Connect with us

The Dictatorship

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority eyes more power for the president

Published

on

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority eyes more power for the president

WASHINGTON (AP) — Chief Justice John Roberts has led the Supreme Court ‘s conservative majority on a steady march of increasing the power of the presidency, starting well before Donald Trump’s time in the White House.

The justices could take the next step in a case being argued Monday that calls for a unanimous 90-year-old decision limiting executive authority to be overturned.

The court’s conservatives, liberal Justice Elena Kagan noted in September, seem to be “raring to take that action.”

They already have allowed Trump, in the opening months of the Republican’s second term, to fire almost everyone he has wanted, despite the court’s 1935 decision in Humphrey’s Executor that prohibits the president from removing the heads of independent agencies without cause.

The officials include Rebecca Slaughterwhose firing from the Federal Trade Commission is at issue in the current case, as well as officials from the National Labor Relations Board, the Merit Systems Protection Board and the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

The only officials who have so far survived efforts to remove them are Lisa Cooka Federal Reserve governor, and Shira Perlmuttera copyright official with the Library of Congress. The court already has suggested that it will view the Fed differently from other independent agencies, and Trump has said he wants her out because of allegations of mortgage fraud. Cook says she did nothing wrong.

Humphrey’s Executor has long been a target of the conservative legal movement that has embraced an expansive view of presidential power known as the unitary executive.

The case before the high court involves the same agency, the FTC, that was at issue in 1935. The justices established that presidents — Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt at the time — could not fire the appointed leaders of the alphabet soup of federal agencies without cause.

The decision ushered in an era of powerful independent federal agencies charged with regulating labor relations, employment discrimination, the air waves and much else.

Proponents of the unitary executive theory have said the modern administrative state gets the Constitution all wrong: Federal agencies that are part of the executive branch answer to the president, and that includes the ability to fire their leaders at will.

As Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in a 1988 dissent that has taken on mythical status among conservatives, “this does not mean some of the executive power, but all of the executive power.”

Since 2010 and under Roberts’ leadership, the Supreme Court has steadily whittled away at laws restricting the president’s ability to fire people.

In 2020, Roberts wrote for the court that “the President’s removal power is the rule, not the exception” in a decision upholding Trump’s firing of the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau despite job protections similar to those upheld in Humphrey’s case.

In the 2024 immunity decision that spared Trump from being prosecuted for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, Roberts included the power to fire among the president’s “conclusive and preclusive” powers that Congress lacks the authority to restrict.

But according to legal historians and even a prominent proponent of the originalism approach to interpreting the Constitution that is favored by conservatives, Roberts may be wrong about the history underpinning the unitary executive.

“Both the text and the history of Article II are far more equivocal than the current Court has been suggesting,” wrote Caleb Nelson, a University of Virginia law professor who once served as a law clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas.

Jane Manners, a Fordham University law professor, said she and other historians filed briefs with the court to provide history and context about the removal power in the country’s early years that also could lead the court to revise its views. “I’m not holding my breath,” she said.

Slaughter’s lawyers embrace the historians’ arguments, telling the court that limits on Trump’s power are consistent with the Constitution and U.S. history.

The Justice Department argues Trump can fire board members for any reason as he works to carry out his agenda and that the precedent should be tossed aside.

“Humphrey’s Executor was always egregiously wrong,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote.

A second question in the case could affect Cook, the Fed governor. Even if a firing turns out to be illegal, the court wants to decide whether judges have the power to reinstate someone.

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote earlier this year that fired employees who win in court can likely get back pay, but not reinstatement.

That might affect Cook’s ability to remain in her job. The justices have seemed wary about the economic uncertainty that might result if Trump can fire the leaders of the central bank. The court will hear separate arguments in January about whether Cook can remain in her job as her court case challenging her firing proceeds.

Read More

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Dictatorship

Funding for Trump’s White House ballroom jeopardized by Senate ruling

Published

on

Funding for Trump’s White House ballroom jeopardized by Senate ruling

President Donald Trump faces a serious new hurdle to secure taxpayer funding for his exceedingly controversial proposed White House ballroom after the Senate parliamentarian ruled against a $1 billion provision in a bill to fund his pet project.

The parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, said over the weekend that Republicans cannot include the ballroom funding provision in a larger partisan bill because it is a technical violation of Senate rules, according to the ranking Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee who released the parliamentarian’s findings.

“A project as complex and large in scale as Trump’s proposed ballroom necessarily involves the coordination of many government agencies which span the jurisdiction of many Senate committees,” MacDonough concluded, according to Sen. Jeff Merkley.

The administration has estimated that $220 million of the $1 billion would go toward building the new ballroom in the East Wing, which was demolished last October to make way for the new structure Trump has envisioned.

The parliamentarian in her ruling said the provision violated the Byrd rule, which is meant to curb extraneous spending in proposed budget reconciliation bills. A violation of the Byrd rule also means the provision would be subject to a 60-vote filibuster threshold, effectively killing it since Democrats are in opposition.

“The president started talking about this thing with $100 billion, then $200 billion, and he was going to pay for it,” Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., said. “And now it’s a billion — or $100 million, $200 million — and now a billion dollars, and he wants the American people to pay for a gilded ballroom when they cannot afford to drive their kids to a soccer game.”

Some Republicans disagreed with the parliamentarian’s interpretation of Senate rules. Ryan Wrasse, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader John Thune, pushed back against the ruling.

“Redraft. Refine. Resubmit. None of this is abnormal during a Byrd process,” Wrasse wrote on X on Saturday.

It was not immediately clear whether Republicans would be allowed under Senate rules to resubmit the provision — the budget resolution only allows language to originate from the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“As drafted, the provision inappropriately funds activities outside the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee,” the ruling reads.

Trump previously said that the ballroom would be privately funded and cost around $400 million. The ballooning cost has provoked open criticism from Republicans, from vulnerable moderates to hardline conservatives, in what could become a potential revolt.

Mychael Schnell and Syedah Asghar

Peggy Helman is a desk associate at MS NOW.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Mike Johnson rejects ‘new term Christian nationalism’ as ‘derogatory’

Published

on

Mike Johnson rejects ‘new term Christian nationalism’ as ‘derogatory’

Ahead of an all-day prayer event backed by the White House on Washington’s National Mall Sunday, Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson doubled down on Christianity as a core part of the American identity — over the objections of religious freedom advocates.

“The naysayers who have created this new term ‘Christian Nationalism’ as a pejorative, a derogatory term, are trying to silence the influence and voices of Christians,” Johnson said in an interview with Fox News before the event commemorating the nation’s 250th anniversary. “And I think that’s wildly inappropriate.”

In addition to the speaker, the evangelical-style festival — dubbed the “National Jubilee of Prayer” — featured Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio and several conservative Christian leaders and right-leaning pop-culture figures. They included Franklin Graham, son of the late evangelist Billy Graham, Jonathan Falwell, son of the late Liberty University founder Jerry Falwell, and Sadie Carroway Robertson of “Duck Dynasty” fame.

The White House, in a statement posted to social media Sunday, said “thousands of Americans are gathering on the National Mall TODAY for a powerful day of prayer, praise, and patriotism as we chart the course for America’s next 250 years and rededicate ourselves to ONE NATION UNDER GOD.”

Kathy Fain, from Longview, Texas, holds an American flag while singing the National Anthem
AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson

In between returning from his official trip to China and issuing fresh threats to IranPresident Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social. “I HOPE EVERYBODY AT REDEDICATE 250 IS HAVING A GOOD TIME. IF THERE IS ANYTHING I CAN DO TO HELP, JUST HAVE OUR BEAUTIFUL, BOTH INSIDE AND OUT, RACHAEL C.D., GIVE ME A CALL. I’M BACK FROM CHINA!!!,” an apparent reference to Rachel Campos-Duffy, Fox and Friends co-host and wife to Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy.

Hegseth, who has led Christian prayer servicesat the Pentagon during his tenure, recounted a story of President George Washington at Valley Forge in a video message.

“Amid all the bleak nights, the loss and despair, the lack of proper support, George Washington performed a profound act: he prayed,” Hegseth said. “And on this day of ‘Rededicate 250,’ let us follow George Washington’s example. Let us pray as he did. Let us pray without ceasing. Let us pray for our nation on bended knee. And let us ask our lord and savior Jesus Christ as Washington did on that momentous day.”

Speaking passionately at the podium, Southern Baptist Pastor Robert Jeffress told the crowd that “these leaders who loved our country and loved our God would be called Christian Nationalists today, and it is a title they would have gladly embraced. By the way if being a Christian Nationalist means loving Jesus christ and loving America, count me in!”

Americans United for Separation of Church and State, a religious freedom advocacy organization, denounced the event as a “Jubilee of Christian Nationalism.”

“As we approach the 250th anniversary of American independence on July 4 – and President Trump’s Christian Nationalist ‘jubilee’ on May 17 – I urge everyone to celebrate the fundamentally American invention of church-state separation, which promises everyone the freedom to live as themselves and believe as they choose, as long as they don’t harm others,” the organization’s CEO, Rachel Laser, said in a statement. “Church-state separation is what enables us to come together as equals and build a stronger democracy.”

Laser said in an interview with C-SPAN Sunday that the event “should alarm all Americans who are patriotic.” Hailing the separation of church and state as a pillar of American democracy, she slammed the event as a “government-sponsored national church service on the National Mall and it’s extremely problematic. It’s violating our promise.”

“And then I just want to bring us back to something that the founders were focused on that we forget about today, which is that they were avoiding violence, bloody wars, crusades,” Laser added Sunday. “They saw what happens when you don’t have church-state separation. And I don’t think it’s a coincidence that in America we’ve become more and more violent the more we undermine church-state separation in this country.”

The government watchdog group Public Citizen also condemned the event, saying in a statement, “This highly politicized mess is not what Congress envisioned a decade ago in passing legislation creating an official commission for the 250th anniversary.”

Erum Salam is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW, with a focus on how global events and foreign policy shape U.S. politics. She previously was a breaking news reporter for The Guardian.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Trump says ‘clock is ticking’ for Iran to make a deal — or else

Published

on

Trump says ‘clock is ticking’ for Iran to make a deal — or else

President Donald Trump signaled Sunday that the U.S. is prepared to resume fighting Iran, threatening that the country had “better get moving, FAST, or there won’t be anything left of them.”

Trump spoke by phone Sunday with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, an Israeli official told MS NOW, as the U.S.-Iran ceasefire was strained further by new strikes in the U.A.E. that sparked a fire at a nuclear power plant.

“For Iran, the Clock is Ticking, and they better get moving, FAST, or there won’t be anything left of them. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE!,” Trump wrote in social media post.

Trump is expected to meet with his senior national security team on Tuesday in the White House Situation Room to “discuss options for military actions against Iran,” according to reporting by Axiosciting two American officials. MS NOW has not independently confirmed the reporting.

Iran did not take responsibility for the fresh strike in the U.A.E., but a senior Emirati official told MS NOW that the attack was an “unacceptable escalation” and a violation of the ceasefire. The official added that “this is an attack against a nuclear power plant during a ceasefire.”

In a statement, the U.A.E Ministry of Foreign Affairs called the strike an “unprovoked terrorist attack.”

“These attacks constitute a dangerous escalation, an unacceptable act of aggression and a direct threat to the country’s security,” the statement said. “The targeting of peaceful nuclear energy facilities is a flagrant violation of international law, the UN charter and the principles of humanitarian law.”

No increase in radiation has been detected at the plant and no injuries were reported, according to Emirati officials. Two of the three drones that attacked the plant were shot down.

One drone hit an electrical generator outside the inner perimeter of the ⁠Barakah Nuclear Power Plant, the Abu Dhabi Media Office said, CNBC reported. The International Atomic Energy Agency said it was following the situation closely and called for “maximum military restraint” near any nuclear power plant.

The U.A.E., a primary target of Iran since the war began, has been attacking in retaliation, according to recent reporting by The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times. Emirati officials have not confirmed that they have carried out military strikes.

The U.S. and Israel’s war with Iran has stretched into its 11th week, as domestic gas prices continue to soar amid the double naval blockade in the Strait of Hormuz, a critical oil trade route. Tehran, already crippled by sanctions before the war, faces a worsening economic crisis. Peace talks, mediated by Pakistan, have so far failed with the U.S. remaining firm on its demand that Iran abandon its nuclear program and Iran underscoring its right to enrichment.

Contrary to statements made by Trump administration officials that Iran’s missile stockpile has been destroyed, classified U.S. intelligence assessments of Iran’s military capacity have revealed that it has regained access to key missile sites and launchers.

Julia Jester contributed to this report.

Erum Salam is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW, with a focus on how global events and foreign policy shape U.S. politics. She previously was a breaking news reporter for The Guardian.

David Rohde is the senior national security reporter for MS NOW and a two-time winner of the Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting. Previously he was the senior executive editor for national security and law for NBC News.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending