- 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
re: Judge Amy Berman Jackson Rules the Bureaucracy Controls the Executive Branch, Not POTUS
Posted on 3/2/25 at 9:46 am to the808bass
Posted on 3/2/25 at 9:46 am to the808bass
quote:
If the existing President gets to appoint an OIG then it’s not an OIG and Berman’s ruling is exactly as retarded as it looks.
Sounds like you're arguing what she is, actually.
The Trump admin is the one arguing that "it's not an OIG".
ABJ ruled that it is one.
quote:
“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.”
Justice Department attorneys contended Dellinger had significant power to act unilaterally, making it critical that he be under the control of the president, but Jackson said Trump’s lawyers were exaggerating the special counsel’s scope.
“This is not significant executive authority. It is hardly executive authority at all,” said the judge, an appointee of President Joe Biden.
This post was edited on 3/2/25 at 9:47 am
2
Posted on 3/2/25 at 9:52 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Nobody is making that argument.
That's exactly the argument that is being made when saying Congress can create an agency under the Executive branch without also being under the authority of the Executive branch. Nowhere in the Constitution is Congress given the ability to limit a President's authority under the Constitution. The Unitary Executive Theory is underscored by Hamilton 70.
Posted on 3/2/25 at 9:56 am to SlowFlowPro
Under the bush admin the same exact scenario played out and the supreme court said the executive branch had the right to terminate.
Why on earth would a lower court rule against it, its not addressed at all in her 67 page response. Does case law not apply? Does the supreme court not matter?
Instead we have devolved into "theory" and how its "viewed". How about we stick to just the facts maam.
Why on earth would a lower court rule against it, its not addressed at all in her 67 page response. Does case law not apply? Does the supreme court not matter?
Instead we have devolved into "theory" and how its "viewed". How about we stick to just the facts maam.
Posted on 3/2/25 at 9:58 am to Bard
This is my thought as well. The special council is appointed by the attorney general. They appoint them when the circumstances warrant it. If the attorney general works under the discretion of the president and has the authority to appoint a special counsel than they have the authority to terminate the special counsel.
Posted on 3/2/25 at 9:58 am to Bard
quote:
That's exactly the argument that is being made when saying Congress can create an agency under the Executive branch without also being under the authority of the Executive branch.
No. Congress sets the limits on executive authority of the agency. That's basic checks and balances.
I'll make this easy with 2 examples:
1. Remember last year when Chevron was overturned. Why were people so excited at that ruling? The executive was given judicial authority to excede its constitutional mandates/limits in Chevron.
2. Why doesn't the FDA regulate Wall Street? Is it perhaps that Congress did not give the FDA the statutory authority to do so? Yes.
quote:
Nowhere in the Constitution is Congress given the ability to limit a President's authority under the Constitution.
Then why can't the FDA regulate Wall Street?
Seems that Congress limits the President's authority there.
Posted on 3/2/25 at 10:00 am to SlowFlowPro
Wrong the constitution sets the limits on executive authority just like judicial and legislative.
Posted on 3/2/25 at 10:03 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
That was me and I was correct.
I did have the caveat that there are agencies that people “consider” to be independent, but that won’t likely withstand change.
There are too many separation of powers issues for Congress to install an independent agency within the executive branch.
It’s crazy to even consider.
Posted on 3/2/25 at 10:05 am to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:
There are too many separation of powers issues for Congress to install an independent agency within the executive branch.
How can congress install any limits on any executive agency?
Posted on 3/2/25 at 10:06 am to SlowFlowPro
This has been interesting to watch.
If the initial ruling is accurate this position was established by law with specific reasons a person could be terminated. But aside from that, anyone with any experience with unions and employment practices issues knows you can’t just randomly fire a bunch of Federal workers without fielding a ton of employment related lawsuits.
My best guess is the Trump team figured they’re better off getting rid of the people ASAP and fighting it out in court rather than taking the time needed to build a paper trail to justify firing them.
If the initial ruling is accurate this position was established by law with specific reasons a person could be terminated. But aside from that, anyone with any experience with unions and employment practices issues knows you can’t just randomly fire a bunch of Federal workers without fielding a ton of employment related lawsuits.
My best guess is the Trump team figured they’re better off getting rid of the people ASAP and fighting it out in court rather than taking the time needed to build a paper trail to justify firing them.
Posted on 3/2/25 at 10:08 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Then why can't the FDA regulate Wall Street?
They can. Any agency within the executive branch can do anything the executive gives them power to do.
Why is FEMA involved in housing illegals? That is clearly outside of its mandate.
There are many such examples.
Posted on 3/2/25 at 10:09 am to Chrome
quote:
11227 posts
Back to top
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.
The Lawfare will not end. The goal is to tie Trump up in court until his term runs out. The plan is to have a Dem Congress in 2026 and a Dem POTUS in 2028 in order to Restore the Natural Order of Globalist Leftist USA in Complete Control Again.
I hope this MAGA Movement can survive after Trump is no longer POTUS.
Posted on 3/2/25 at 10:11 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
How can congress install any limits on any executive agency?
They can’t, except through funding.
Posted on 3/2/25 at 10:12 am to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:
They can. Any agency within the executive branch can do anything the executive gives them power to do.
quote:
Why is FEMA involved in housing illegals? That is clearly outside of its mandate.
It is not, but that goes into my first post about people complaining Congress left too much vagueness for the Executive to fill the gap
Also, see: historical posts melting about Obama's "pen and a phone" comments.
Posted on 3/2/25 at 10:12 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The Trump admin is the one arguing that "it's not an OIG".
Yeah. That was my point. Biden appointed Bellinger. He’s not an OIG.
Posted on 3/2/25 at 10:14 am to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:
They can’t, except through funding.
So why do we have multiple agencies, cabinet positions, etc?
By your theory, any of them can do any executive function without limits. All you need is one officer appointed by the President and approved by the Senate and you have unlimited Executive authority.
Posted on 3/2/25 at 10:16 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:.
It is not, but that goes into my first post about people complaining Congress left too much vagueness for the Executive to fill the gap
Also, see: historical posts melting about Obama's "pen and a phone" comments
How about less posts referencing how random posters are complaining and melting, and more backing up your incorrect posts.
You stated that I was wrong. I have yet to see anything proving that.
Eye roll emojis don’t count.
Posted on 3/2/25 at 10:17 am to SlowFlowPro
Remember last year when Chevron was overturned. Why were people so excited at that ruling? The executive was given judicial authority to excede its constitutional mandates/limits in Chevron.
The EPA was writing and rewriting laws to suit their agenda. Even tho they fall under the executive, the constitution clearly states who has the power to pass laws. A better example would be why wouldn't the president appoint his own judges? He can't because it is not in his power to do so. He can nominate who he wants but it has to go thru Congress. What if the supreme court or district courts could pick their predecssor?All 3 branches using checks and balances.
The EPA was writing and rewriting laws to suit their agenda. Even tho they fall under the executive, the constitution clearly states who has the power to pass laws. A better example would be why wouldn't the president appoint his own judges? He can't because it is not in his power to do so. He can nominate who he wants but it has to go thru Congress. What if the supreme court or district courts could pick their predecssor?All 3 branches using checks and balances.
Posted on 3/2/25 at 10:19 am to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:
and more backing up your incorrect posts.
Every USSC ruling on the executive since the creation of the US thwarts your theory on Executive power.
Posted on 3/2/25 at 10:20 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
By your theory, any of them can do any executive function without limits.
It’s not a theory. Congress can choose to not fund the department, but they are not involved in the daily operations.
How would it even be possible for a legislative body to dictate daily operations?
Posted on 3/2/25 at 10:22 am to Champagne
At some point there will be a "boiling point".
This case is a lower judge clearly ruling that the supreme court is irrelevant by ruling against a case law decided previously.
In other words the supreme law of the land has been handed to 1500 federal judges.
This case is a lower judge clearly ruling that the supreme court is irrelevant by ruling against a case law decided previously.
In other words the supreme law of the land has been handed to 1500 federal judges.
Page 4 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News