the Constitution" would seem to me to include faithfully following the laws duly passed under that Constitution - otherwise what in the world does a law mean and why even bother putting it in the Constitution?
Nothing that I see in the Constitution says the President is able to ignore the law whenever he wants. If a law says you cannot fire for some reason, the President cannot do that. The Supreme Court actually hinted that they believed this to be the case when they made their comments that the Fed might be protected.
The Supreme Court is being sneaky with this one. They aren't saying that the President has the right to do so - just that they won't stop him at the moment. This puts Rebecca Slaughter in an untenable position unless she happens to be wealthy enough to go for years without a salary and simultaneously pay huge legal bills until the court case can be decided. Without someone backing her, she will be forced to find another job and drop the case - rendering it moot. Even if she does prevail in court, the damage is done. Someone else will do her job until all the appeals are exhausted, which may be years from now. Possibly just in time for the next President (especially if a Democrat) to be prohibited from doing so.
As a side note, "the best of my Ability" might be a get-out clause ;)
Re: (Score:2)
...until all the appeals are exhausted, which may be years from now.
This part, at least, shouldn't be true. If I read correctly, the Supreme Court scheduled arguments for December, which means they should publish their decision no later than a few months after that. It's possible that they'll pull some bullshit move like "clarifying" the guidelines from precedent and send the case back to the lower courts, but personally I don't see that as being likely.
Agencies and Commissions (Score:5, Informative)
@stevew:
If you read the Constitution, you will come to the realization that these agencies and commissions are ENTIRELY constitutional. The Necessary and Proper Clause, Article I, Section 8, Clause 18, gives Congress the power to enact all laws necessary to accomplish the tasks assigned to Congress by the Constitution. The commission in question, the FTC, regulates commerce, which is explicitly a power given to Congress in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3. Congress enacted the law that created the FTC and governs how it will be run, the FTC Act in 1914. The Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 created a standalone Federal Trade Commission composed of five commissioners appointed by the President with Senate approval. No more than three commissioners may belong to the same political party, and each serves a seven-year term, with staggered initial terms of three to seven years to ensure continuity. The President designates one commissioner as Chair, and any member may be removed by the President for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance.
So, if in its final decision, the Supreme Court says the President has the power to remove commissioners at will and populate the commission with all Republicans, then they will plainly be telling the President he can violate the law and do as he pleases. You know, like the immunity they gave him months ago. Which of course is completely frakked. My theory is that this is payback for FDR's actions. MAGA is in the process of tearing down the institutions and frameworks that were created and instituted, and the stability and rule of law that helped create the US as the world power it is. We are heading the way of a banana republic, all for short-term gain and the ability to rule over the convulsing corpse that we will become.
Re: (Score:2)
When you are right you are right. Like usual, if you read the Constitution you find out that these "Stand Alone" agencies likely aren't Constitutional! What you say?
IF being standalone isn't constitutional, then they should be dissolved altogether. These are rule making organizations that congress has delegated some of it's legislative power to. Outside of enforcement, they are supposed to be independent. The executive has no constitutional right to rule by fiat.
If that is not possible then they must be disbanded and congress must regulate drugs, trade, radio spectrum, highways, etc. through statute. Of course the country would grind to a halt and all our infrastru
Re: (Score:3)
Take the guns first, go through due process second
-Donald Trump 02/28/2018
https://thehill.com/homenews/a... [thehill.com]
Re:Three different reasons this is bad (Score:5, Insightful)
>>CEASELESS lawfare
translation: attempting to hold trump responsible for all the blatant law-breaking
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
When sane government eventually returns i think it would be prudent for congress to actually set out some clear boundaries as to executive power, and work towards a separation of public service from executive power.
You are describing the conditions that existed from the 1930s until Republicans learned that the powerful can do anything they want when they give up on the core principles of the Constitution. In their minds, the Constitution died in exile on January 20, 2025, and they see the current unfettered and unprincipled Executive as being no worse than the system that made the United States the global leader in . . . almost everything for their entire lifetimes.
Re: (Score:2)
Come on man, Obama did litterally whatever he wanted as far as military force, drone strikes on civilians, health policy, social policy implementation via the DOE, expanded subservience that would have made even Dubya blush, forced mergers of private entities, interference in bond holder credit disputes with automakers, etc.
The Court did nothing to check executive power in the Obama. The ONLY difference was the approach taken at the time. The Court rather than deal with a precedent, just side stepped the
Re: (Score:3)
it would be prudent for congress to actually set out some clear boundaries as to executive power
There's absolutely nothing congress can do about it. That's the whole point of this ruling. The law creating the FTC explicitly says it needs to be bipartisan, and members can only be fired for misconduct. The supreme court has just declared the president can ignore the law and do whatever he wants. If congress passes another law to restrict him, he'll just ignore that one too.
Not even a constitutional amendment would fix it, because the constitution is already totally clear about this:
"[The President]
Well at least... (Score:4, Interesting)
Well at least Kimmel will be coming back, right?
Seriously though, given all the news like this it is nice to see at least somebody defying Trump totalitarianism even if it is something small.
Re: (Score:2)
One question then is why this hasn't happened in the US? One explanation is that the US had the illusion of a not deeply strong President, in part because everyone (including the Presidents) agreed tacitly not to push the limits of their authority that much. The precedent breaking nature here undermines that illusion, and makes it more likely that we'll have years (possibly decades) where the Democrats and Republicans will even more than usual treat everything as a zero sum game with no respects for democratic norms.
Lots of great points. The first thing a D president will do is fire all the R appointees, not just the traditional political appointees who leave when the President does. Then the next R does the same, resulting in a very unstable governance environment that will negatively impact the economy as companies can't plan long term in such a regulatory environment. Then there's the whole "lets get revenge on the other side by prosecuting/investigating them" payback game.
The bottom line is that everything about this is bad.
Very true, but one side is gloating over
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of great points. The first thing a D president will do is fire all the R appointees,
Trump, his enablers, lackeys, funders and the 2025 authors are all betting on there NEVER being another D president.
Re: (Score:2)
even if we get through this with Trump with only some damage
We won't. It is already 'over'. Welcome to the Fascist States of America. Let's see how long that lasts.
To prove it, I will be arrested for this comment at some point in the future. Fascists HATE being called a fascist.
Utter disrespect (Score:5, Insightful)
They will later complain that nobody told them this was going to backfire. They will act like it was a minor thing and try to blame the Democrats for not stopping them. Everything the Republicans, the Heritage foundation and the Federalist society rely on assumes that American Exceptionalism cannot be defeated simply by them completely undermining all the mechanisms that created it.
The American century is over.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They will later complain that nobody told them this was going to backfire. They will act like it was a minor thing and try to blame the Democrats for not stopping them. Everything the Republicans, the Heritage foundation and the Federalist society rely on assumes that American Exceptionalism cannot be defeated simply by them completely undermining all the mechanisms that created it.
The American century is over.
It's almost guaranteed that if there ever is another Democrat administration, they will be stopped at every turn with screams of partisan politics. There's already a flood of messaging on the higher traffic social and political sites stating that everything the Republican party is fucking with is actually "not a both sides issue" with false examples of how the Democrats have done it, or have caused it. My guess is that enough people believe everything they read on these sites that if the bots and repeaters
Re: (Score:2)
I've been grabbed by the dick by women in nightclubs well before Trump was president, but I still haven't grabbed any women by the pussy.
Precedents only matter when SCOTUS says they do (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Precedents only matter when SCOTUS says they do (Score:5, Insightful)
You're assuming that we're able to have another election. Declaring everything is an emergency and putting armed federal troops in cities is totally normal, right?
Re: (Score:2)
It's far worse than that. The news today said his administration is currently drafting new laws to allow him to declare and wage a global war on narco-terrorists. In other words, people anywhere including USA citizens in the USA can be snatched, imprisoned, and/or killed on a whim for anything the executive branch claims is drug related. This is a massive expansion of his current assassination campaign near Venezuela. The law is based on the 9/11 laws, so the people who complained about that slippery sl
Re: Precedents only matter when SCOTUS says they d (Score:2)
Re:Precedents only matter when SCOTUS says they do (Score:4, Insightful)
Bush v Gore was the first time that the Supremes ever included the statement that a judgement of theirs could not be used in the future to establish a precedent for any other case. Of course it was used just that way within two years.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
yeah, that's why SCOTUS was not given Judicial Review powers in the Constitution and just declared fifteen years later that it had that ultimate power "because we have to".
The Legislature is supposed to manage this nonsense. It has been in a coma since 1995.
Re: (Score:2)
I would argue the coma started during the Wilson Administration.
Re: (Score:3)
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States
If there is no Judicial oversight of laws passed, what is the value of having a Constitution? It would mean it could be ignored at will by Congress with the agreement of the President. Take, for example, a law that allocates electoral votes only to states that voted for Trump. What would stop the current Congress and President from doing this if not the courts?
The Supreme Court did this because they did indeed have to do so. The wording of "all Cases ... arising under this Constitution" seems to give them t
Re: (Score:2)
If there is no Judicial oversight of laws passed, what is the value of having a Constitution? It would mean it could be ignored at will by Congress with the agreement of the President.
It can, and has been in the past, cf Andrew Jackson. This is why the court always pussy foots around matters of "national security", e.g. torture at gitmo, extraordinary rendition, mass wire tapping, etc. There is a tacit understanding between the court and the executive. There are certain things the court refuses to rule on because the executive will just ignore them and undermine their authority if it does so.
Re:Precedents only matter when SCOTUS says they do (Score:4, Funny)
If a Dem gets into office, he should immediately fire all Republicans in every agency, jail the supreme court members, after a trial of course - and then designate the Republican party as a terroirist organization.
Re: (Score:3)
The Republicans aren't conservative in any sensible meaning of the word. They are radicals. The Democrats are far more conservative than the Republicans these days.
Shocked! (Score:5, Funny)
You're telling me a court that he filled with stooges gives him favorable judgements!
This ts the most partisan, (Score:5, Insightful)
activist court in American history. The conservative judges are a disgrace and should be impeached.
Re:This ts the most partisan, (Score:4, Insightful)
There aren't any that aren't conservative, there's just moderate conservatives, far right wingnut conservatives, and the batshit loonies.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh look, another American who claims to be left and who then explains that they accept right wing media narratives by default.
Maybe like... gosh I dont' know. Listen to news that isn't American. Stop thinking that making assertions about your self image is all you need to do to have other people identify you as something you gosh darn little sealion.
Re:This ts the most partisan, (Score:4, Insightful)
Ronald Reagan is a "leftist woketard" in today's climate. Would you like to discuss it further?
Re:This ts the most partisan, (Score:4, Insightful)
Richard Nixon would have been too liberal to get even the Democratic nomination today.
Re: (Score:3)
First they came... (Score:5, Informative)
First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me
^^^Re:First they came... This IS NOT Funny (Score:3)
This poem is named "First they came" is about the Holocaust [wikipedia.org] and how the Nazi's came for and arrested various subgroups until no one was safe from them including members of the so called master race. [youtube.com]
Yes, it does sound like exactly what Trump is doing. Just change the subgroups.
The author, Martin Niemöller was a German Lutheran pastor and theologian born in Lippstadt, Germany, in 1892. Niemöller was initially an anti-Communist, anti-semite and supported Adolf Hitler. But when Hitler rose to power an
Holy fucking shit (Score:5, Informative)
I don't have anything funny or insightful to say here just fuck.
This isn't reversing a precedent this is a fundamental breakdown in the rule of law. Barring a miracle our Republic is dead and Trump voters killed it.
I hope whatever the fuck you think you got from Trump was worth it.
Re: (Score:2)
This is just flat out illegal. This is literally not what the law says. This is a flat-out constitutional crisis people. Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck. I don't have anything funny or insightful to say here just fuck. This isn't reversing a precedent this is a fundamental breakdown in the rule of law. Barring a miracle our Republic is dead and Trump voters killed it. I hope whatever the fuck you think you got from Trump was worth it.
The goal was created, and now has been reached. And the folks who voted for him believe him a savior. I'm not sure what he's saving us from. Sanity? Reason? Rule of law? He declares everything an emergency so he can escalate his powers and his followers cheer. Meanwhile, the rest of us, even those of us who have traditionally been sickened by the idiocy of the Democrats, are left wondering what the hell kind of drugs leads to this level of duplicity being praised as god-like. Everyone knew Trump as a crook
Re: (Score:3)
No, you gave us a king.
The American presidency was never supposed to be like this.
Re: (Score:3)
And how is breaking the black-letter law "restoring democracy" ?
You're going to have to show your work on that.
Trump voters are just the latest suckers. (Score:3)
And their usefulness is fading with each passing day. Back just after WW2 this game was well known:
Don't be a sucker. [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Let's see... (Score:5, Insightful)
...where we're at so far:
- Direct attacks on the scientific, intellectual and artistic communities;
- Direct threats on the sovereinty of allied nations;
- Direct governement threats on freedom of the press;
- Random unlawfull arrests of people off the streets;
- No due process;
- Unlawfull deportations of certain ethnic groups blamed for all the whoes of the nation;
- Children forcefully separated from their parents and imprisonned;
- Concentration camps;
- Army marching on the streets of the capital and other major cities.
This all sounds vaguely familiar... Where have I seen that before ?
Re:Let's see... (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't forget getting rid of comedians. Because the "fuck your feelings" crowd has the most fragile feelings of all.
Re:Let's see... (Score:4, Insightful)
This all sounds vaguely familiar... Where have I seen that before ?
You have perfectly described communism.
National socialists also have done this. That is why socialism and communism are a cancer on society.
National Socialists, now where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, the shortened form described the party that started WW2.
Seems like the GOP under Trump are replicating all their policies.
Re: Let's see... (Score:2)
I assume by this comment that you think urinal cakes are a dessert.
Re: (Score:2)
We're unironically doing communism now. The government has direct control over a vital industry. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/09/2... [cnbc.com]
Re:Let's see... (Score:4, Informative)
Fascism! It's fascism that's happening with this. Fascists do the weird private / government ownership thing. Communism is it's all government owned.
Re: (Score:2)
Hahaha, that was good.
SCOTUS is a joke. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
We've had some truly reprehensible justices [wikipedia.org] on the Supreme Court. Including ones that supported eugenics [npr.org]. The modern court is mild-mannered in comparison.
The fact that this only has 37 comments (Score:4, Insightful)
This is an overturning of 90 plus years of precedence for no particularly good reason. Is a clear violation of law. We should all be freaking the fuck out right now. The thread should have at least 500 comments on it.
The problem is I don't think people understand how bad this is. And that's how Trump got to be president twice. People do not understand the systems that protect them let alone that those systems have completely broken down
Re: (Score:2)
it's a Monday night. People can freak tomorrow. Though it is not a surprise they continue corrupt rulings.
Re: (Score:2)
As of this writing is the problem with this country. This is an overturning of 90 plus years of precedence for no particularly good reason. Is a clear violation of law. We should all be freaking the fuck out right now. The thread should have at least 500 comments on it. The problem is I don't think people understand how bad this is. And that's how Trump got to be president twice. People do not understand the systems that protect them let alone that those systems have completely broken down
People understand perfectly well how bad this is, but some are either so shocked they can't put that into words of their own, or are understandably reluctant to voice any dissent in a semi-public way for fear they'll be declared the next emergency that the ICE gestapo must send to El Salvador to save the country.
Re:The fact that this only has 37 comments (Score:5, Insightful)
That was one of your own, dumbass.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's probably not true. Not very many people drive engagement here. Each lost user kinda hurts.
Re: (Score:2)
It's amazing how easily you swallowed that AI generated fanfic. Kash must be so proud.
Re:The fact that this only has 37 comments (Score:4, Insightful)
You killed Charlie Kirk and it's OVER
So if the murder of Kirk is the fault of Democrats...then does that mean that the community college shooting in Oregon (by Chris Harper Mercer), the killing of Hortman and her husband (by Vance Boelter), the attack on Paul Pelosi (by David Wayne DePape), and the Oklahoma City bombing (by McVeigh) are all the fault of Republicans?
OR
Could we agree that anyone who uses violence for political reasons is abhorrent and should never be included in any political party? And that we expect our elected leaders to speak with one voice against all forms of political violence (they have not, by the way)?
Most corrupt SC ever (Score:2)
This is no longer a legitimate court. They twist the constitution however they want it. Precedence be damned. That they call this "originalism" is but a sick joke and icing on the cake of corruption.
Oh look, Trump thinks he's FDR (Score:2)
But he won't have a third term as President. Too bad for him.
2024 election, stolen (Score:2)
More evidence the 2026 election will be stolen. They wouldn't be doing this if there was an honest election.
Just make sure (Score:2)
George Lucas got it right (Score:3)
There is an old clip of George Lucas talking about how when the people feel government can't get anything done, they'll elect a dictator who can get things done.
This is in the context of his Star Wars films, but it applies really well to today because that is exactly what is happening.
The previous criminal President we had was Nixon but it was Republicans who told him resign or we'll kick you out of office, and then both parties came together and passed a series of safeguards to prevent the next Nixon from happening.
Back then, there were conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans unlike today when it's totally polarized thanks to decades of media further polarizing voters and now thanks to social media that has been put on steroids.
You have the President saying he hates his opposition, meaning the voters who do not support him, and he would not say that if that was not an extremely popular thing to say with his supporters.
It feels like we're in a Kubrick movie, with the half the country dehumanizing the other half.
Re: (Score:2)
...whatever it is unemployed lefty scum do
Shooting you and robbing your corpse probably. Doesn't sound like it will be much of a loss to humanity.
You can go back down the the basement now. Torture porn and cheetos are waiting. You can have a little orange cock like Donald too.