> Statutes don't supersede the constitution…

"We can make rules the President has to follow" does not supersede the Constitution.

galangalalgol 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It obviously depends on what rules they make. They can't make a rule creating a body of government employees that decide the substance of rules (not just implementation details), and then also has armed officers to enforce those rules, with its own judges to have hearings specific to those rules. Whether you heard ice or atf when you read that, they both fit. I like Gorsuch's opinion. He clearly calls out this danger of a half step of saying the president has complete control of the executive without also ruling the agencies themselves are unconstitutional. Realistically though instantly removing all those agencies would mean chaos. The court can't rule how to fix something, only that the rock brought before them is the wrong rock. The telling bit would be if someone then brings them a case where the removal of the ftc leadership has resulted in the agency not enforcing the laws as written. If they then side with the congress I would give them the benefit of my doubt. But I do also feel like their positions, while correct, are correct only out of the context of their environment.

▲

ceejayoz 5 hours ago | parent [-]

> It obviously depends on what rules they make.

Today, the Court ruled that Congress can make the Federal Reserve an independent agency, but not the FTC. Same day, same justice!

What are the rules, exactly?

▲

mothballed 5 hours ago | parent [-]

I see and acknowledge your point. But going back to

>Slaughter determined that agencies congress had ceded to the executive branch had control of the executive.

Congress ceded FTC to the executive branch. Congress put the Federal Reserve in some magical land, outside the executive branch, that doesn't even make sense.

My theory was that SCOTUS ruled the executive had this power over the agencies executive branch. Seems SCOTUS doesn't want to touch federal reserve question with a 10 foot pole. But going back to my original theory, it is a slightly different framing, since everyone involved freely agrees FTC is an executive agency while the federal reserve does not enjoy this agreement.

I do agree the federal reserve as independent makes no sense but I don't think it's the same question posed since you're not starting with the assumption the agency in question is an executive agency. SCOTUS seems to have ruled that an agency in the executive branch has executive control, while not going so far as to determine that the federal reserve is in the executive branch which is an entirely different question.

It's important to note SCOTUS is too chickenshit to rule on anything but in the most narrow way possible. If you ask them to rule on something with a prior established fact that it's in the executive branch you're likely going to get a very narrow ruling that doesn't try to create a unifying theory of everything.

▲

ceejayoz 5 hours ago | parent [-]

> I do agree the federal reserve as independent makes no sense but I don't think it's the same question posed.

I think it's the core question; are there really rules at all?

The two rulings make that answer clear, I think.

Roberts in Cook says that firing was "out of step with the statute Congress enacted and our nation’s tradition of central banking protected from political interference". How is the FTC's setup in this regard not part of the same tradition? What part of the Constitution permits the Fed's existence outside of any of the branches? Why can Congress establish a central bank outside the Executive entirely, but not regulate the FTC?

	▲	mothballed 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Slaughter says POTUS can fire commissioners in the executive branch. Cook says Trump isn't King and can only directly fire people actually in the executive branch and Trump wasn't able to prove the federal reserve was situated there. Prove the federal reserve is in the executive branch, and that the ruling of Cook presumed it was, and then you have a point. I fail to see the inconsistancy.

▲

mothballed 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

In this case, it did, that's why SCOTUS ruled against it.

▲

ceejayoz 5 hours ago | parent [-]

SCOTUS does not enjoy papal infallibility. They fuck up.

(Or act maliciously, as when Alito invented the new "history and tradition" test.)

▲

mothballed 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Congress fucks up as well. There's as pretty strong argument that "independence" from the executive power vested in the POTUS and legislative branch puts that power in a place not authorized anywhere in the constitution, and for good reason, as the design of the constitution intends elected office to have direct control over powers of congress and the executive.

	▲	ceejayoz 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah, that's why we have the veto power; as a check on their power. SCOTUS has now given the executive retroactive uncheckable vetos. Yikes. "Those rules we agreed to, signed into law, and followed for the last 90 years? HAHA PSYCHE SUCKERS!" Reminder: On the SAME DAY, the SAME JUSTICE issued an opinion that the President can't fire a Federal Reserve member, in Cook, saying it was "out of step with the statute Congress enacted and our nation’s tradition of central banking protected from political interference". You're asserting consistency that simply does not exist; the Court is starting with the desired ruling and working backwards from there.