![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/angry.net\/blog2\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/05\/Trump-Great.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n<\/p>\n
For decades, regulatory agencies such as the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Environmental Protection Agency have had the ability to hold what amounts to a court with administrative judges issuing rulings. The problem has been that these judges were not appointed by the President nor were they vetted and approved by the Senate. Finally, someone decided to sue over this. The Obama Regime, who loved these \u201cJudges\u201d, fought the suit tooth and nail. President Trump has just reversed course and is siding with the plaintiffs. Here are the details from the Daily Caller<\/b><\/a>:<\/p>\n The Trump administration switched sides Wednesday in a case pending before the Supreme Court that could retroactively nullify tens of thousands of agency decisions. The case, Lucia v. SEC, has major implications for the process by which federal agencies try or punish those in violation of laws or regulations. <\/b><\/p>\n The litigation concerns an agency\u2019s decision to allow career bureaucrats to preside as the functional equivalent of judges during enforcement proceedings. These officials, called administrative law judges (ALJs), are hired by career bureaucrats. They are not appointed by the president, a court or an agency head, but they exercise significant authority on behalf of the U.S. government in official proceedings. <\/b><\/p>\n And to expect that these \u201cJudges\u201d are unbiased would be like thinking the Titanic had sprung a small leak. Almost all the time, they rule in favor of their paymasters in whatever agency they are in.<\/p>\n ALJs can, among other things, issue subpoenas, make decisions about the credibility of witnesses or the admissibility of evidence, and issues provisional rulings that are generally upheld on final review \u2014 if a final review occurs at all. <\/b><\/p>\n And the problem with this? Well, as I mentioned before, not one of these so called \u201cJudges\u201d has been vetted by the United States Senate, yet they are acting like Supreme Court Justices.<\/p>\n The Constitution requires that the president, the courts, or the head of an executive department appoint all \u201cinferior officers\u201d of the United States. <\/b><\/p>\n And since when have these agencies, or the Progressives running them, (Until recently) ever given a damn about the Constitution? Well, someone finally had enough of these tyrants and decided to take them to a court with actual, real judges.<\/p>\n A group of investment managers challenged the Securities and Exchange Commission\u2019s (SEC) use of ALJs in an enforcement proceeding convened against them for alleged violations of securities law. The managers argue these proceedings are unlawful, because the ALJs are exactly the sort of \u201cinferior officer\u201d who must be appointed by the president, the court, or the head of an agency, since they exercise meaningful discretion on behalf of the federal government. <\/b><\/p>\n A lower federal court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, found in favor of the SEC. A three-judge panel found for the SEC, and the full court affirmed that decision on a five to five vote. The investment managers then appealed to the Supreme Court. <\/b><\/p>\n The problem with the American Judicial system over the centuries is that way to many judges can\u2019t seem to read plain English, or can\u2019t be bothered to actually read the Constitution of the United States, as currently amended.\u00a0 The D.C. Circuit court is a case in point. It was packed with Obama judges for the sole purpose of protecting the Progressives regulatory state.<\/p>\n As you would expect, The Obama Regime was all aboard for letting these kangaroo courts continue. Then came President Trump.<\/p>\n The Obama Justice Department sided with the SEC in the dispute, but Trump\u2019s new solicitor general, Noel Francisco, changed positions Wednesday, and backed the money managers. <\/b><\/p>\n \u201cUpon further consideration, and in light of the implications for the exercise of executive power under Article II, the government is now of the view that such ALJs are officers because they exercise \u2018significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States,’\u201d Francisco wrote in a new brief<\/a> at the Supreme Court. <\/b><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/p>\n