What Is Humphrey’s Executor and Why Should You Care About It?

[80zephyr]

Ever hear of the principle of checks and balances? The foundation on which our constitutional republic lies.

Like I said, would you like Trump to make up a law that could limit another branch of the government? If you are in favor of what is happening, you should have no problem with it.

 

[berg80]

Like I said, would you like Trump to make up a law that could limit another branch of the government?

Laws are passed by Congress. Are you from another country?

 

[80zephyr]

The authority to fire agency members for the sole purpose of replacing them with loyalist hacks in order to enact the prez's politicized policy agenda is exactly why Congress gave the agencies protection from what Dotard is trying to do.

Obama did it to the military. But, I bet you agreed with what he was doing but it didn't bother you.

 

[80zephyr]

Laws are passed by Congress. Are you from another country?

What gives them the right to pass a law that limits an equal branch of government?. If they have such a right, then any other branch can do the same thing. Trump could use an executive order.

 

[berg80]

What gives them the right to pass a law that limits an equal branch of government?

The Constitution. Are you from another country?

 

[80zephyr]

The Constitution. Are you from another country?

We'll see what SCOTUS says.

 

[berg80]

We'll see what SCOTUS says.

If the SC does anything other than rule against the regime it will be in clear violation of Congress's legislative intent.

 

[80zephyr]

If the SC does anything other than rule against the regime it will be in clear violation of Congress's legislative intent.

Thats good. Don't give a person a key to the executive restroom without letting him use the facility.

 

[BackAgain]

The Constitution. Are you from another country?

That’s silly even for a shitlib dope like bug.

According to him, the Constitution, which grants the entire Executive Branch authority to the President, is also a document which allows other branches to get a say sufficient to eliminate those Constitutional grants of power/authority.

 

[Concerned American]

Read the Constitution dipshit. The stupidity here is your constant lies, whining, and emotionally stunted outrage over losing an election. You and your ilk are a disgrace to the country.

Don't feed the troll, he'll just pollute the board with more cut and paste walls of text.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The government shut down for 6 weeks during the Heartless Schumer Shutdown and the world kept turning

 

[CrusaderFrank]

SCOTUS will overturn Humphrey's because it's bad law; it's Dred Scott for Article II

 

[cnm]

It will be interesting to see how it works out, both in this "speed bump" and when it gets to The Supremes, to decide whether the Office of the President will receive unprecedented power/authority to fire at will, with or without reason or justification based on performance, even undisputed good performance.

Almost as though he doesn't have to execute the actual legislation passed by the legislature.

Exceptional.

 

[Mac-7]

The federal government’s independent agencies have been designed by Congress to work on behalf of the public good—promoting the health, safety, and prosperity of all Americans and their communities. Housed in the executive branch, independent agencies, such as the Federal Communications Commission and the Consumer Product Safety Commission, are staffed nearly exclusively by nonpartisan experts who help safeguard consumers from unsafe products, protect workers’ rights, enhance highway safety, and stop big banks from scamming people, among other purposes. The leaders of those agencies are generally selected by the president and the leaders of the minority party to ensure they are bipartisan, and these commissioners jointly consider agency actions. Once installed, commissioners are supposed to be insulated from day-to-day political influence, unlike appointees who run executive departments directly under the president’s control, such as the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

Beginning with Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, the Supreme Court for 90 years has upheld congressional requirements that a president can fire independent agency commissioners only for a serious reason, such as malfeasance or neglect of duties. Yet Humphrey’s Executor and cases that reinforced its ruling are now under attack by President Donald Trump’s administration, which flouted the law and summarily fired commissioners at multiple independent agencies without any legally required cause.
https://www.americanprogress.org/ar...ys-executor-and-why-should-you-care-about-it/

trump's attempt to expand the powers of the prez beyond their current legal limits (one never knows what his SC will do since the conservatives have no respect for the Constitution) is the defining legal battle taking shape.

Most importantly with respect to trump's efforts to remove or marginalize those government employees and agencies assigned by Congress with the duty of executive branch oversight. trump's goal being the realization of the unitary executive theory.

Federal Judge Poised To Block NLRB Firing Bristles At ‘Extreme’ Attempt To Expand Trump’s Power

“I recognize that for both sides, this court is merely a speed bump for you all to get to the Supreme Court,” U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell, an Obama appointee in Washington D.C., said Wednesday, adding: “The issue at stake is of extreme importance, given that the NLRB is far from the only multi-member, independent, executive branch agency with statutory removal protections. That’s why I’ve chosen to have this public hearing.”

The case stems from the unlawful firing without cause of NLRB member Gwynne Wilcox, who quickly filed a lawsuit in federal court. Her case, running parallel to other challenges of plainly illegal firings of members of independent agencies, is ultimately bound for the Supreme Court, as the Trump administration aims to get the justices to overturn current precedent that protects her from at-will firing.

The Trump DOJ is candid about that posture.

Judge Howell ticked through fundamental facts of the case:

• Both parties agree that Wilcox was not removed for malfeasance or neglect, the causes Congress permits her to be fired for (“correct,” said DOJ attorney Harry Graver);
• Wilcox was not given the notice or hearing the law demands (“correct”);
• The Justice Department does not argue that her removal was inconsistent with existing law (“we’re not relying on the statutory standard,” Graver agreed);
• Humphrey’s Executor, the Supreme Court precedent establishing that Congress can put limits on presidential removal powers for agencies like the NLRB, is still good law that binds the court (“100 percent”).

Federal Judge Poised To Block NLRB Firing Bristles At ‘Extreme’ Attempt To Expand Trump’s Power

As this very poorly written screed points out, both sides do it

Beginning with ultra lib FDR in 1935

If trump has gone too far the SC will correct him as it always does

So the hyperventilating lib mob can lay down your pitchforks and go back to grooming children or protecting drug smugglers or illegal aliens

 

[berg80]

Obama did it to the military.

Cite your example. BTW, the military isn't an independent agency given protections from a capricious prez by Congress.

 

[berg80]

If trump has gone too far the SC will correct him as it always does

Like when it gave him immunity for committing crimes in office absent any historical precedent or constitutional justification?

 

[berg80]

Don't feed the troll, he'll just pollute the board with more cut and paste walls of text.

You should read them some time. Perhaps then you'll be less ignorant.

 

[80zephyr]

Cite your example. BTW, the military isn't an independent agency given protections from a capricious prez by Congress.

Obama's Military Coup Purges 197 Officers In Five Years

Defense: What the president calls "my military" is being cleansed of any officer suspected of disloyalty to or disagreement with the administration on matters of policy or force structure, leaving... Read More

www.investors.com

So you would rather the president be able to mold an army to his liking than appoint a chairman of some committee? Interesting.

 

[berg80]

Thats good. Don't give a person a key to the executive restroom without letting him use the facility.

A precedent was set 90 years ago limiting presidential authority to fire the heads of independent agencies without cause. Consistent with the legislative intent of Congress and the Founder's design.
According to press accounts I've seen the Court's conservatives look ready to ignore all that and grant even more power to the most malevolent POTUS in the country's history. Basing the ruling on an ahistoric belief, antithetical to our history (which is why the justices were chosen), that the prez should have unchecked power over personnel staffing agencies created by Congress with the express purpose of being beyond the prez's whims.

John Roberts is reported to feel the legacy of the court he leads is important to him. I wonder if he understands its legacy will be one of making some of the most radical, unfounded, history altering rulings in contradiction to stare decisis by a SC in two centuries?

 

[80zephyr]

A precedent was set 90 years ago limiting presidential authority to fire the heads of independent agencies without cause. Consistent with the legislative intent of Congress and the Founder's design.
According to press accounts I've seen the Court's conservatives look ready to ignore all that and grant even more power to the most malevolent POTUS in the country's history. Basing the ruling on an ahistoric belief, antithetical to our history (which is why the justices were chosen), that the prez should have unchecked power over personnel staffing agencies created by Congress with the express purpose of being beyond the prez's whims.

John Roberts is reported to feel the legacy of the court he leads is important to him. I wonder if he understands its legacy will be one of making some of the most radical, unfounded, history altering rulings in contradiction to stare decisis by a SC in two centuries?

We disagree.