DOJ Asserts Trump Hypothetically Has Power To Purge All Female Agency Heads, Or Those Over 40

[system1]

Originally published at: DOJ Asserts Trump Hypothetically Has Power To Purge All Female Agency Heads, Or Those Over 40

The Trump Department of Justice asserted in court Tuesday that, under their theories, the President’s removal power is so all-encompassing that he could fire all female agency heads, as well as those over 40 years old. The startling admission came in response to a federal judge’s hypothetical.  “Could the President decide that he wasn’t going…

[brucea]

Jesus fucking Christ. I need a cat pic. Better make it a double.

[rascal_crone]

i feel sick

[doncoolidge]

> McArthur took a big swing in response, arguing that restoring the illegally fired board members would create a “heavy cloud of illegitimacy over every official act they take.”

No, it would cast a heavy and well deserved cloud of illegitimacy over the act of illegally and unconstitutionally firing them in the first place.

[tommbombadil]

They media should just start reporting “anti-DEI” for what it is, which is virulent racism. Just call them virulent racists. It may not phase them, since they’re basically berserkers at this point, but at least we won’t have to pretend that what they’re doing is new and different and worthy of debate, because it’s not.

[sysprog]

WHAT THE HOLY HELL is this??? No the ‘President’ does NOT have that right. Oh the things I could say about Bondi…I’m gonna step away from the keyboard …

[dont]

McArthur took a big swing in response, arguing that restoring the illegally fired board members would create a “heavy cloud of illegitimacy over every official act they take.”

Huh? Restoring the illegally fired members returned legitimacy to the actions of the Board. Where did McArthur go to school? At home?

[ajm]

And not restoring them casts a pall over any actions they do take if they happen to retain a quorum.

[old_guru]

Well, we all know that Trump’s “view of his sweeping powers” has no discernible boundary. He thinks he is capable of running everything from the cultural life of this country from the Lincoln Center to the Grand Ole Opry, and to the SCOTUS itself. The man is insane with power. WHEN are the cowardly Republicans in Congress going to grow a damn spine and agree to finally impeach this nut case? This is entirely on them.
Then we can deal with Vance, who is no less drunk on power, but is more malleable than Donnie is. I believe he can be brought to heel if the Rethugs let him know that he is finished if he tries to be a dictator like Trump.

[tommbombadil]

Yes, probably. Their whole position is that there are no legitimate orgs except those that bow to the great orange Cheeto. So they’re consistent - consistently awful and wrong-headed, but they don’t have to worry about complexity or pluralism, or anything. They’re 100% aggressive Quisling rubber-stamp, all the way to the bone.

[ajm]

These folks seem to really like groveling to the whims of a fatted golden calf.

[dannydorko]

The Trump Department of Justice asserted in court Tuesday that, under their theories, the President’s removal power is so all-encompassing that he could fire all female agency heads, as well as those over 40 years old.

“Not only that. My removal power is so great that I can remove any provision of the Constitution that I don’t like. And, quite frankly, there are many of them that I do not like.”

[dannydorko]

@tommbombadil

They media should just start reporting “anti-DEI” for what it is, which is virulent racism…

… and misogyny.

[llwillis]

@system1

“Could the President decide that he wasn’t going to appoint or allow to remain in office any female heads of agencies or any heads over 40 years old?” Judge Karen Henderson, a Reagan appointee on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, asked Deputy Assistant Attorney General Eric McArthur Tuesday in proceedings over the fired board members of two independent agencies.

“I think that that would be within the President’s constitutional authority under the removal power,” he responded, adding that “there would be separate questions about whether that would violate other provisions of the Constitution.”

Way to poke the bear. Infuriate the women voters AND the judge who asked the question.

The definition of DEI: “No woman ever earned her job in the federal government based on merit because… DEI.”

ETA: Oh, and the other female judge on the panel. And all the other minorities that could be summarily dismissed because… DEI. Using women in the hypothetical is particularly offensive, tho, because it implies that half the population are all disqualified and their appointment is suspect because if it was DEI, it couldn’t possibly be merit. DOJ may have jumped the shark.

[benthere]

FTFS (translation available, if needed).

[v12nna]

please provide

[benthere]

Your emoji gives away that you are well aware of what it means… Just sayin’

[lastroth]

DonOLD really, really, wants the US gov’t to run like the Trump Organization. He’s the decider-in-chief, he’s large and in charge, and the can’t come soon enough.

[1gg]

Well you could say Bye bye Bondi

[jrw]

Day by day, things get more dire. I’m thinking about joining a left accelerationist faction bowling team.