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

[Mac-7]

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

Trump was the victim of lawfare that the dems would never use on themselves

 

[Concerned American]

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?

Patience, bug. SCOTUS is addressing it. However, by all reports, it is not looking good for your side.

 

[Delldude]

Tis' looking bad for the home team.

They went straight for the jugular. The question was simple: can Congress just slap the word “independent” on ANY Cabinet office and basically wipe out presidential power?

Kavanaugh wasn’t having it.“Independent agencies aren’t accountable to the people. They’re not elected. Yet they’re exercising MASSIVE power over liberty and billion-dollar industries.”

 

[berg80]

Trump was the victim of lawfare

No matter how many times you rubes repeat that lie it will never be true.

 

[berg80]

Patience, bug. SCOTUS is addressing it. However, by all reports, it is not looking good for your side.

I didn't expect it would. That would require the Court's conservatives to respect precedent, legislative intent, and the intent of the Founders. None of which persuade this Court when the opportunity to give the prez powers he was never intended to have arises.

 

[Delldude]

I didn't expect it would. That would require the Court's conservatives to respect precedent, legislative intent, and the intent of the Founders. None of which persuade this Court when the opportunity to give the prez powers he was never intended to have arises.

Kavanaugh and Alito put it all in perspective.

The days of unelected bureaucrats legislating the masses are over.

 

[Mac-7]

No matter how many times you rubes repeat that lie it will never be true.

Its as obvious as the nose on your face

But you refuse to see

 

[g5000]

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

.
Look, man. A king's gotta king. As our Founders intended.

.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

There's no such a thing as an "independent Federal Agency", they all fall under Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution, "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America"

There's no such a thing as "birthright citizenship"

And we should not have hundreds of pretend mini-Presidents in the Federal Judiciary

 

[Leo123]

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

Biden should have been 'fired' for 'malfeasance and neglect of duties.'