“some legal experts say that as a practical matter, the administration — emboldened by the justices — has already managed to eliminate job protections that have been on the books for nearly 150 years.
President Donald Trump’s drive to replace agency leaders and his mass firings across the federal government are all based on the same basic legal concept: the unitary executive theory. It holds that every employee of the executive branch is answerable to, and fireable at will by, the president.
The most extreme version of the unitary executive theory holds that the central premise of the civil service — that rank-and-file government employees shouldn’t be hired or fired for political reasons or simply on the president’s whim — is unconstitutional because it tramples on the president’s power to control the federal government.”
“A federal judge has indefinitely extended her order banning the Trump administration from mass firing federal employees during the government shutdown.”
“A federal judge has paused the Trump administration’s plan to lay off more than 500 employees of the U.S. Agency for Global Media — most from Voice of America — while warning that senior officials there had repeatedly failed to comply with his orders to preserve the international broadcaster’s key operations.”
“In 1935, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that President Franklin Roosevelt acted illegally when he tried to fire an anti-New Deal commissioner from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The FTC “cannot in any proper sense be characterized as an arm or an eye of the executive,” declared the Court in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States. “We think it plain under the Constitution that illimitable power of removal is not possessed by the President in respect of officers of the character of those just named.”
But that was then. More recently, the Supreme Court has all but announced that Humphrey’s Executor faces imminent judicial execution, an outcome that would allow President Donald Trump (and every president who succeeds him) to fire “independent” agency heads at will.”
“Chief Justice John Roberts is allowing President Donald Trump to put a Joe Biden-appointed member of the Federal Trade Commission out of her post while the Supreme Court considers a longer-term resolution of the legal battle over her firing.”
So, whether it’s legal or not, Trump gets to go ahead and do it, and even if it turns out to not be legal, much damage will be done and the law ineffective.
So far, the Supreme Court is allowing Trump to use powers that appear to be unconstitutional. The Court has largely done this using the shadow docket, where the court doesn’t need to explain its reasoning.
By allowing the president to create real-world and not fully reversible impacts while acting with clearly unconstitutional powers, the Supreme Court is derelict of its duty as a check on presidential power.
It makes sense to limit injunctions that stop the president when his actions may not even be found unconstitutional in the first place, but if the president can act in any way, and not be stopped until the damage is done, then the Supreme Court is derelict in its duty.
The Supreme Court can act very quickly when it wants to, and it can slow-walk when it wants. Seems like it will do this in favor of Trump and Republicans.
Trump and his associates say clearly why they are doing what they are doing, and then tell the Court that they did it for different reasons. The Court has naively accepted the administration’s legal justifications that conflict with the administration’s clearly spoken motives.
The Constitution does not take into account political parties. The founders did not expect parties when they wrote it. Parties ruin the separation of powers and cause officials to not restrain a president acting illegally, even though it is those officials’ (Congress and the Supreme Court) duty.
“As with any bureaucracy, the agency is fair game for criticism. BLS has plenty of flaws. But we know how Trump and MAGA play the game: Any results that are good for them are the truth—and anything not to their liking is evidence of rigging or conspiracy. Their take on any news is the one that advances their interests.
…
the feds need an independent body to analyze statistics. The New York Times quoted Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell: “Good data helps not just the Fed, it helps the government, but it also helps the private sector.” Trump has indicated he’d like to replace Powell—presumably with someone who will juice interest rates to help his political goals. Any intelligent person, though, can see why good policy flows from an accurate understanding of reality.
These are banana republic moves, backed by MAGA and the Banana Republican Party. Had any Democratic president tried to so directly politicize these independent agencies, Republicans would be screaming about the coming tyranny. Democrats aren’t immune to politicizing independent bodies—consider the troublesome plan to expand the U.S. Supreme Court—but they didn’t dare meddle in statistical counting.
Consider how budget matters are handled in Democratic-dominated California. The governor issues his budget and revenue/deficit predictions, which, of course, make the most optimistic projections. The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) does its analysis, which typically is less sanguine. The governor might take issue with those results—but he doesn’t try to remove the head of the LAO and replace him with a political hack who issues only good news.
…
We’re all used to this administration “defining deviancy down,” as we all lower our standards for acceptable presidential behavior (free jet from Qatar, anyone?). So I guess this will be just another deviant action that the Republican Party will eagerly defend.”