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

tigerred59 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Those fossils on SCOTUS - Thomas, Alito, and Kavannah especially need to be impeached and convicted for trying to tear down our democracy for their rich, white donors.
 
Teflon Don said:
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
Click to expand...
Bullshit. What SCOTUS did was to allow unqualified loyalists to destroy our country.
 
LurchAddams said:
Those fossils on SCOTUS - Thomas, Alito, and Kavannah especially need to be impeached and convicted for trying to tear down our democracy for their rich, white donors.
Click to expand...




Impartial evaluation:


This reaction is another example of partisan outrage that escalates from policy/legal disagreement to demands for removing Supreme Court justices via impeachment. It relies on identity-based attacks ("rich, white donors"), factual inaccuracies, and a misunderstanding of constitutional roles. Like the prior reaction, it prioritizes emotional framing over analysis.

The Decision and Justices Involved​

In Trump v. Slaughter (6-3, June 29, 2026), the Court held that for-cause removal protections for FTC commissioners violate separation of powers under Article II. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the opinion, joined by Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Thomas (with partial join). The three liberal justices dissented.

  • Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh: All joined the majority (Thomas partially). Kavanaugh's name is misspelled ("Kavannah"). These justices have consistently supported a stronger "unitary executive" view—presidential control over the executive branch—in cases like Seila Law (2020) and others. This is a longstanding jurisprudential philosophy (textualist/originalist), not invented for Trump.
  • The ruling applies structural constitutional principles. It does not "crown Trump a king." Presidents still face elections, impeachment, congressional oversight, judicial review, and other checks. Expanding removal power makes the executive more accountable to voters, not less democratic.

​

Impeachment Calls: Constitutionally and Historically Weak​


  • High bar: Article II, Section 4 allows impeachment for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Federal judges (including justices) serve "during good Behaviour." Only one justice has ever been impeached (Samuel Chase, 1805—acquitted). Conviction requires 2/3 Senate vote. Policy disagreements or unpopular rulings are not impeachable offenses. Using impeachment to punish constitutional interpretation would politicize the judiciary and destabilize the separation of powers.
  • Past efforts (e.g., against Thomas/Alito over ethics/gifts) have been partisan gestures without broad support or success. No credible evidence ties this specific decision to "donors" corrupting the outcome. The majority's reasoning builds on decades of precedent and original meaning debates about executive power.

​

"Rich, White Donors" Claim​


This is a reductive ad hominem. Conservative justices' decisions are frequently attributed to donor influence by critics, just as liberal decisions face accusations of elite/academic capture or ideological agendas.

All justices have backgrounds involving wealthy networks, appointments by presidents of both parties, and amicus briefs from various interests.

  • Clarence Thomas: Often highlighted for personal ties, but no proven quid pro quo in rulings.
  • Empirical reality: Supreme Court rulings show ideological patterns, but attributing complex constitutional cases solely to "rich white donors" ignores textual arguments, historical practice, and the fact that the Court has ruled against Trump/other conservatives in other cases. It also erases non-white conservative thought (Thomas is a Black originalist whose views stem from skepticism of expansive government).

Such rhetoric assumes bad faith and illegitimacy based on identity and funding sources rather than engaging the merits: Does the Constitution vest executive power in the President, or can Congress create headless fourth-branch agencies?


Broader Issues​

  • Democracy claims: "Tear down our democracy" is hyperbolic. The decision restores presidential authority over executive agencies created by statute—agencies that wield significant power (antitrust, regulation) without direct electoral accountability. Reasonable debate exists on "independent" agencies (expertise vs. unaccountable power), but framing a structural ruling as anti-democratic inverts the issue. Democracy includes respecting judicial review of statutes against the Constitution.
  • Selective outrage: Critics rarely called for impeaching liberal justices over Roe, Obergefell, or expansive administrative deference (Chevron, later overruled). The Court shifts with appointments; that's how the system works.


Summary: This reaction reflects frustration with a conservative majority but offers no substantive critique of the opinion's reasoning. Impeachment threats for good-faith constitutional interpretation undermine judicial independence—the very guardrail against majoritarian or executive excess.


Legitimate criticisms of the Court (ethics transparency, polarization) exist, but conflating them with "donor capture" to justify removal is unserious.


Better approaches: constitutional amendments, new appointments via elections, or legislative fixes for agencies. Hyperbolic calls to "convict" justices for a 6-3 structural decision weaken norms more than the ruling itself.





 
tigerred59 said:
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!!
Click to expand...
You can rant about Trump. But you and all democrats need to stop with the Nazi and KKK references. It just makes you look stupid. For example, JFK's father was a Nazi sympathizer. As a democrat appointed U.S. Ambassador! He actually had secret meetings with Nazis. And he hated Jews of course. U.S. democrats Senators and congressman were confirmed propagandists for the Nazis. And of course today all of you democrats are flocking around a Senatorial candidate Graham Platner who is a genuine Nazi. As far as the KKK and all the democrat politicians associated with that organization, the list is very, very long. And as you well know it was democrats who founded the KKK and kept electing them. So take a look at the party past and present who actually supported the KKK and Nazis. And who still do. Thanks.
 
tigerred59 said:
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!!
Click to expand...
While I don't share your views about Trump, the Constitution must endure regardless of who is in office. People on the opposite ends of the political spectrum always assign the worst of motives to their political adversaries and NEVER give them the benefit of the doubt. The right did it with Clinton, Obama and Biden. The left did it with Reagan, the Bush clan and now Trump.

The truth of the matter is that regardless of what you think Trump "wants" to do, he is Constitutionally constrained. He will be out of office in two and a half years and if it is a democrat they will be grateful for this ruling.

Regardless of party affiliation, I have to look at this ruling as a good thing as the bureaucratic state was out of control. There was nothing more unconstitutional than what it grew to be. They were unelected bureaucrats that actually had more impact on our lives than any elected official.

It couldn't stand
 
archives said:
Congress created the agencies via law and designated them as independent, Trump now owns them
Click to expand...
Where does Congress get this power? Please quote from the Constitution. And while you're at it, show us the explicit language in the actual legislation that deems these agencies independent.
 
archives said:
Congress created the agencies via law and designated them as independent, Trump now owns them
Click to expand...




Partially accurate, but overstated and imprecise—especially the "owns them" part.

Accurate elements:​

  • Congress creates these agencies via statute and designates them as "independent." This is correct. Independent regulatory agencies (e.g., FTC, FCC, SEC, NLRB, and others) are established by congressional laws. These statutes often include features like:
    • Multi-member commissions/boards with staggered terms (often longer than a single presidential term).
    • For-cause removal protections (e.g., only for "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance").
    • Bipartisan composition requirements to limit one-party dominance.
    • Insulation from direct day-to-day presidential control, unlike cabinet departments.
    • The goal, rooted in precedents like the 1935 Humphrey's Executor v. United States decision, was to create expert bodies for quasi-legislative/quasi-judicial functions (regulation, enforcement) somewhat removed from short-term political pressure.

Inaccurate or misleading elements:​

  • "Trump now owns them": This is hyperbolic. Presidents do not personally "own" federal agencies. These are public institutions funded and structured by Congress, operating within the executive branch but with statutory limits.

    However, as of mid-2026, President Trump (in his current term) has significantly expanded presidential control over many of them:
    • The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision (e.g., Trump v. Slaughter regarding the FTC), overruled or severely limited Humphrey's Executor. This allows presidents broader authority to remove commissioners/heads of multi-member independent agencies without cause, enhancing executive power and aligning with "unitary executive" theory.
    • Earlier executive actions (e.g., 2025 orders) pushed for greater White House oversight, including regulatory review via OMB/OIRA.
    • Trump has already removed or pressured officials at agencies like the FTC, and the rulings facilitate more such actions across ~two dozen agencies.
    • This shifts the balance toward greater presidential influence (appointments + removals), but it doesn't equate to ownership. Congress retains powers to:
    • Create, amend, or abolish agencies via legislation.
    • Control funding (appropriations).
    • Conduct oversight and investigations.
    • Potentially impose new statutory limits (though subject to veto and court review).
Some agencies like the Federal Reserve have unique structures and may retain more insulation.

Bottom line: The first half is textbook accurate. The second is rhetorical flourish reflecting real shifts in power after recent Court rulings favoring executive authority. These changes are contentious—supporters see them as restoring accountability under the Constitution's Article II; critics argue they undermine expertise, bipartisanship, and checks on presidential power. The full implications will play out through appointments, future litigation, and possible congressional responses.


 
countryboy said:
Where does Congress get this power? Please quote from the Constitution.
Click to expand...




Yes, Congress has the constitutional power to create independent agencies.

Constitutional Basis​

Congress derives this authority from several provisions:

  • Article I, Section 1 (legislative powers) and the Necessary and Proper Clause (Article I, Section 8): Congress can enact laws to carry out its enumerated powers (e.g., regulating commerce, coining money, establishing post offices) and create structures to administer them.
  • The Appointments Clause (Article II, Section 2) allows Congress to vest appointment of inferior officers in the President, courts, or department heads, with Senate confirmation for principal officers.
  • Historical practice: Since the Interstate Commerce Commission (1887) and especially the New Deal era, Congress has created numerous multimember regulatory bodies. The Supreme Court has long recognized Congress's broad authority to establish federal offices and define their functions.
Agencies exercise delegated authority—Congress passes statutes outlining goals, rulemaking powers, and enforcement, then agencies implement them. This is standard administrative law, not a direct constitutional grant of "agency power."

Limits and Recent Developments​

The key ongoing debate concerns structure and presidential control, not the power to create agencies outright:

  • For-cause removal protections (insulating heads from at-will firing) were upheld for multimember commissions in Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935), distinguishing "quasi-legislative/quasi-judicial" functions from purely executive ones.
  • Recent rulings (as of June 2026) have shifted this: In cases like Trump v. Slaughter, the Supreme Court (6-3) overruled or sharply limited Humphrey's Executor, holding that Congress cannot restrict the President's removal power for officers exercising executive authority in multimember agencies. This expands presidential influence but does not invalidate the agencies' existence or Congress's creation power.
Congress can still:

  • Create, reorganize, or abolish agencies.
  • Define their mandates, budgets, and procedures.
  • Impose other structural features (e.g., bipartisan balance, staggered terms), subject to constitutional limits on removal and separation of powers.
Critics of strong independence (unitary executive advocates) argue excessive insulation violates Article II's vesting of executive power in the President. Defenders emphasize Congress's role in checking executive overreach and enabling expert, stable regulation.

In short: Creating agencies is firmly constitutional. What has been contested—and recently narrowed by the Court—is how much "independence" Congress can statutorily impose, particularly via removal restrictions for executive functions. The agencies themselves remain valid instruments of delegated legislative authority. Future cases may refine boundaries further (e.g., for the Federal Reserve).


 
Teflon Don said:
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
Click to expand...
Tell Congress, they established them via law to be independent, and they are not a branch of Government

Never said the DOJ was an independent entity, rather, that up until Trump, it operated as such, remember, justice isn’t suppose to favor one over the other

You don’t understand their purpose, they were created to be nonpartisan, experts in their field appointed to keep politics out not serve at the leisure of the President. You want the SEC, EPA, FCC, SSA, FICA, CIA and Fed to be staffed and headed by political hacks owned by who ever is President at the time?

And they answer to Congress plus the heads are appointed by the President
 
Diogenes said:
Partially accurate, but overstated and imprecise—especially the "owns them" part.

Accurate elements:​

  • Congress creates these agencies via statute and designates them as "independent." This is correct. Independent regulatory agencies (e.g., FTC, FCC, SEC, NLRB, and others) are established by congressional laws. These statutes often include features like:
    • Multi-member commissions/boards with staggered terms (often longer than a single presidential term).
    • For-cause removal protections (e.g., only for "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance").
    • Bipartisan composition requirements to limit one-party dominance.
    • Insulation from direct day-to-day presidential control, unlike cabinet departments.
    • The goal, rooted in precedents like the 1935 Humphrey's Executor v. United States decision, was to create expert bodies for quasi-legislative/quasi-judicial functions (regulation, enforcement) somewhat removed from short-term political pressure.

Inaccurate or misleading elements:​

  • "Trump now owns them": This is hyperbolic. Presidents do not personally "own" federal agencies. These are public institutions funded and structured by Congress, operating within the executive branch but with statutory limits.

    However, as of mid-2026, President Trump (in his current term) has significantly expanded presidential control over many of them:
    • The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision (e.g., Trump v. Slaughter regarding the FTC), overruled or severely limited Humphrey's Executor. This allows presidents broader authority to remove commissioners/heads of multi-member independent agencies without cause, enhancing executive power and aligning with "unitary executive" theory.
    • Earlier executive actions (e.g., 2025 orders) pushed for greater White House oversight, including regulatory review via OMB/OIRA.
    • Trump has already removed or pressured officials at agencies like the FTC, and the rulings facilitate more such actions across ~two dozen agencies.
    • This shifts the balance toward greater presidential influence (appointments + removals), but it doesn't equate to ownership. Congress retains powers to:
    • Create, amend, or abolish agencies via legislation.
    • Control funding (appropriations).
    • Conduct oversight and investigations.
    • Potentially impose new statutory limits (though subject to veto and court review).
Some agencies like the Federal Reserve have unique structures and may retain more insulation.

Bottom line: The first half is textbook accurate. The second is rhetorical flourish reflecting real shifts in power after recent Court rulings favoring executive authority. These changes are contentious—supporters see them as restoring accountability under the Constitution's Article II; critics argue they undermine expertise, bipartisanship, and checks on presidential power. The full implications will play out through appointments, future litigation, and possible congressional responses.


Click to expand...
Musk, NEXT
 
countryboy said:
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?

Can you show us where the Constitution allows Congress to create independent agencies?
Click to expand...
Isn’t, nor ever was, a seperate branch of government, you have your facts wrong, and I have no clue who the “she” is suppose to be

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, also known as the Appointments Clause: Article I, Section 1: and Article I, Section 8, Clause 18
 
Lionfish said:
A day ago, the alt lefties were praising the SC decisions. One goes against them, and they all get their bowels in an uproar.
Click to expand...
Yeas they get their panties in a wad. The most disturbing thing about that is ...it is mostly the democrat males getting their panties..in a wad lol!
 
Diogenes said:
Partially accurate, but overstated and imprecise—especially the "owns them" part.

Accurate elements:​

  • Congress creates these agencies via statute and designates them as "independent." This is correct. Independent regulatory agencies (e.g., FTC, FCC, SEC, NLRB, and others) are established by congressional laws. These statutes often include features like:
    • Multi-member commissions/boards with staggered terms (often longer than a single presidential term).
    • For-cause removal protections (e.g., only for "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance").
    • Bipartisan composition requirements to limit one-party dominance.
    • Insulation from direct day-to-day presidential control, unlike cabinet departments.
    • The goal, rooted in precedents like the 1935 Humphrey's Executor v. United States decision, was to create expert bodies for quasi-legislative/quasi-judicial functions (regulation, enforcement) somewhat removed from short-term political pressure.

Inaccurate or misleading elements:​

  • "Trump now owns them": This is hyperbolic. Presidents do not personally "own" federal agencies. These are public institutions funded and structured by Congress, operating within the executive branch but with statutory limits.

    However, as of mid-2026, President Trump (in his current term) has significantly expanded presidential control over many of them:
    • The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision (e.g., Trump v. Slaughter regarding the FTC), overruled or severely limited Humphrey's Executor. This allows presidents broader authority to remove commissioners/heads of multi-member independent agencies without cause, enhancing executive power and aligning with "unitary executive" theory.
    • Earlier executive actions (e.g., 2025 orders) pushed for greater White House oversight, including regulatory review via OMB/OIRA.
    • Trump has already removed or pressured officials at agencies like the FTC, and the rulings facilitate more such actions across ~two dozen agencies.
    • This shifts the balance toward greater presidential influence (appointments + removals), but it doesn't equate to ownership. Congress retains powers to:
    • Create, amend, or abolish agencies via legislation.
    • Control funding (appropriations).
    • Conduct oversight and investigations.
    • Potentially impose new statutory limits (though subject to veto and court review).
Some agencies like the Federal Reserve have unique structures and may retain more insulation.

Bottom line: The first half is textbook accurate. The second is rhetorical flourish reflecting real shifts in power after recent Court rulings favoring executive authority. These changes are contentious—supporters see them as restoring accountability under the Constitution's Article II; critics argue they undermine expertise, bipartisanship, and checks on presidential power. The full implications will play out through appointments, future litigation, and possible congressional responses.


Click to expand...
More Musk, must be catching, you are aware that Grok lies, fabricates, kinda like all the other social media sources you swallow
 
archives said:
Congress created the agencies via law and designated them as independent, Trump now owns them
Click to expand...
Think about what you said? Congress creates agencies that fall under the Executive but the Executive can't really control them? Completely unconstitutional. Should have never been allowed to stand this long.

I know why it upsets marxists because it is less gobblement control

Remember there are three EQUAL branches of gobblement. Not the legislative imposing on the Executive
 
archives said:
Tell Congress, they established them via law to be independent, and they are not a branch of Government

Never said the DOJ was an independent entity, rather, that up until Trump, it operated as such, remember, justice isn’t suppose to favor one over the other

You don’t understand their purpose, they were created to be nonpartisan, experts in their field appointed to keep politics out not serve at the leisure of the President. You want the SEC, EPA, FCC, SSA, FICA, CIA and Fed to be staffed and headed by political hacks owned by who ever is President at the time?

And they answer to Congress plus the heads are appointed by the President
Click to expand...
I think it is funny that you really believe that they are "independent" and not political hacks. You sure do spin a tall tale
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top