President's power to can independent agency heads faces test

[turbinetree]

By JESSICA GRESKO
2 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is about to tell President Donald Trump whether he has more power to use a favorite phrase: “You’re fired.”

A case being argued at the high court on Tuesday could threaten the structure of agencies that form an enormous swath of the federal government. It has to do with whether a president can fire the heads of independent agencies for any reason.

The case the justices are hearing involves the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the agency Congress created in response to the 2008 financial crisis. It was the brainchild of Massachusetts senator and Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren.

Experts say a decision could ultimately affect not only the CFPB but also how easily the president can fire a host of other independent agency heads, including leaders of the Federal Reserve, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Trade Commission, Federal Communications Commission, Securities and Exchange Commission and Social Security Administration.

https://apnews.com/9e48d666c500c3c0116a3d129c9e8bda

With this right wing libertarian Robert federalist majority court .....................one just has to look at what they and how they ruled on union representation..........................because if he gets this ruling, if people think social security administration has issues now, then it will become the whipping boy as being not doing there job and ...........................especially if you have one Ginni Thomas in the back ground............. .

I do not trust the majority in the Roberts Court, his track record is really questionable....................

[Igel]

2. I always want to see the reasoning.

Not the reasoning as reported by somebody who raves about how great the ruling is, or by somebody who says it'll lead to the zombie apocalypse by morning.

It'll come down to Constitutional interpretation--when the Constitution says authority in the executive branch will be vested in a president, did it mean "all", "most", or "some"?

Because authority to pass laws is vested in the House and Senate. Does that mean all, most, or some?

And if there are three branches of government set up, does that exclude a fourth or just say what the bare minimum is? "Only" is a rare word in charters.

That will be balanced against "precedent," which at this level is often what courts decided they could manage to get to pass Constitutional political muster, often because "we need to do this". We're good at arriving at conclusions and then making up justification, no so good the other way 'round. And often the justification for accepting the justification boils down, "we need it."

That said, I don't think everything in the list of possibly affected agencies belongs there.