Good day all. Not long ago, President Trump fired one of the commissioners running the Federal Trade Commission. The commissioner, Rebecca Slaughter, was a Biden Appointee. As expected, she promptly ran off to one of the Obama and Biden judges to get an order restoring her to her job.
As expected, the Biden judge ruled in her favor then three judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit initially paused those orders, but – by a vote of 7-4 – the full court of appeals reinstated the trial judges’ instructions to allow Wilcox and Harris to remain in office while their challenges continued.
The DoJ appealed to the Supreme Court and once again they slapped down the lower courts. Here are the details from Fox News:
The Supreme Court on Monday backed President Donald Trump’s decision to fire a commissioner on the Federal Trade Commission, sending yet another signal that the high court intends to revisit a 90-year-old court precedent about executive firing power.
The temporary decision to maintain Biden-appointed Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter’s termination was issued 6-3 along ideological lines. The Supreme Court set oral arguments in the case for December.
Once again we see that the Progressive Liberal Democrats are ignoring the Constitution, as did the courts when this commission was first created. Congress has been creating agencies, commissions that were basically outside of any oversight, congressional or executive. President Trump appears to have decided that the time has come to put an end to this nonsense, especially with many of these organizations actively interfering with the will of the voters.
Trump’s decision to fire Slaughter and another Democrat-appointed commissioner, Alvaro Bedoya, faced legal challenges because it stood in tension with the FTC Act, which says commissioners should only be fired from their seven-year tenures for cause, such as malfeasance.
And that is the problem. As I just said, these commissions are not answerable to anyone and can do incredible damage. Probably the best known is the Federal Reserve Board and we’re seeing that fight between the administration and the Fed right now.
The Supreme Court’s decision to keep Slaughter’s firing intact means she will remain sidelined from the FTC until after the high court hears arguments about the case in December.
This was a procedural ruling. The actual case is ongoing. However, this and other rulings by the Supreme Court seem to indicate that they are going to review these “Independent” agencies and their constitutionality. Allowing a president to fire people theoretically under the executive branch may be the first step.
The case raises a pivotal question of whether Trump has the ability to fire members of independent agencies as the president pushes for a more unified executive branch. Independent agencies, such as the FTC, various labor boards and the Securities and Exchange Commission, have long been insulated by law from at-will firings.
Most of these boards, agencies and commissions were created over a century ago when the first stages of progressive government was being instituted. This was the creation of the regulatory state and, basically, rule by elite bureaucrats. We’re seeing the end stages of the regulatory state with the election and then reelection of the greatest President of the 21st century, Donald Trump.
Slaughter had argued to the Supreme Court that siding with Trump, even on an interim basis, directly flew in the face of the precedent set in Humphrey’s Executor vs. the United States, which deemed President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s firing of an FTC commissioner unlawful.
And the Supreme Court was wrong. As much as I despise FDR, a president not having the ability to fire people theoretically under the Executive branch who are outside of the Civil Service system, was something the founders of this country never envisioned.
Legal experts have speculated that the current conservative-leaning Supreme Court is interested in narrowing or reversing Humphrey’s Executor, which could carry broader implications about a president’s ability to fire members of certain independent agencies.
The three liberal justices dissented and would have denied Trump’s stay request. Writing for the dissent, Justice Elena Kagan speculated that the court’s majority may be “raring” to reverse Humphrey’s Executor. She said, though, that it should not make decisions on the shadow docket that contravene that precedent and instead wait until such a reversal happens.
That actually is an interesting dissent, unlike the drivel Jackson or Sotomayor would have produced. However, there is also the problem that the people President Trump wants to get rid of, if allowed to stay or return, are going to do everything they can to obstruct, interfere and block President Trump’s plans to Make America Great Again.
We’re already seeing this in the actions of the Obama and Biden judges. They have been acting as if they are the ones running the country and the Supreme Court has been regularly slapping them down.
“Our emergency docket should never be used, as it has been this year, to permit what our own precedent bars,” Kagan wrote. “Still more, it should not be used, as it also has been, to transfer government authority from Congress to the President, and thus to reshape the Nation’s separation of powers.”
And you are wrong Kagan. For to long the Supreme Court has flat out refused to do the one job it’s supposed to do. Read the plain language of the Constitution and uphold it. For decades, going back to at least the Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the Supreme Court has upheld the centralization of power away from the individual citizen and the states and giving it to unelected bureaucrats.
The Democrats have also been using the courts as a way to get around the voters who time and time again tell them “NO!” One of the more egregious acts is the rulings on the 2nd Amendment. The Supreme Court for to long considered the right to keep and bear arms to be a collective, in other words, government, right and now what it was intended for. An individual right. Even now, they can’t seem to just say that any law preventing an individual from acquiring, keeping and bearing firearms is unconstitutional.
Add to that all the other things that, up until recently the Supreme Court consistently ruled in favor of of bureaucracies using the Chevron Deference. This essentially ended any company’s chances of a fair hearing and was finally tossed on the ash heap of history in 2024 in the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo decision.
So, as of now, Rebecca Slaughter is out and is going to remain on the unemployment line. Eventually, the case will be heard, rulings will be issued, appeals made and finally it will reach the Supreme Court. As things stand, it looks like yet another Progressive sacred cow is about to be turned into cheeseburgers. Frankly, it’s about time.
Thatisall
(2 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading...
~The Angry Webmaster~
