Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

Professor David Clements explains the Supreme Court's Slaughter decision — the ruling that may be Trump's secret weapon for securing elections. CLEMENTS: "For the past 70 years, presidents have been curbed from firing independent government agencies unless there is a for-cause reason." But under this holding, the Court found...

57,357 Aufrufe • vor 29 Tagen •via X (Twitter)

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

Humphrey’s Executor has been Slaughtered! Over the last 15 years, the Court has steadily chipped away at that 90-year-old case that blessed for-cause removal protections for the heads of so-called “independent” agencies. Trump v. Slaughter is the logical culmination of that line—a ruling that lets the president remove those officials because, after all, the Constitution vests all executive power in the president, including being able to decide who exercises power in his name. This decision isn’t a gift to President Trump or those who succeed him, but a restoration of constitutional order. Congress can create executive-branch agencies and specify their authority, but it can’t create new branches of government unanswerable to anyone. Putting the FTC and other alphabet agencies back under presidential control doesn’t make the chief executive omnipotent; it makes the bureaucrats answerable to someone who’s answerable to the voters. At base, Trump v. Slaughter asks whether the people we elect to govern us get to do so—or whether appointed commissioners and their staffers can run the country on autopilot. In a republic, the buck should stop with the president, not assorted boards of “independent” mandarins. The Federal Reserve is an exception, however, because it’s never been considered an executive-branch agency and concerns about political interference in monetary policy go back to the Founding. Justice Alito, joined by Justice Gorsuch, is thus correct in his dissent in Trump v. Cook, that this “emergency” application for stay should’ve been granted or denied back in the fall, but instead we have an unsatisfying resolution that doesn’t resolve much and just sends the factual determination of whether Lisa Cook was properly fired “for cause” back where it should’ve been all along, in the district court. This all would’ve been resolved much sooner has the Supreme Court not insisted on full briefing, argument, and months of deliberation on what is correctly now known as the “interim-relief docket.”

Ilya Shapiro

27,434 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat