The justices ruled in the case of former #FTC member #RebeccaSlaughter, whom #Trump fired WITHOUT cause despite a provision of #federal #law that requires a reason. The logic of the decision extends to other agencies, including the National Labor Relations Board, the Merit Systems Protection Board and the Consumer Product Safety Commission, where Trump also has fired board members.

#law #Independence #ExecutivePower #HumphreysExecutor #SeparationOfPowers #Congress #democracy

John Roberts's Court can only say, "Hail, Caesar!" to Donald Trump, whenever he wants to exert his will, no matter how it conflicts with Congress's. He can fire at will any executive agency head - with the sole exception of the federal reserve - regardless of congressional intent.

Absent Supreme Court reform, let's see how long Roberts's "free-reign" for el Presidente lasts when, say, a President Ocasio-Cortez or Mamdani is president.

@huntingdon they said the opposite in rulings Monday...

They rebuffed Trump yet again, and Trump supporters are once again pretty upset at the Court over it.

@volkris

LOL. Your perspective on the Roberts's majority is clear from two of your earlier comments:

"This idea of the political Court is one we should be pushing back against as it isn't helathy [sic] or helpful." And this Court is "restoring order."

You're engaging in denialism. The current majority on the Supreme Court is very much engaged in a political program to expand executive power - when wielded by a Republican - built on legal and intellectual dishonesty.

@huntingdon

Funny that a court very much engaged in a political program to expand executive power has over and over rejected invitations to expand executive power.

The rulings don't line up with your theory.

Sometimes executive power win, sometimes they lose. That they're not consistent with the expansion of executive power proposal shows that no, they decide based on other things, as indicated in the opinions themselves.

You're reducing their work to a simple goal that just doesn't hold up to the record.

@volkris

Your advocacy does not line up with this Court's rulings, especially the unsigned, unreasoned rulings in the Shadow Docket. But thanks for playing.

propublica.org/article/supreme…

Most Supreme Court Rulings Are Secretive Votes From “Shadow Docket” — ProPublica

ProPublica conducted a new analysis that shows the court is deciding more consequential rulings than ever before in largely unsigned orders with little to no explanation.

^{Ken B. Morales (ProPublica)}

@huntingdon

ProPublica is not a reliable source. Often enough they seem to be prioritizing sensationalism and advocacy ahead of accuracy in their reporting.

Speaking of, what is MY advocacy?

If you're focusing on the shadow docket then you're missing the major work of the Court. Docket orders are administrative, which is why it don't divert resources explaining reasoning through them.

It does give outfits like ProPublica fodder for misleading the public about how all of this works, though.