Dems must expand the Supreme Court when we are the majority in the house and senate in 2028. If Dem legislators don’t step up and ensure democracy rules going forward, the constituents must primary the unserious Dems OUT
Nonetheless the ruling will apply to any president. Which means the next Democratic president should be able to purge all of Trump's partisan flunkies in one fell swoop.
“…the huge expansion of presidential power in the court’s embracing the unitary executive theory and allowing the president to fire almost anyone in the executive branch of government. Those who drafted the Declaration of Independence deeply distrusted executive power and would surely have recoiled at this Supreme Court’s approach to it.”
SHAME, SHAME, SHAAAAAME on the Robert’s Court!!!! What, in the world, is WRONG with them?! Why….WHY?!…..would they want to destroy our Democracy? Makes NO sense…..at ALL!
The conservative members of SCOTUS should just come out and say it - with presidential immunity and endorsement of the unitary executive they are paving the way for autocracy and undermining democracy. Just admit it, you cowards, that you do not support a liberal democratic order, the order that has brought peace and prosperity for the last ~80 years.
The only civil service employees the president should be able to fire are those the president appointed. The president does not have absolute power … period. As for the Supreme Court, term limits is the solution. Adding justices will just cause more division. I really believe Roberts and Thomas should be impeached. They both exhibit extreme bias and do not represent originalist intent.
They just can't quit. The not-so-supreme court majority is addicted to the rush they get when wielding their power to create a government that benefits only the oligarchs and leaves "we the people" in the dirt.
"Perhaps when a scorecard is done of Trump’s wins and losses in the Supreme Court, June 29 will be regarded as mixed." This is the kind of thinking that got us into this mess. The Supreme Court broke the last of the tethers. Now it's just a question of how hard Trump can push without sparking rebellion. But given the likely consequences of losing control of Congress in the midterms, along with all the recent dogwhistles for violence, I don't think it takes a genius to know the answer is that it will be a full court press.
Hello, thank you for this post. I would like to know your position on proposals to change the Supreme Court by [1] having long, but limited, terms -- 18 years has been proposed; [2] adding members; or [3] anything else. Do you think that the substance of the Supreme Court decisions in several areas including the "unitary executive" as shown in this decision and the Trump immunity decision finally justifies changes in the Unite States Supreme Court? To the readers: I have known Erwin a long time but not at the level of having regular chats about legal issues. Dean Chemerinsky was in Alaska in April for his annual peerless presentation on the US Supreme Court decisions and the Alaska Supreme Court decisions in the past year and I did not ask this question.
The piece places Slaughter in doctrinal context accurately and in useful sequence. What it touches less directly is the representation claim embedded in the majority's reasoning: Roberts argues that routing agency authority through the president makes those agencies more democratically accountable, because the president answers to the electorate in a way that independent commissioners do not.
Whether that substitution holds in practice depends on whether a person governed by an FTC enforcement decision or an NLRB ruling can trace that governance back to a vote they cast. The accountability Roberts describes operates at the scale of a national election and a four-year interval; the harm typically operates closer and sooner. Where exactly the Court draws the line between agencies now subject to at-will removal and those it still means to protect (the Federal Reserve appears to remain in the latter category for now) is still being worked out, and that line matters considerably to the people those agencies were created to serve.
Adding severa.l.libeal members to the Supreme Court is an action needs to be taken in the next Democratic administration. We cannot allow this heinous court to stop progress for decades upon decades.
If a Democrat was President, does anyone seriously think the Supremes would have voted for that President to get more power?
Dems must expand the Supreme Court when we are the majority in the house and senate in 2028. If Dem legislators don’t step up and ensure democracy rules going forward, the constituents must primary the unserious Dems OUT
That's not a serious question, is it?
Nonetheless the ruling will apply to any president. Which means the next Democratic president should be able to purge all of Trump's partisan flunkies in one fell swoop.
I was just thinking how their rulings will flip 180 when a Democrat takes office.
“…the huge expansion of presidential power in the court’s embracing the unitary executive theory and allowing the president to fire almost anyone in the executive branch of government. Those who drafted the Declaration of Independence deeply distrusted executive power and would surely have recoiled at this Supreme Court’s approach to it.”
SHAME, SHAME, SHAAAAAME on the Robert’s Court!!!! What, in the world, is WRONG with them?! Why….WHY?!…..would they want to destroy our Democracy? Makes NO sense…..at ALL!
There might be a rea$on, I'm not $ure what it i$, but I think Clarence Thoma$ know$.
Too clever, by half.
The conservative members of SCOTUS should just come out and say it - with presidential immunity and endorsement of the unitary executive they are paving the way for autocracy and undermining democracy. Just admit it, you cowards, that you do not support a liberal democratic order, the order that has brought peace and prosperity for the last ~80 years.
SecWarCrimes’ white nationalist military.
The only civil service employees the president should be able to fire are those the president appointed. The president does not have absolute power … period. As for the Supreme Court, term limits is the solution. Adding justices will just cause more division. I really believe Roberts and Thomas should be impeached. They both exhibit extreme bias and do not represent originalist intent.
They just can't quit. The not-so-supreme court majority is addicted to the rush they get when wielding their power to create a government that benefits only the oligarchs and leaves "we the people" in the dirt.
I firmly believe our founding fathers are all spinning in their graves by now!
"Perhaps when a scorecard is done of Trump’s wins and losses in the Supreme Court, June 29 will be regarded as mixed." This is the kind of thinking that got us into this mess. The Supreme Court broke the last of the tethers. Now it's just a question of how hard Trump can push without sparking rebellion. But given the likely consequences of losing control of Congress in the midterms, along with all the recent dogwhistles for violence, I don't think it takes a genius to know the answer is that it will be a full court press.
Hello, thank you for this post. I would like to know your position on proposals to change the Supreme Court by [1] having long, but limited, terms -- 18 years has been proposed; [2] adding members; or [3] anything else. Do you think that the substance of the Supreme Court decisions in several areas including the "unitary executive" as shown in this decision and the Trump immunity decision finally justifies changes in the Unite States Supreme Court? To the readers: I have known Erwin a long time but not at the level of having regular chats about legal issues. Dean Chemerinsky was in Alaska in April for his annual peerless presentation on the US Supreme Court decisions and the Alaska Supreme Court decisions in the past year and I did not ask this question.
The piece places Slaughter in doctrinal context accurately and in useful sequence. What it touches less directly is the representation claim embedded in the majority's reasoning: Roberts argues that routing agency authority through the president makes those agencies more democratically accountable, because the president answers to the electorate in a way that independent commissioners do not.
Whether that substitution holds in practice depends on whether a person governed by an FTC enforcement decision or an NLRB ruling can trace that governance back to a vote they cast. The accountability Roberts describes operates at the scale of a national election and a four-year interval; the harm typically operates closer and sooner. Where exactly the Court draws the line between agencies now subject to at-will removal and those it still means to protect (the Federal Reserve appears to remain in the latter category for now) is still being worked out, and that line matters considerably to the people those agencies were created to serve.
Adding severa.l.libeal members to the Supreme Court is an action needs to be taken in the next Democratic administration. We cannot allow this heinous court to stop progress for decades upon decades.