Donald Trump is arguing to the Supreme Court that they have already given him “unrestricted power” to fire people.
The White House’s acting solicitor general, Sarah M. Harris, cited the Supreme Court’s July decision giving the president near-total immunity in an appeal Sunday asking the high court to overturn a lower court order blocking Trump’s decision to fire the head of the Office of Special Counsel, Hampton Dellinger. The office is an independent agency whose mission is to safeguard whistleblowers in the government and to enforce some ethics laws.
In July, the Supreme Court ruled that “the President’s management of the executive branch requires him to have unrestricted power to remove them [agency heads] in their most important duties,” Harris said in her filing, arguing that the lower court’s order was “an unprecedented assault on the separation of powers that warrant[ed] immediate relief.”
“This court should not allow lower courts to seize executive power by dictating to the president how long he must continue employing an agency head against his will,” the filing states.
Was the president having “unrestricted power” the intention of the 6-3 Supreme Court majority when it ruled in Trump’s favor on presidential immunity last year? At the time, Trump was trying to skirt federal charges for allegedly mishandling classified documents and attempting to overturn the 2020 election results, an effort that ultimately paid off.
Now, this legal filing not only seeks to cement unlimited presidential power in firing employees, but also challenges Congress’s authority to limit the president’s mass purges. Trump’s efforts to overhaul the federal government would get a big boost if he gets a favorable ruling from his conservative friends on the Supreme Court. The question is whether they think a president should have those powers, or if they think the presidency needs some guardrails.
Oh no! The absolutely obvious foreseen consequences of the scotus’ decision are manifesting! How could anyone have known!
So where are these well regulated militias?
They are cheering him on
We have one now, it’s called the Army.
Why aren’t they fighting tyranny yet?
Because they exist to protect the US government’s interests, not the peoples’.
Maybe it’s time you guys start a well regulated militia of your own?
Sorry, best we can do is unorganized gun nuts who actively support the tyrants.
Well, I’m out of ideas. Good luck, eh?
deleted by creator
Trump got rid of the members who oppose him
The Constitution has been under constant attack for a month now. Not a peep from them.
No. That’s what they’re supposed to do. Obviously they are not doing that, though. The evidence clearly supports @samus12345@lemm.ee’s assertion.
I like that Alex Jones/ Limbaugh types have raged against this for decades and are now suddenly all about anti-Americanism
Hey, John Roberts, you know that thing that we all said Trump would do, that you said he wouldn’t?
Guess what, you numpty?
He said anything lately? Or they on vacation with GOP donors at one of those creepy culty men only “”“retreats”“”
John Roberts is a cunt
All enemies, foreign and domestic
Wait until the Reichstag catches fire.
If the supreme court gives one man unrestricted power, then the justice system is broken. If the justice system is broken, the democracy is disfunctional. This is a legitimate reason to start a revolution.
“This court should not allow lower courts to seize executive power by dictating to the president how long he must continue employing an agency head against his will”
You’re not the government. You’re not employing anyone, you doofus. We’re doomed.
The time is here to explain yourself, Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett. You’re about to write pink slips for your own jobs and crown Trump king.
They’re too busy counting their bribe money to care.
They really don’t care. We are in endgame and the alternative is to go against trump and face his death threat ocean of supporters…
I’m confused because this article (and maybe the current state of US politics) seems to be conflating immunity with power. Aren’t they complimentary at best? Afaik, being immune doesn’t stop people from telling you no at every stop. But if you go around them and later claim immunity I guess that’s a long-necked form of power if you can manage it?
I’m not American and there’s a big disconnect in my mind. I’d appreciate it if someone could enlighten me.
If you have the resources to do something and cannot be stopped from doing it, that is power.
If Trump can fire people, and others will agree that person is fired and cannot stop him, then he can fire people.
This is basically the ultimate test of the constitution. If the Supreme Court rules that Trump can’t do something, will someone stop him when he tries it?
Or worse, if the Court says he can, will everyone just agree?
He is seizing power by people’s lack of reaction. Honestly, I’m disappointed in government workers simply complying with DOGE and similar activities. They should not comply until a legal basis is proven. Of course, maybe that basis has been proven, and I’m not aware… but it’s sus
It’s okay. This is all bullshit and being made up on the fly. New rule in America: if nobody stops you it’s “legal”.
This is how tech companies have always run and now that we have… Well yeah.
That rule only applies if you’re in the ruling class though.
If someone does stop you, get SCOTUS to make it legal.
I think you nailed it. He can’t be held accountable for breaking the rules, but there are still rules, so in order for that immunity to produce power the people around and under him need to allow him to break the rules.
It seems like the only defense to the power grab is a strong resistance. This illuminates why he wants yes-men everywhere.
The only thing required for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.
Someone please remind Hakeem Jefferies of this.
The suits against the firings are arguing it’s illegal. Trump is trying to conflate legality here by saying “scotus said if it’s an official act it’s legal automatically”
The thing is, he can just fire or arrest them and do what he wants. Will those arrests stick or will they accept being fired, probably not. But he just needs someone to do what he says and he’s got unlimited power. And he’s gone out of his way to install people who see his demands as above the law.
How corrupt is the Supreme Court again ?
6/9ths
Republicans bend over and hand it to him. Democrats just do nothing, caught up in decorum and process. Voters don’t care if it isn’t their trigger issue.
Can someone please unrestricted his brain from his skull? It is clearly too small
Sorry to play the Godwin card so early but this is Trump’s enabling act.
play the Godwin card so early
You’re not.
Mike Godwin has said multiple times that comparing Trump to Hitler is correct.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/12/19/godwins-law-trump-hitler-00132427
How long till this is the inevitable supreme Court case?
You know, 2-3 years, long enough for to him to have declared infinite presidential terms and Twitter based elections when it’s already too late to fight in court, again.
At that point it will be “too close to the election, so ruling on it would be improperly prejudicial”.
From the article:
The White House’s acting solicitor general, Sarah M. Harris, cited the Supreme Court’s July decision giving the president near-total immunity in an appeal Sunday asking the high court to overturn a lower court order blocking Trump’s decision to fire the head of the Office of Special Counsel, Hampton Dellinger.
So to answer your question, the case already started two days ago.
