re: Judge Amy Berman Jackson Rules the Bureaucracy Controls the Executive Branch, Not POTUS

quote:

---

No I'm not

---

Yes, you are. You are creating your own scheme whereby the President is cut off from action and his direct subordinates (which is everyone in the Executive Branch) are able to act independently of him. That is a figurehead.

quote:

---

Except, it's not, and hasn't been?

---

You are wrong and you are attempting to pull out of thin air a series of arguments that violate the opening of Art II of the Constitution. The Founders even discussed this at the constitutional convention. Scalia lays this out in Morrison v Olson. The People, across the entire nation vote for President, and that President is the sole individual that has the entire executive authority of the United States vested to him. Executive authority means you get to hire and fire people. You can assign them work duties. You can determine security clearances. You can bar them from federal property like Bush did to Bloch. And more. Trump can fire this dude at OSC. It's just that simple.

quote:

---

You are creating your own scheme whereby the President is cut off from action and his direct subordinates

---

Incorrect. Learn how to read. I've clearly posted about the appointments clause at least 3x ITT.

quote:

---

are able to act independently of him

---

Never even discussed this.

I said the Executive authority can be limited to the statute used by Congress to create the agency, within certain specific Constitutional limits (like the appointments clause).

That doesn't make the President a "figurehead". It means the Executive is limited to how Congress set up the agency (within the limits above), like our system was always derived.

Does this limit certain authority of the President? Yes. See: The APA, Civil Service Act, etc. Also, see: the USSC rulings on Biden's SL forgiveness, Trump's bumpstock ban, etc.

Inferior officer?

One chief question recurs under the "by Law" language: Who are "inferior Officers", not subject to the requirement of advice and consent; and (2) what constitutes a "Department", when Congress seeks to place the appointment power away from the President? As an initial matter, most government employees are not officers and thus are not subject to the Appointments Clause. In Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court held that only those appointees "exercising significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States" are "Officers of the United States", and hence it is only those who exercise such "significant authority" who must be appointed by a mechanism set forth in the Appointments Clause. The Framers did not define the line between principal officers and inferior officers, and the Supreme Court has been content to approach the analysis on a case-by-case basis rather than through a definitive test.

quote:

---

and the Supreme Court has been content to approach the analysis on a case-by-case basis rather than through a definitive test.

---

Correct, which is why the confident, decisive proclamations in these discussions are always funny.

And I said it's very likely in this specific instance that the appointments clause will permit the replacement, ITT.

quote:

---

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.

---

They can’t start an investigation outside the club.

quote:

---

Who nose where Amy Berman studied?

---

Is that supposed to be a jew joke?

Berman. 'Nuff said.

quote:

---

quote:

---

She is an "activist" because she does not embrace the Imperial Presidency

---

It’s interesting, you call out someone for labeling the judge and then you label the president who actually has the constitution on his side, and precedent on a similar ruling

---

You do not seem to be very well-read.

The term "Imperial Presidency" is not unique to Trump, and I hardly coined the phrase. It is a reference to any over-expansive view of the powers of the Executive Branch.

quote:

---

Given these cases, lower courts clearly got the message – a message amplified by President Joe Biden, who appointed Dellinger. On the third "independent" position, the commissioner of Social Security, Biden’s Office of Legal Counsel declared that "the best reading of Collins and Seila Law" is that "the President need not heed the Commissioner’s statutory tenure protection." Two circuits (the Ninth and Eleventh) have ruled consistently with that interpretation in favor of executive authority to remove such officers.

---

Lol

Right on cue. And all this time, I thought that E Eric had the lowest grades for a student ever graduating from a Louisiana Law School. You make him look like a Rhodes Scholar.