By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Supreme Court has announced it will consider expanding presidential power over independent agencies by potentially overturning a long-standing precedent regarding the removal of board members. In a related decision, the court allowed the firing of an FTC commissioner to proceed while the case is being reviewed, echoing previous rulings that favor the president’s power of removal. The core of the case revolves around whether presidents should be able to fire board members at will, a stance supported by the Justice Department, which argues for the preservation of executive power. This decision marks a significant potential shift in the balance of power between the executive branch and independent agencies, with arguments scheduled to begin in December.
Read the original article here
The Supreme Court will weigh expanding Trump’s power to shape agencies by overturning a 90-year-old ruling, and it’s hard not to feel a sense of dread and disbelief about where this might lead. This is a pivotal moment that could fundamentally reshape the balance of power, and the implications are vast. It feels as though there is no court anymore, just a rubber stamp for whatever Trump dictates. The prospect of him wielding even more power over regulatory agencies is genuinely alarming, especially considering the potential impact on the economy and the long-term stability of the nation.
Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, decided in 1935, established a crucial check on presidential power by preventing the removal of officials from independent agencies for political reasons. This ruling was designed to protect these agencies from undue influence and to ensure their ability to function impartially. Now, it appears this historical precedent is on the verge of being dismantled. The Supreme Court has already granted a stay, allowing Trump to remove a Democrat from the Federal Trade Commission, a clear indication of the direction this case is heading.
The speed at which this is unfolding, combined with the apparent unanimity among the conservative justices, is disturbing. The arguments will be heard in December, but the outcome seems predetermined. It’s difficult to ignore the feeling that the court is acting as an enabler, paving the way for an unprecedented concentration of power in the hands of the executive branch. This decision could have far-reaching consequences for the future, potentially allowing a president to pack regulatory agencies with political appointees, further eroding trust in government institutions.
The anger and frustration over this are palpable. The fear that the country is being handed over to a leader who seems ill-equipped for the role is deeply rooted. The actions of the Supreme Court are perceived by many as a betrayal of the principles of checks and balances and a dangerous step towards authoritarianism. Many are questioning how these elected officials could possibly make a move with such heavy implications.
The potential consequences are significant and go beyond mere political maneuvering. The ability of these agencies to function independently is a cornerstone of a stable society. Expanding the president’s power in this way could destabilize industries, create uncertainty for businesses, and ultimately undermine the rule of law. It is a situation of complete turmoil.
The irony of this situation is hard to ignore. Many are skeptical that the same justices would adopt the same stance if a Democrat held office. The perception of a double standard and the erosion of trust in the impartiality of the court are becoming unavoidable. The feeling is that the “Constitution” is failing.
The image of the president in the photo is a distraction, but it also seems illustrative. His makeup and appearance, the fact that he has a team of “yes men” enabling him, all add to the sense of absurdity and impending doom. The image of him and his staff shows a man with body dysmorphia and a complete lack of awareness of what he looks like and how he is viewed.
The long-term consequences of this decision could include a shift in power within the United States. It would not be a fair playing field. In reality, it is a system that is rigged. This ruling is one more step towards that. With the court’s decision the reality of our future is beginning to become all too clear.