The present Supreme Court no longer functions as designed by the Constitution and in concert for the good of the citizenry. Therefore, We, the People, no longer should, or need, to respect their decisions on a state or public level.
Thank you for speaking out on an evergreen and even over-arching issue. This unitary executive theory smacks of crowning the president AS KING. The legislatively constructed agencies meant to be independent should be defended -- uniformly -- as independent. The process of filling Fed seats has traditionally focused on expertise (few Fox News members) and staggered in a way that every president (criminal or beyond the law or more normal) has an impact but NOT control. The history of world monetary authority is littered with the examples of why there should be a separation of politics and monetary policy.
For all of the "independent" agencies, there is, nevertheless, influence from the President either through nominations, the designated political split or even just the not-so-subtle pressure to be or not to be "active" on all of them. The FTC Federal Trade Commission was constructed to enforce existing legislation on antitrust laws, but not to protect a president's donors. With firing at will, it is not the same FTC. The DOJ has many duties it isn't doing already, but it should always have competent staff who examine mergers or acquisition. I don't know the legislative underpinnings, and this probably behaves more politically than some of the others simply because it is in the DOJ. Should it? Has the nature of competition changed in a fundamental way that makes such oversight unnecessary?. What happens with regulation of financial markets through the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) will never be unimportant, but it should keep up with financial "innovations" like watching crypto markets. Are they? The financial crisis was a wake up call: some financial institutions chose their watchdogs which damaged the independence. Trump was clear about wanting to be rid of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), but this, again, was created through legislation. There are so very few protections of consumers left in our world. The financial industry is not as easily understood as the bruises on a banana or bad car breaks. Given innovation in financial markets, it is no less important than it was when started. Remember the financial world bringing down the economy? It was not so long ago.
If a president has the power of both Houses and Senate, those "independent" agencies started by legislation should be IMMUNE from destruction without NEW legislation, and never by the arbitrary lines drawn by the Supreme Court. Was the original legislation unconstitutional and this is the first time that has been noticed? Were there flaws never before identified in the original legislation? When can the Supreme Court throw out a law? If so, there must be a cogent argument.
The Unitary Executive Theory does not appear in the Constitution as far as most of us can see, so where was this dreamed up? The voting rights act was recently gutted by a simple declaration that racism is dead. WHO believes that.? Supreme is in the name, but does it have the power to do anything in the shadow docket without explanation? It should not be blatantly inconsistent on when a ruling takes effect (not too close to and election to during an election and anytime if it helps Republicans) or on any other norm. We need an ultimate court, but if it really can rule from the fantasy of a majority of its members, it clearly needs reform. If it can be inconsistent with no sign of recognition, it clearly needs reform. They have done so much to lose the trust of citizens that it may never recover that trust.
I was going to quote Lisa here, but I can't recall her exact words Here's my paraphrase;
Lisa will know if I'm on target with this. It's my impression from Lisa's appearances and talks that she's saying, to the effect, that Roberts is something akin to a Wolf in sheep's clothing. Roberts pretends to be judicially reasonable. Then, he "Dons" his Sheepskin jacket to drop hints intended to hoodwink followers of the Court. Is he changing his tune ? Well, that's just whistling "Dixie," 'eh ? As usual, Roberts' tune is NOT just figurative but quite literal,
as in Callais. Happily, for us all, Lisa is 'Hoodwinked Proof !!
(Aside:I'm saying this on the hope it may be true !! Is SCOTUS scared anticipating a DEM sweep with Congress' Article III, Section II legislative power to constrain SCOTUS in selective ways ??? How about impacting the $$$ funding of the Court and other operating guidelines for: ethics, gifts, recusals, expanding the Court ? (....some of these, I don't know about the small print.... my disclaimer ! : ) STILL, I like the money part $$$$ the best ! ( Cut their budget, then suggest that SCOTUS can earn pocket money from their TIPS when delivering pizzas.
Thank you for calling this regression. I really appreciate you analysis and history lesson. I think I need to add death dealing. This MAGA 6 group is actually dealing in policy death. Reform is a must.
I was going to quote Lisa here, but I can't recall her exact words Here's my paraphrase;
Lisa will know if I'm on target with this. It's my impression from Lisa's appearances and talks that she's saying, to the effect, that Roberts is something akin to a Wolf in sheep's clothing. Roberts pretends to be judicially reasonable. Then, he "Dons" his Sheepskin jacket to drop hints intended to hoodwink followers of the Court. Is he changing his tune ? Well, that's just whistling "Dixie," 'eh ? As usual, Roberts' tune is NOT just figurative but quite literal,
as in Callais. Happily, for us all, Lisa is 'Hoodwinked Proof !!
(Aside:I'm saying this on the hope it may be true !! Is SCOTUS scared anticipating a DEM sweep with Congress' Article III, Section II legislative power to constrain SCOTUS in selective ways ??? How about impacting the $$$ funding of the Court and other operating guidelines for: ethics, gifts, recusals, expanding the Court ? (....some of these, I don't know about the small print.... my disclaimer ! : ) STILL, I like the money part $$$$ the best ! ( Cut their budget, then suggest that SCOTUS can earn pocket money from their TIPS when delivering pizzas.)
It seems the horse has bolted from the stable,..and yet somehow this is all so blatantly preposterous that it cannot survive it,s own creation,..when the next recession hits it will tear down many of these crackpot theories,..it,s a criminal shame that once again working Americans will pay the price,..the only immediate part remedy i see is in the November elections,..stand strong Democrats.
Great information. Thanks for the history refresher. Unbelievable how much we forget about over the years and especially past major political issues. But then we were still a democracy and we relied upon our Senators, house of representatives and the elected and appointed judges to execute their duty for us the people and for the constitution and to preserve established laws for our nation. Most of us have never lived under a dictator before so we are facing major life changes and adjustments to what we have already lost and we are just at the beginning.
Good reporting, thank you! Vought goes undetected. He is really rotten.
The present Supreme Court no longer functions as designed by the Constitution and in concert for the good of the citizenry. Therefore, We, the People, no longer should, or need, to respect their decisions on a state or public level.
It's taken it too far
Thank you for speaking out on an evergreen and even over-arching issue. This unitary executive theory smacks of crowning the president AS KING. The legislatively constructed agencies meant to be independent should be defended -- uniformly -- as independent. The process of filling Fed seats has traditionally focused on expertise (few Fox News members) and staggered in a way that every president (criminal or beyond the law or more normal) has an impact but NOT control. The history of world monetary authority is littered with the examples of why there should be a separation of politics and monetary policy.
For all of the "independent" agencies, there is, nevertheless, influence from the President either through nominations, the designated political split or even just the not-so-subtle pressure to be or not to be "active" on all of them. The FTC Federal Trade Commission was constructed to enforce existing legislation on antitrust laws, but not to protect a president's donors. With firing at will, it is not the same FTC. The DOJ has many duties it isn't doing already, but it should always have competent staff who examine mergers or acquisition. I don't know the legislative underpinnings, and this probably behaves more politically than some of the others simply because it is in the DOJ. Should it? Has the nature of competition changed in a fundamental way that makes such oversight unnecessary?. What happens with regulation of financial markets through the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) will never be unimportant, but it should keep up with financial "innovations" like watching crypto markets. Are they? The financial crisis was a wake up call: some financial institutions chose their watchdogs which damaged the independence. Trump was clear about wanting to be rid of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), but this, again, was created through legislation. There are so very few protections of consumers left in our world. The financial industry is not as easily understood as the bruises on a banana or bad car breaks. Given innovation in financial markets, it is no less important than it was when started. Remember the financial world bringing down the economy? It was not so long ago.
If a president has the power of both Houses and Senate, those "independent" agencies started by legislation should be IMMUNE from destruction without NEW legislation, and never by the arbitrary lines drawn by the Supreme Court. Was the original legislation unconstitutional and this is the first time that has been noticed? Were there flaws never before identified in the original legislation? When can the Supreme Court throw out a law? If so, there must be a cogent argument.
The Unitary Executive Theory does not appear in the Constitution as far as most of us can see, so where was this dreamed up? The voting rights act was recently gutted by a simple declaration that racism is dead. WHO believes that.? Supreme is in the name, but does it have the power to do anything in the shadow docket without explanation? It should not be blatantly inconsistent on when a ruling takes effect (not too close to and election to during an election and anytime if it helps Republicans) or on any other norm. We need an ultimate court, but if it really can rule from the fantasy of a majority of its members, it clearly needs reform. If it can be inconsistent with no sign of recognition, it clearly needs reform. They have done so much to lose the trust of citizens that it may never recover that trust.
Thank you for this cogent and compelling reply, Barbara!!
Why are we all not outraged?
Thanks Lisa! What an EPIC destruction by truly weak men.
Hopefully these illegal and dangerous attempts to further damage and undermine our country will be thwarted.
I was going to quote Lisa here, but I can't recall her exact words Here's my paraphrase;
Lisa will know if I'm on target with this. It's my impression from Lisa's appearances and talks that she's saying, to the effect, that Roberts is something akin to a Wolf in sheep's clothing. Roberts pretends to be judicially reasonable. Then, he "Dons" his Sheepskin jacket to drop hints intended to hoodwink followers of the Court. Is he changing his tune ? Well, that's just whistling "Dixie," 'eh ? As usual, Roberts' tune is NOT just figurative but quite literal,
as in Callais. Happily, for us all, Lisa is 'Hoodwinked Proof !!
(Aside:I'm saying this on the hope it may be true !! Is SCOTUS scared anticipating a DEM sweep with Congress' Article III, Section II legislative power to constrain SCOTUS in selective ways ??? How about impacting the $$$ funding of the Court and other operating guidelines for: ethics, gifts, recusals, expanding the Court ? (....some of these, I don't know about the small print.... my disclaimer ! : ) STILL, I like the money part $$$$ the best ! ( Cut their budget, then suggest that SCOTUS can earn pocket money from their TIPS when delivering pizzas.
Thank you for calling this regression. I really appreciate you analysis and history lesson. I think I need to add death dealing. This MAGA 6 group is actually dealing in policy death. Reform is a must.
I was going to quote Lisa here, but I can't recall her exact words Here's my paraphrase;
Lisa will know if I'm on target with this. It's my impression from Lisa's appearances and talks that she's saying, to the effect, that Roberts is something akin to a Wolf in sheep's clothing. Roberts pretends to be judicially reasonable. Then, he "Dons" his Sheepskin jacket to drop hints intended to hoodwink followers of the Court. Is he changing his tune ? Well, that's just whistling "Dixie," 'eh ? As usual, Roberts' tune is NOT just figurative but quite literal,
as in Callais. Happily, for us all, Lisa is 'Hoodwinked Proof !!
(Aside:I'm saying this on the hope it may be true !! Is SCOTUS scared anticipating a DEM sweep with Congress' Article III, Section II legislative power to constrain SCOTUS in selective ways ??? How about impacting the $$$ funding of the Court and other operating guidelines for: ethics, gifts, recusals, expanding the Court ? (....some of these, I don't know about the small print.... my disclaimer ! : ) STILL, I like the money part $$$$ the best ! ( Cut their budget, then suggest that SCOTUS can earn pocket money from their TIPS when delivering pizzas.)
It seems the horse has bolted from the stable,..and yet somehow this is all so blatantly preposterous that it cannot survive it,s own creation,..when the next recession hits it will tear down many of these crackpot theories,..it,s a criminal shame that once again working Americans will pay the price,..the only immediate part remedy i see is in the November elections,..stand strong Democrats.
This is not democracy,. It is something else,.
Is there any mention of the “Unitary executive theory”
in the constitution?
I think not,.
And by its own name.( Theory ),. It’s not a fit model in a democracy.
Which is very plainly demonstrated by,..
Donald J Trump
Great information. Thanks for the history refresher. Unbelievable how much we forget about over the years and especially past major political issues. But then we were still a democracy and we relied upon our Senators, house of representatives and the elected and appointed judges to execute their duty for us the people and for the constitution and to preserve established laws for our nation. Most of us have never lived under a dictator before so we are facing major life changes and adjustments to what we have already lost and we are just at the beginning.