Originally published at: Fed Takeover, Judge Firings, Erosion Of Guards Against Autocracy: Judge Lays Out Stakes Of Trump Agency Takeover - TPM – Talking Points Memo
While the conservative judges on Friday tried to find a way to overturn Supreme Court precedent before the Court itself gets a chance to do it, the sole liberal on a three-judge appeals court panel used the hearing to lay bare the ramifications of President Trump’s attempt to take over independent agencies. “Your position is:…
5 Likes
This is the long-term plan of the Dark Money interests. The Koch(s), the Uhleins and De Vos clan, et al. These are bad people who want to destroy our Constitutional system. I hope more judges keep this in mind.
23 Likes
Should read to find a way to overturn the Supreme Court.
4 Likes
Yes, we need to revive ‘malefactors of great wealth,’ or a suitable contemporary analog.
13 Likes
“There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” ― James Madison
(I add: Regrettably, what is happening now may not be characterized as gradual or silent.)
19 Likes
“Separation of powers is…supposed to prevent autocracy and the question is, why are these more than 30 agencies — which were designed by Congress to be independent — why do we need to move them under the control of the executive"? Pan asked.
Ooh, ooh, Teacher! I know the answer!
14 Likes
“Humphrey’s Executor v. United States” (1935) was a landmark Supreme Court case that established limits on the president’s power to remove officials from independent regulatory agencies. The Court ruled that Congress could constitutionally restrict the president’s ability to remove officials from such agencies, as long as the reasons for removal were specified in law. This ruling affirmed the principle that independent agencies, like the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), should have a degree of independence from political influence.
17 Likes
Why does the Executive branch need to have authority over everything?
Why do the Courts have to depend on the DoJ for their Marshals? Is there something intrinsic to the Federal Marshal that they must be under the thumb of the Executive branch?
9 Likes
“Separation of powers is…supposed to prevent autocracy and the question is, why are these more than 30 agencies — which were designed by Congress to be independent — why do we need to move them under the control of the executive? Pan asked.
… … … … … …
Using my mother’s southern parlance in a situation like this… “well, it’s on accounta becuz y’see”.
I should hasten to add that even though my parents were republicans… it was Eisenhower’s time. They weren’t radical nut cases and if they were alive today they would be horrified with what we all have become. Especially the GOP. My dad fought fascism with the risk of his life in WW2. They’d never vote for trump.
9 Likes
Hungary, here we come.
3 Likes
Yes. Marshalls can be armed and that intimidates those who would think or speak or write independent of trumpian orthodoxy. Whatever that is at a given moment. Guns exude power over the unarmed. Power is the whole point behind trump’s drive at retribution.
4 Likes
Trump: Because I want it all.
3 Likes
While Trump is still on his 2025 Middle Eastern Grift tour I see that the main stream media, including TPM, has moved on from all the corruption to other topics. Yes the other topics are important but they aren’t as important as the fact that Trump’s corruption is breaking through with the general public including MAGA.
11 Likes
Bastards With The Big Bucks?
2 Likes
Trump and his minions want the Unitary Executive government of Vought and his fellow Nazi’s. Independent agencies and bureaus are a limit on the Executive’s power and hence they are to be challenged.
The Judge asked the right questions - do we want this and did the Founding Father’s really intend a POTUS to act as a King in a blue suit ? The answer is clearly NO.
One other observation - The Trump is clearly rattled by the “8647” seashell meme. I contend that wearing “8647” on my T-Shirt is my right under the 1st Amendment.
Can you imagine Trump reaction if about 1 million people show up at his B-Day parade in blue “8647” T-shirts ? Sounds like a great way to protest to me.
14 Likes
Right? The question answers itself.
3 Likes
Actually, the original statement correctly expressed the likely current state of things, that this appeals court is trying to effectively overturn precedent (distinguishing to deminimis?) before the case even makes it to the S Ct which will likely overturn the precedent as well.
3 Likes
“We’re not allowed to have independent agencies in this country”
But do consider yourselves free.
–The Republican Party
4 Likes
Freedom is any direction we choose say the fish in the net drawing them.- R.S. Thomas
1 Like
I read today (no citation) that way back during the Civilized Era when Joe Biden was President, the maganuts sold and wore their “8646” Ts with pride.
Because it’s ONLY ok if you’re a Republican. And “free speech” doesn’t include that namby pamby librul stuff.
5 Likes