The Supreme courts once again has crowned Trump a King!!

tigerred59

Verified User
1782754485710.png







https://x.com/ABC



BREAKING: In a landmark decision that could transform the federal government, the Supreme Court voted 6-3 to allow President Trump to remove a Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission purely for policy reasons, rolling back 90 years of legal precedent that had prevented at-will removal of independent agency officials and significantly expanding presidential power. Now do you believe me? We have 2 more gotdamn years of the courts handing our country over to a mad man.
 
View attachment 87863


https://x.com/ABC



BREAKING: In a landmark decision that could transform the federal government, the Supreme Court voted 6-3 to allow President Trump to remove a Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission purely for policy reasons, rolling back 90 years of legal precedent that had prevented at-will removal of independent agency officials and significantly expanding presidential power. Now do you believe me? We have 2 more gotdamn years of the courts handing our country over to a mad man.
Can you show us the FTC in the Constitution? How about where the Constitution allows for "independent" Federal agencies?

Tell me, did SCOTUS "expand presidential power" when they ruled in favor of cheat-by-mail today?
 
Can you show us the FTC in the Constitution? How about where the Constitution allows for "independent" Federal agencies?

Tell me, did SCOTUS "expand presidential power" when they ruled in favor of cheat-by-mail today?
It doesn’t, however those agencies and the Fed were created by Congress, can you show us in the Constitution where it says the Executive can erase Congressional legislation?
 
It doesn’t, however those agencies and the Fed were created by Congress, can you show us in the Constitution where it says the Executive can erase Congressional legislation?
How was congressional legislation erased? It wasn't.

Can you show me where Congress can create a fourth branch of government, independent from the other three?
 
How was congressional legislation erased? It wasn't.

Can you show me where Congress can create a fourth branch of government, independent from the other three?
How, Trump erased their independence, the reason they were created by Congress, now tney are just more kiss asses to the President, they no longer even have a purpose

They weren’t a branch nor independent from the other three, they reported to Congress, and the head of each is appointed by the President, were created to offer nonpartisan expertise free of political influence. At one time the DOJ was thought to be an unofficial independent agency until Trump made it part of his personal army of attorneys
 
View attachment 87863


https://x.com/ABC



BREAKING: In a landmark decision that could transform the federal government, the Supreme Court voted 6-3 to allow President Trump to remove a Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission purely for policy reasons, rolling back 90 years of legal precedent that had prevented at-will removal of independent agency officials and significantly expanding presidential power. Now do you believe me? We have 2 more gotdamn years of the courts handing our country over to a mad man.
So it is an interesting conundrum. What the Supreme Court is rightfully undoing is decades of unelected bureaucrats that effectively are pass laws, judgements, fines and can thwart the will of the President.

Congress used this bureaucracy to hamstring the President. It had to stop.

Now there is potential that this could have gone too far in giving any President too much power but I agree for the most part with the ruling.

For example so much legislation gets written "at the discretion of the <pick your agency head>". It is lazy legislating and gives Congress plausible deniability if shit doesn't go right.

The whole issue of Congress creating "independent" agencies of the Executive Branch had to stop and this court stopped it
 
It doesn’t, however those agencies and the Fed were created by Congress, can you show us in the Constitution where it says the Executive can erase Congressional legislation?
It doesn't and he isn't. Firing people in charge of agencies of the Executive Branch isn't erasing legislation. That is just silly talk
 
How, Trump erased their independence, the reason they were created by Congress, now tney are just more kiss asses to the President, they no longer even have a purpose

They weren’t a branch nor independent from the other three, they reported to Congress, and the head of each is appointed by the President, were created to offer nonpartisan expertise free of political influence. At one time the DOJ was thought to be an unofficial independent agency until Trump made it part of his personal army of attorneys
This whole "independent" departments idea is a crock of shit and you know it. There are three branches of the government. That is it. There was never an allowance for "independent" agencies.

The DOJ reports to the Executive branch. That means it serves at the pleasure of the President. He can direct it as he sees fit. If he abuses that power than the other branches have means of checking that power.

But, the whole problem was these so called "independent" permanent bureaucrats that would and could thwart the will of the person they worked for. In any other job if you don't do what your boss wants you to do then you get fired.

This notion that they can act independently makes them de facto bosses answering to nobody. They don't even answer to the people because they are unelected.

It had to stop and this court rightfully stopped it
 
The left is never satisfied, are they?


The American Left is predictably outraged by the SCOTUS decision in Trump v. Slaughter.


Why?


Because it neuters their primary power base: the unelected, bureaucratic, tyrannical Leviathan of the federal administrative state, the same cabal that decides for all of us what kind of light bulbs we are allowed to own and what sort of medical care the average American is allowed to
have when we get old.


Democrats are claiming that this case allows the President to fire any federal employee, reinstating the spoils system. That's not true: Trump v. Slaughter is a comparatively narrow holding that allows the President to fire some FTC commissioners (and likely the heads of similar independent agencies) at will for policy or political reasons.


Rank-and-file federal employees are still protected by the Civil Service Reform Act, but it is not entirely unreasonable to see Trump v. Slaughter as the first step in a series of precedents giving the President broader powers over all federal employees.


Thus, it is important to understand the Democrat argument against the ruling on an informed basis so those of us who value the Constitution can counter their dishonesty.


If you took American Government 101 as a college freshman, you may remember being taught that the “spoils system” was a horrible tragedy.


Historically attributed to President Andrew Jackson, the idea was that when a new President was elected, he got to decide who filled the functional jobs in the departments of the Executive Branch.


The neo-Marxist PhDs who taught you in college decided this was horrible, which was why you were taught this way. The "solution" was the establishment of a supposedly professional, supposedly apolitical, supposedly independent civil service that would run the basic executive functions of the federal government.


This “solution" was implemented in 1883 when President Chester A. Arthur signed the Pendleton Act into law, establishing the U.S. federal civil service as a merit-based system. The Pendleton Act required competitive exams and hiring processes for many federal positions, and created the United States Civil Service Commission to oversee hiring and protect employees from political firings (this was later dissolved and replaced by three separate agencies: the Office of Personnel Management, the Merit Systems Protection Board and the Federal Labor Relations Authority).


So maybe the civil service was actually a good idea when instituted. Maybe it really was “professional" once. Maybe it really was “apolitical" once. Maybe it really was “independent” once.


Maybe.


In 1883 the entire non-military federal workforce consisted of approximately 132,000 employees.
Today, the entire non-military federal workforce consists of 2,021,167 employees.


In 1883 there was no federal income tax.


Today, the top marginal federal income tax rate is 37%.


In 1883 there were no federal government employee unions.

Today, federal government employee unions are among the most very powerful organizations in U.S. society.


MOST IMPORTANTLY: over 90% of all federal employee union campaign contributions go to Democrats. (Which also means, of course, that federal employees overwhelmingly vote for Democrats.)


So let us tie those facts together, shall we?


The supposedly "independent" federal work force almost exclusively supports Democrat candidates.


Their union collects dues paid for by the tax dollars of productive capitalist Americans. Those tax dollars are then given to Democrat campaigns, electing Democrats.

Then those same elected Democrats reach into the bottomless pit of American income tax collections to give those same federal workers more jobs, more job security, more money and more benefits.


The federal employees and the Democrats scratch each others' backs, and those of us who actually create wealth suffer and pay the price--all while those same privileged, unelected federal employees endlessly create new tyrannical rules that burden our daily lives with unneeded, often unconstitutional rules and regulations.


And firing them is virtually impossible.


It's a doom loop of unaccountable tyranny. It's the Leviathan.


Democrats claim Trump v. Slaughter will reinstate the spoils system. What they ignore is that in 2026 the only spoils system is the permanent one of the Democrat Party.


What Trump v. Slaughter ACTUALLY does is restore voter accountability to our federal government. Those unelected bureaucrats can no longer wield power against the electorate, unchecked by the votes of that same electorate.


Democrats claim to love democracy. All Trump v. Slaughter does is restore democracy, which is why Democrats hate it.







View: https://x.com/CynicalPublius/status/2071710314278609007?s=20
 
You bet! And Stabby didn't get a fair trial either did he? He needs a medal of honor and released from prison immediately right?
 
View attachment 87863


https://x.com/ABC



BREAKING: In a landmark decision that could transform the federal government, the Supreme Court voted 6-3 to allow President Trump to remove a Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission purely for policy reasons, rolling back 90 years of legal precedent that had prevented at-will removal of independent agency officials and significantly expanding presidential power. Now do you believe me? We have 2 more gotdamn years of the courts handing our country over to a mad man.
1782837532389.png
 
How, Trump erased their independence, the reason they were created by Congress, now tney are just more kiss asses to the President, they no longer even have a purpose

They weren’t a branch nor independent from the other three, they reported to Congress, and the head of each is appointed by the President, were created to offer nonpartisan expertise free of political influence. At one time the DOJ was thought to be an unofficial independent agency until Trump made it part of his personal army of attorneys
You big mad today eh?

It was Obama who made the DOJ his lap dog. Good for the goose good for the gander now fuck off. Elections have consequences bitch!
 
How, Trump erased their independence, the reason they were created by Congress, now tney are just more kiss asses to the President, they no longer even have a purpose
Congress doesn't have the authority to create a fourth branch of government. Totally unconstitutional. You were fine when she was a kiss ass to Democrat presidents. Hypocrite much?
They weren’t a branch nor independent from the other three, they reported to Congress, and the head of each is appointed by the President, were created to offer nonpartisan expertise free of political influence. At one time the DOJ was thought to be an unofficial independent agency until Trump made it part of his personal army of attorneys
Can you show us where the Constitution allows Congress to create independent agencies?
 
So it is an interesting conundrum. What the Supreme Court is rightfully undoing is decades of unelected bureaucrats that effectively are pass laws, judgements, fines and can thwart the will of the President.

Congress used this bureaucracy to hamstring the President. It had to stop.

Now there is potential that this could have gone too far in giving any President too much power but I agree for the most part with the ruling.

For example so much legislation gets written "at the discretion of the <pick your agency head>". It is lazy legislating and gives Congress plausible deniability if shit doesn't go right.

The whole issue of Congress creating "independent" agencies of the Executive Branch had to stop and this court stopped it
Dude under any 'NORMAL" administration that argument would work and sound just fine...but we're talking Trump...a guy who surrounds himself with nothing but YES men, which is a dangerous precedent to unfold. Trump is not normal, like how many times must we say this. 1782839819637.png
 
Dude under any 'NORMAL" administration that argument would work and sound just fine...but we're talking Trump...a guy who surrounds himself with nothing but YES men, which is a dangerous precedent to unfold. Trump is not normal, like how many times must we say this. View attachment 87995
Every President wants people around them that will execute their vision. Trump isn't unique in that fashion.

BTW, you don't mold the Constitution to an individual. It is what it is. Trump only has two more years.
 
Every President wants people around them that will execute their vision. Trump isn't unique in that fashion.

BTW, you don't mold the Constitution to an individual. It is what it is. Trump only has two more years.
Dude, you are morphing into that "impenetrable" brick wall here....Trump isn't like every effin President, what about that can't you understand??? Execute his vision??? WTF vision would anybody see besides his desires along with Miller to turn this nation into a NAZI Germany 2.0 American style??? News Flash, he is unique, he's not normal and you defending the courts discision makes me question your morality and saneness. Agreed, the Constitution is a benign document absent of individuals and party affiliation, however, desperate times call for desperate measures and its time we tweak this bitch to address a gotdamn mad man in our WHITE HOUSE. 2 more years left, eh? In less than 2 years later, you tell me how better off we are with this guy in charge!!
 
Dude, you are morphing into that "impenetrable" brick wall here....Trump isn't like every effin President, what about that can't you understand??? Execute his vision??? WTF vision would anybody see besides his desires along with Miller to turn this nation into a NAZI Germany 2.0 American style??? News Flash, he is unique, he's not normal and you defending the courts discision makes me question your morality and saneness. Agreed, the Constitution is a benign document absent of individuals and party affiliation, however, desperate times call for desperate measures and its time we tweak this bitch to address a gotdamn mad man in our WHITE HOUSE. 2 more years left, eh? In less than 2 years later, you tell me how better off we are with this guy in charge!!



Impartial evaluation:

The reaction is a highly emotional, hyperbolic rant that substitutes insults, conspiracy-laden analogies, and calls to subvert the Constitution for reasoned argument. It exemplifies partisan tribalism rather than substantive engagement with the legal issues in Trump v. Slaughter.

Core of the Case​

Trump v. Slaughter (decided June 29, 2026) addressed whether statutory "for-cause" removal protections for FTC commissioners (barring firing except for inefficiency, neglect, or malfeasance) violate Article II of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held 6-3 (Roberts opinion, with Gorsuch concurring; liberal justices dissenting) that they do.

  • Majority reasoning: The President has the "executive Power" and duty to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." Independent agencies with policymaking power dilute this accountability. The Court overruled Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935), which had upheld such protections for the FTC as a "quasi-legislative" body. This aligns with prior precedents like Seila Law and Collins v. Yellen, which curtailed similar protections for other agencies.
  • This is a separation-of-powers decision, not a partisan giveaway. Presidents of both parties have long chafed at unaccountable bureaucracy. Expanding direct presidential control over executive-branch agencies is a textualist/originalist position emphasizing democratic accountability via elected officials over insulated technocrats.
Defending the Court's decision does not imply endorsing every Trump policy or "defending Trump personally."

It defends the constitutional structure against congressional attempts to insulate parts of the executive from presidential oversight.


Flaws in the Reaction​


  1. Nazi Germany Analogy ("NAZI Germany 2.0" with Miller): This is inflammatory Godwin's Law territory and lacks serious grounding. Stephen Miller is a hardline immigration advisor with restrictionist views—common in many countries' politics—but equating policy disagreements (border enforcement, deregulation, agency reform) to the Holocaust, total war, and totalitarian dictatorship is grotesque exaggeration. Trump is a democratically elected president operating within (and now with expanded) legal bounds, subject to elections, Congress, courts, states, media, and civil society. Nazi Germany involved the Enabling Act, suspension of civil liberties, one-party dictatorship, and genocide. No credible evidence supports equivalence. Such rhetoric debases historical memory and poisons discourse.
  2. "Unique"/"Mad Man" Exceptionalism and "Tweak This Bitch": The Constitution is deliberately designed to constrain all executives, precisely because founders feared ambitious or flawed leaders. "Desperate times call for desperate measures" to amend or ignore it for one person is the antithesis of constitutionalism. The document has no "party affiliation" precisely so rules apply regardless of who holds power. Calls to "tweak" it ad hoc against a sitting president undermine the rule of law. Previous presidents (FDR's court-packing, Nixon, Obama on recess appointments, Biden on student loans) faced similar accusations of overreach; the remedy is elections and checks, not suspending norms for "your side."
  3. Personal Attacks on Morality/Sanity: Questioning someone's sanity or morality for supporting a 6-3 SCOTUS ruling on executive power is not argument—it's ad hominem. Reasonable people across the spectrum debate agency independence (progressives once favored it for expertise; today many conservatives highlight unaccountable "deep state" issues, while others fear politicization). Data on bureaucracy: Federal workforce and regulations have grown massively; debates over FTC antitrust activism, etc., are policy fights, not fascism.
  4. "Execute His Vision" Dismissal: Presidents are elected to set executive priorities. "Independent" agencies often pursue agendas diverging from elected leadership. Accountability to voters via the President is a feature of republican government, not a bug. Congress retains oversight, appropriations, and statutory tools.

​

Broader Context​


Trump is polarizing—charismatic disruptor to supporters, norm-breaker to opponents.

His second term (as of June 2026) involves standard partisan battles over policy.

Comparisons to Hitler have been recycled for decades across figures; they rarely illuminate.

Outcomes depend on results (economy, borders, foreign policy), not apocalyptic framing. "In less than 2 years... tell me how better off" is fair political accountability—voters will judge in 2028—but irrelevant to the constitutional merits of removal power.

Summary: The reaction reveals deep affective polarization: viewing political opponents as existential evil justifies extraordinary measures.

This erodes democratic norms more than any single SCOTUS case on agency structure. Sound evaluation weighs textual/structural arguments, historical precedent, and trade-offs (accountability vs. expertise/insulation from politics).

Hyperbole and constitutional nihilism ("tweak this bitch") fail that standard. The decision strengthens unitary executive theory; whether that's net positive depends on one's trust in presidential elections vs. career administrators.



 
The GOP may like their voters dumb, stupid and always in a constant fear of black brown takeovers....but elected politicians and judges, also love their president just as stupid, just as dumb and his fearlessness of voters. Like I said, FOLLOW THE MONEY!!
 
The GOP may like their voters dumb, stupid and always in a constant fear of black brown takeovers....but elected politicians and judges, also love their president just as stupid, just as dumb and his fearlessness of voters. Like I said, FOLLOW THE MONEY!!


Rant, much?
 
Back
Top