- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Judge Amy Berman Jackson Rules the Bureaucracy Controls the Executive Branch, Not POTUS
Posted on 3/2/25 at 7:24 am
Posted on 3/2/25 at 7:24 am
quote:
A federal judge ruled Saturday that President Donald Trump’s firing of a federal workforce watchdog was illegal — teeing up a Supreme Court showdown over the president’s claim to nearly absolute control of the executive branch.
U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson concluded that Hampton Dellinger — confirmed last year as head of the Office of Special Counsel — may continue to serve his five-year term despite Trump’s effort to remove him from the post via a brusque email last month.
Jackson ruled that Dellinger’s duties, which include holding executive branch officials accountable for ethics breaches and fielding whistleblower complaints, were meant to be independent from the president, making the position a rare exception to the president’s generally vast domain over the executive branch.
Dellinger’s “independence is inextricably intertwined with the performance of his duties,” Jackson wrote in a 67-page opinion. “The elimination of the restrictions on plaintiff’s removal would be fatal to the defining and essential feature of the Office of Special Counsel as it was conceived by Congress and signed into law by the President: its independence. The Court concludes that they must stand.”
[…] Less than an hour after Jackson ruled, the Justice Department appealed her decision to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
LINK
Where did these dumbass judges learn civics?
This post was edited on 3/2/25 at 7:26 am
28
Posted on 3/2/25 at 7:29 am to GumboPot
If Congress wanted it to be independent of the Executive, then why did they put it in the Executive Branch?
Posted on 3/2/25 at 7:33 am to GumboPot
The Left continue to just do whatever they want- laws be damned, the Constitution be damned. They rule blessed on how they are feeling that day.
Do they not think that the Trump Administration has already researched these decisions to make sure they are permissible under the Constitution?
I’m sure folks will be along shortly to tell us how unelected activist judges overruling the duly elected President is normal and is a good thing.
Do they not think that the Trump Administration has already researched these decisions to make sure they are permissible under the Constitution?
I’m sure folks will be along shortly to tell us how unelected activist judges overruling the duly elected President is normal and is a good thing.
Posted on 3/2/25 at 7:41 am to GumboPot
Appointed by Obama, confirmed by a 97-0 vote.
Posted on 3/2/25 at 7:42 am to GumboPot
She must have missed that part of Con Law about the Tenure of Office Act
Posted on 3/2/25 at 7:43 am to GumboPot
This is a "wash rinse repeat" thing for them. Even if it goes to the SCOTUS and gets a ruling in favor of the executive branch they'll simply do it again.
Posted on 3/2/25 at 7:45 am to GumboPot
quote:
president’s claim to nearly absolute control of the executive branch.
This statement is so mind-numbingly stupid to read.
Posted on 3/2/25 at 7:46 am to GumboPot
Who nose where Amy Berman studied?
Posted on 3/2/25 at 7:47 am to GumboPot
She set up a massive showdown between powers by practicing her brand of liberal jurisprudence.
I hope she is rewarded just deserts.
I hope she is rewarded just deserts.
Posted on 3/2/25 at 7:51 am to POTUS2024
quote:
If Congress wanted it to be independent of the Executive, then why did they put it in the Executive Branch?
Yep the bitch just made it up.
Posted on 3/2/25 at 7:54 am to GumboPot
So a president on the way out the door can hamstring a successor for his entire term? I’m sure they could never be abused…
Posted on 3/2/25 at 7:54 am to GumboPot
The local ambulance chasers will be around to tell us the bitch is right.
Posted on 3/2/25 at 7:58 am to GumboPot
She is wrong.
Posted on 3/2/25 at 8:00 am to POTUS2024
quote:
If Congress wanted it to be independent of the Executive, then why did they put it in the Executive Branch?
The question is what limits Congress has on its own creation outside of specific Constitutional references (like the appointment Clause).
For years people have been upset that Congress gave too much power to the Executive by not legislating and giving vague mandates/power to the Executive via legislation. What this Unified Executive Theory is arguing is that even that vague action is irrelevant, because once they create a body with any Executive prerogative, the Executive has limitless power now within that body.
Historically, the Executive was limited to the specific power within the specific framework of the words of Congress (again, outside of specific language in the Constitution).
I heard someone on here just this last week argue "there is no such thing as an Independent Agency" and I was like
Posted on 3/2/25 at 8:03 am to udtiger
quote:
She must have missed 8th grade civics.
FIFY
Posted on 3/2/25 at 8:04 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
quote:
president’s claim to nearly absolute control of the executive branch.
This statement is so mind-numbingly stupid to read.
You caught that as well, lol.
Then again congress has no control over writing laws, those have been written by the administrative state for decades, I guess the judge feels the same about the executive branch.
Posted on 3/2/25 at 8:07 am to GumboPot
Time to relocate Mr. Dellinger's workspace to a cluster of port-a-johns in the parking lot.
Posted on 3/2/25 at 8:08 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I heard someone on here just this last week argue "there is no such thing as an Independent Agency" and I was like
The executive has the leash on the independence of any and all agencies.
How is this checked? The legislative branch through the impeachment clause.
Agencies just can’t exist extra-constitutionally. That would be dictatorial and against the values of a democratic republic.
Posted on 3/2/25 at 8:09 am to Placekicker
Scott Bloch was OSC back around 2008. He was nominated by Bush and then removed by Bush before his term expired. He filed a court case to challenge his dismissal - it was dismissed by the court.
At this link, you can go to pages 10-12.
Here is some of what's there, CLIFFS he was afforded enough due process and Congress did not specifically grant his position certain protections against removal, in a later section separation of powers arguments are dismissed as well:
In these specific circumstances, in which a high-level political appointee running an independent federal agency and subject to removal only for cause is under criminal investigation for alleged misconduct in office, clear written notice and one business week to respond is constitutionally adequate process. Although the private interest at stake, plaintiff's employment, is important, the government's interest in the efficient and scrupulous administration of the core tasks of an agency such as the OSC is certainly no less important. Moreover, the process that plaintiff seeks to require—a final factual finding of cause for removal by an impartial decision-maker—would impose significant administrative burdens on the government. That is, to require the president to sit idly by for formal fact-finding after having identified evidence of cause to remove a high-level government official would only exacerbate agency inefficiency and consume investigatory resources while affording the official under review more time to commit malfeasance in office. Where, as here, the president relies on substantial evidence of inefficiency, neglect, and malfeasance as a basis for removing the Special Counsel, the cost of additional formal procedures designed to establish that the wrongdoing actually occurred are intolerably high, and the Constitution accordingly does not require such procedures.
Thus, even assuming that plaintiff had standing to bring this claim and that the claim is not now moot for want of redressability, plaintiff's procedural due process claim fails as a matter of law. As such, Count I must be dismissed with prejudice.
Count II of the Amended Complaint alleges against all defendants a violation of 5 U.S.C. § 1211(b), which confers upon the Special Counsel a five-year term in office with removal only for cause. In essence, plaintiff argues that his premature removal from office was a violation of his statutory right to a set term. As with Count I, Count II is not justiciable; plaintiff's actual removal is not traceable to the named defendants, nor is there any appropriate remedy that a court can provide. Moreover, plaintiff does not have a cause of action for a violation of § 1211(b). Nothing in § 1211(b) expressly provides for a remedy or creates a private cause of action, which is telling given that when Congress intends to create a cause of action for independent officials who are removed, it does so explicitly. See, e.g. , 28 U.S.C. § 596(a)(3) (creating a cause of action to review the removal of an independent counsel). Where, as here, Congress fails to manifest an intent to create a private remedy, an implied cause of action should not be inferred. See Alexander v. Sandoval , 532 U.S. 275, 286, 121 S.Ct. 1511, 149 L.Ed.2d 517 (2001) (holding that “[t]he judicial task is to interpret the statute Congress has passed to determine whether it displays an intent to create not just a private right but also a private remedy” and declining to imply a private right of action to enforce disparate-impact regulations promulgated under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964).
The conclusion that plaintiff does not have a private remedy under § 1211(b) finds further support in the existence of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (“CSRA”), which is Congress's “integrated scheme of administrative and judicial review, designed to balance the legitimate interests of the various categories of federal employees with the needs of sound and efficient administration.” United States v. Fausto , 484 U.S. 439, 445, 108 S.Ct. 668, 98 L.Ed.2d 830 (1988). In light of the comprehensive nature of the CSRA, it is now well settled in the Fourth Circuit that the CSRA “operate[s] to the exclusion of all other statutory remedies for claims arising out of the federal employment relationship.” Hall v. Clinton , 235 F.3d 202, 206 (4th Cir.2000). To be sure, the CSRA's protections “do[ ] not apply to an employee whose appointment is made by the President.” 5 U.S.C. § 7511(b)(3). Yet, this does not mean that Congress intended that presidential appointees should have a panoply of remedies unavailable to other federal employees. To the contrary, the “deliberate exclusion of employees in [a] service category” indicates a congressional intention that employees within that service category simply should not have administrative or judicial remedies. See Fausto , 484 U.S. at 455, 108 S.Ct. 668 (so holding as to non-preference members of the excepted service). Because the CSRA is the comprehensive statutory scheme governing federal personnel actions, and because Congress intentionally excluded presidential appointees like plaintiff from the CSRA's remedial coverage, it follows that Congress determined that plaintiff should not have a statutory remedy under § 1211(b). Simply put, an aggrieved federal employee's statutory remedies for claims arising from the federal employment relationship are limited; only the remedies available under the CSRA may be pursued. Where, as here, plaintiff's federal service category has no remedies under the CSRA, the absence of such remedies is properly understood as a conscious choice by Congress to afford no statutory remedies. This congressional intent further reinforces the conclusion reached here that Congress, in enacting § 1211(b), did not intend to create a private cause of action.
This is not to say that a president's violation of § 1211(b) by improperly removing a Special Counsel from office would necessarily go without redress. If, as plaintiff alleges here, a president violates Congress's mandate that a Special Counsel be removed only for cause, there is no reason Congress cannot seek to hold the president accountable through the political process.
At this link, you can go to pages 10-12.
Here is some of what's there, CLIFFS he was afforded enough due process and Congress did not specifically grant his position certain protections against removal, in a later section separation of powers arguments are dismissed as well:
In these specific circumstances, in which a high-level political appointee running an independent federal agency and subject to removal only for cause is under criminal investigation for alleged misconduct in office, clear written notice and one business week to respond is constitutionally adequate process. Although the private interest at stake, plaintiff's employment, is important, the government's interest in the efficient and scrupulous administration of the core tasks of an agency such as the OSC is certainly no less important. Moreover, the process that plaintiff seeks to require—a final factual finding of cause for removal by an impartial decision-maker—would impose significant administrative burdens on the government. That is, to require the president to sit idly by for formal fact-finding after having identified evidence of cause to remove a high-level government official would only exacerbate agency inefficiency and consume investigatory resources while affording the official under review more time to commit malfeasance in office. Where, as here, the president relies on substantial evidence of inefficiency, neglect, and malfeasance as a basis for removing the Special Counsel, the cost of additional formal procedures designed to establish that the wrongdoing actually occurred are intolerably high, and the Constitution accordingly does not require such procedures.
Thus, even assuming that plaintiff had standing to bring this claim and that the claim is not now moot for want of redressability, plaintiff's procedural due process claim fails as a matter of law. As such, Count I must be dismissed with prejudice.
Count II of the Amended Complaint alleges against all defendants a violation of 5 U.S.C. § 1211(b), which confers upon the Special Counsel a five-year term in office with removal only for cause. In essence, plaintiff argues that his premature removal from office was a violation of his statutory right to a set term. As with Count I, Count II is not justiciable; plaintiff's actual removal is not traceable to the named defendants, nor is there any appropriate remedy that a court can provide. Moreover, plaintiff does not have a cause of action for a violation of § 1211(b). Nothing in § 1211(b) expressly provides for a remedy or creates a private cause of action, which is telling given that when Congress intends to create a cause of action for independent officials who are removed, it does so explicitly. See, e.g. , 28 U.S.C. § 596(a)(3) (creating a cause of action to review the removal of an independent counsel). Where, as here, Congress fails to manifest an intent to create a private remedy, an implied cause of action should not be inferred. See Alexander v. Sandoval , 532 U.S. 275, 286, 121 S.Ct. 1511, 149 L.Ed.2d 517 (2001) (holding that “[t]he judicial task is to interpret the statute Congress has passed to determine whether it displays an intent to create not just a private right but also a private remedy” and declining to imply a private right of action to enforce disparate-impact regulations promulgated under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964).
The conclusion that plaintiff does not have a private remedy under § 1211(b) finds further support in the existence of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (“CSRA”), which is Congress's “integrated scheme of administrative and judicial review, designed to balance the legitimate interests of the various categories of federal employees with the needs of sound and efficient administration.” United States v. Fausto , 484 U.S. 439, 445, 108 S.Ct. 668, 98 L.Ed.2d 830 (1988). In light of the comprehensive nature of the CSRA, it is now well settled in the Fourth Circuit that the CSRA “operate[s] to the exclusion of all other statutory remedies for claims arising out of the federal employment relationship.” Hall v. Clinton , 235 F.3d 202, 206 (4th Cir.2000). To be sure, the CSRA's protections “do[ ] not apply to an employee whose appointment is made by the President.” 5 U.S.C. § 7511(b)(3). Yet, this does not mean that Congress intended that presidential appointees should have a panoply of remedies unavailable to other federal employees. To the contrary, the “deliberate exclusion of employees in [a] service category” indicates a congressional intention that employees within that service category simply should not have administrative or judicial remedies. See Fausto , 484 U.S. at 455, 108 S.Ct. 668 (so holding as to non-preference members of the excepted service). Because the CSRA is the comprehensive statutory scheme governing federal personnel actions, and because Congress intentionally excluded presidential appointees like plaintiff from the CSRA's remedial coverage, it follows that Congress determined that plaintiff should not have a statutory remedy under § 1211(b). Simply put, an aggrieved federal employee's statutory remedies for claims arising from the federal employment relationship are limited; only the remedies available under the CSRA may be pursued. Where, as here, plaintiff's federal service category has no remedies under the CSRA, the absence of such remedies is properly understood as a conscious choice by Congress to afford no statutory remedies. This congressional intent further reinforces the conclusion reached here that Congress, in enacting § 1211(b), did not intend to create a private cause of action.
This is not to say that a president's violation of § 1211(b) by improperly removing a Special Counsel from office would necessarily go without redress. If, as plaintiff alleges here, a president violates Congress's mandate that a Special Counsel be removed only for cause, there is no reason Congress cannot seek to hold the president accountable through the political process.
Posted on 3/2/25 at 8:10 am to GumboPot
quote:
How is this checked? The legislative branch through the impeachment clause.
Traditionally it was "checked" by reading the words of the statute forming the body, as that's Congress's role.
quote:
Agencies just can’t exist extra-constitutionally
Nobody is making that argument. See above.
The Trump admin is trying to change the way the Executive is viewed with their Unified Executive Theory.
Page 1 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News