TBD, the defining trait of this administration is illegal acts that get overturned later. The point of this isn’t to be right, it’s “you might beat the rap, but you won’t beat the ride” abuse of process.

▲

andsoitis an hour ago | parent [-]

Are you claiming the US president does not have the right to fire them?

▲

SpicyLemonZest an hour ago | parent [-]

I reject the premise. The President is not a king, he isn't presumptively allowed to fire anyone he'd like. The statute establishing the National Science Board (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1863) does not give him any such power, so he doesn't have it.

▲

andsoitis 30 minutes ago | parent [-]

NSB members are executive officers, the statute is silent on removal, and Article II makes presidential removal power the default. Silence means he can fire them.

	▲	SpicyLemonZest 13 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Article II says no such thing. Humphrey's Executor established a useful compromise between "the Constitution is silent on removal" and "come on, is it really impossible to fire a postmaster?", but Trump has chosen to defect from that compromise so I no longer feel bound to accept it. Until he reinstates all independent agency heads he's purported to fire, I don't accept any removals he performs without explicit authority as legitimate.