What about illegal sackings of staff?
Of course you won't know if it's really illegal until SCOTUS says it isn't....
Sorry, but i think you're like the frog in water being heated up until it's too late to realise you're being boiled alive.
US Politics Thread
- Thread starter Ric
- Start date
Of course you won't know if it's really illegal until SCOTUS says it isn't....
Sorry, but i think you're like the frog in water being heated up until it's too late to realise you're being boiled alive.
Trevor Morley's Tache
Well-Known Member
FogBlueInSanFran
Well-Known Member
That or he's a fuckin nazi.
Elbow beards
Well-Known Member
Making 17th century America great again.It's just been announced that tragically an unvaccinated child has died in the Texas measles outbreak. Let's see if RFK Jr changes his mind about his baseless claim that the measles vaccine causes autism. In the meantime it should come as no surprise that anti-vax groups are blaming the outbreak on the measles vaccine.
A Texas child who was not vaccinated has died of measles, a first for the US in a decade
A child who was not vaccinated has died from measles in West Texas. It's the first death in an outbreak that began late last month and the first from measles in the U.S. since 2015.apnews.com
Anti-vaccine movement falsely blames measles shots for Texas outbreak
The disproven claims about the Texas measles cases echo misinformation spread by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. about a 2019 outbreak in Samoa.www.nbcnews.com
Blue Maverick
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 6 Aug 2010
- Messages
- 25,148
Can a republican defect to been a democrat? Or would they need to hold an election, they can do it here but I suspect over there they won’t allow it.
FogBlueInSanFran
Well-Known Member
Yes, any time, but none of them have the courage nor the appetite to become a Trump lightning rod. Almost all large-name GOPers except probably Liz Cheney and maybe Mitt Romney (who are both now out of politics for the time being) are absolute cowards.
its not that i wont know. Its that we don't know.
Lets split the question into 2 parts, as there are two separate issues here:
1. The firing of the Inspector Generals without notice:
Congress enacted a 1978 law that required the President to gives a reason and 30 day notice to Congress before firing an IG.
The President could have given notice on its 1 day in office and fire the IGs a month later. But they purposely didn't. Why? Probably because they believe that 1978 law is unconstitutional and want to challenge it.
More likely than not, they believe that the law unduly infringes on the authority the Constitution vests in the President and in his ability to control the executive branch. In short, they think Congress has passed an unconstitutional law and want to challenge it. Hence why they purposely violated the law. This is actually normal. President's do this all the time. Granted, to less fan fare from the media enhanced opponents.
The Constitution doesn't specifically say anything about IGs and case law is kinda split. On one hand, SCOTUS has recognized the President has the sole power to appoint and remove executive officers in the executive branch. The IG position is an executive branch appointment. That said, SCOTUS has made exceptions in case law for Independent regulatory organization like the FTC.
Thus, while IG's work independently in their oversight function they still are members of the departments they report on and not an independent agent.
My guess, is that SCOTUS will conclude that the President has the power to fire the IGs in spite of their oversight role, but it may conclude Agency heads have to follow the Congressional act and give notice and reason if they want to fire IGs.
That way, SCOTUS splits the baby, concludes the Congregational law is constitutional, so long as its not applied to the President.
That's my uninformed guess. But like you said, we in fact have to wait and see.
Let me know if you want my view on the Civil Servant firings. My sense is that you and most here don't.
It gets in the way of all the whaling the whining.
Last edited:
This is true. I don't find wailing (thanks @Alan Harper's Tash ) and whining interesting or worth commenting on. Nor do I comment on people's personal imaginative predictions. There are enough people here doing that.
However, If it concerns actual factual claims about government's actions, and it isn't brought up by some of the folks here who have expressed a strong opposition to my interacting with them, i will comment.
Unless of course, there is nothing to say about the issue.
But feel free to keep up your fantasy beliefs.
Last edited:
There he is! The Nazi Knighting officer
Username Required
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Jul 2021
- Messages
- 2,008
- Team supported
- MCFC
I already tried to explain a few days ago, with reference to all the major cases-in-controversy the Federal Courts have decided vis-a-vis the outer limits of executive power and the doctrinal reasons why (especially Separation of Powers)
I hate predictions, but given all that has gone before (assuming SCOTUS is consistent) on the law, and issues of fact...
"The presumption of regularity is a deference doctrine: it credits to the executive branch certain facts about what happened and why and, in doing so, narrows judicial scrutiny and widens executive discretion over decision making processes and outcomes."
The Presumption of Regularity in Judicial Review of the Executive Branch - Harvard Law Review
The Trump Administration’s ban on entry into the United States by nationals from several majority-Muslim countries sparked controversy about when courts should credit the...
harvardlawreview.org
I expect SCOTUS to broadly agree with the Trump administration.
If the Republicans in Congress attempt to remove in toto or limit appellant jurisdiction from the Federal Courts just wait for the screaming.
"They can't do that! That's NAZI! This is unheard of! It, it, it's illegal!!! It's un-American!
Yes they can.
No, it isn't.
No, it isn't.
No, it isn't.
No, it isn't.
ChicagoBlue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 10 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 21,815
Errr, IL’s own military veteran and Never Trumper Adam Kinzinger says “Hi!”
Alan Harper's Tash
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 69,876
Whaling is fucking abhorrent.
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
Can you quit whining about whaling ffs.
Alan Harper's Tash
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 69,876
Lol. It is.
"
They don't care. You are simply trying to unduly influence folks and stop them from freely thinking what they already want to believe. Its not fair!I already tried to explain a few days ago, with reference to all the major cases-in-controversy the Federal Courts have decided vis-a-vis the outer limits of executive power and the doctrinal reasons why (especially Separation of Powers)
I hate predictions, but given all that has gone before (assuming SCOTUS is consistent) on the law, and issues of fact...
"The presumption of regularity is a deference doctrine: it credits to the executive branch certain facts about what happened and why and, in doing so, narrows judicial scrutiny and widens executive discretion over decision making processes and outcomes."
The Presumption of Regularity in Judicial Review of the Executive Branch - Harvard Law Review
The Trump Administration’s ban on entry into the United States by nationals from several majority-Muslim countries sparked controversy about when courts should credit the...
I expect SCOTUS to broadly agree with the Trump administration.
If the Republicans in Congress attempt to remove in toto or limit appellant jurisdiction from the Federal Courts just wait for the screaming.
"They can't do that! That's NAZI! This is unheard of! It, it, it's illegal!!! It's un-American!
Yes they can.
No, it isn't.
No, it isn't.
No, it isn't.
No, it isn't.
Be a team player. Bend the knee!
FogBlueInSanFran
Well-Known Member
I don't disagree that "right" and "right thing to do" are getting confused here.
I also said before that "assuming the SCOTUS is consistent" whether to the benefit or detriment of Trump and/or the rest of America appears a reasonably good-sized assumption with this court spread so widely across he spectrum -- maybe the greatest spread since the 60s/70s Burger court.
Blue Maverick
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 6 Aug 2010
- Messages
- 25,148
Why can’t I see the Trump thread unless someone adds to it?