One more huge win for the Donald ... !!
One more huge win for the Donald ... !!
This is potentially very good news, IF The Donald actually decides to wield this power. IF. Do not forget J. Sessions and Company have been around for months, with the president openly saying it’s not working out. Yet Mr. Trump does not actually put the hammer down and fire the A.G.
Mr. Trump can use this possibility as a bargaining tool.
This, I do expect him to do in short order.
Maybe it’s time to write a speech or two about the notorious 9th Circuit Court. Let them sweat a little bit.
They are not beyond reproach after all!
However, this is GREAT NEWS!
MAGA!
Washington Post 24?
If he is allowed to appoint judges does that mean the current ones are subject to salary adjustments for performance—a dollar a year?
I’m leery of this.
Sure it’s great when we’re in the driver’s seat, but imagine another Obama coming along. He’d take the cleaver to every decent judge he could.
Reading he article alongside the one you posted here
http://washingtonpost24.com/2018/06/21/supreme-court-justice-arrested-indicted-for-22-counts-fraud-corruption/
it would seem that the entire crop of judges would be deserving of this unexpected vacation.
Alrighty, POTUS TRUMP, make the most of what you have available. Make hay while the sun shines. Get these black robed stooges off our backs and behind bars/sunning their pale, frail bodies on the beach somewhere off the coast of Mexico.
MAGA!
Good thing there’s a job boom too. Burger King can use ex-judges.
This does not cover judges that are already subject to Senate confirmation - just those in the bowels of the bureaucracy.
“nearly 2,000 administrative law judges deciding matters as varied as unfair trade practices, veterans benefits and patent infringement.”
One thing of significance: IMMIGRATION JUDGES!
One judge might grant 90% of cases, and another might deny 90% (not kidding).
HALLELUJAH!
Love this!
Misleading headline from the known liars at the Washington Post...
The Supreme Court does NOT make laws.... Haha! S.M.H. They interpret the U.S. Constitution. The Legislative Branch makes law, and the President signs it.
Anyhow, President Trump always had this power. They are simply confirming it by a vote of 7 to 2.
FAKE NEWS ALERT!
Literally, fake news. WashingtonPost24 is a fake news site, trying to get credibility by creating confusion between it and the Washington Post.
The Reuters article it quotes is real, but the commentary presented as news is not at all realistic.
(To wit: President Trump can’t just fire whatever federal workers he wants to without cause.)
NOW GET OUT and VOTE this November and give him more GOP to outnumber the bad ones so we can start to get things moving again.................Never vote for a demcRAT
I can think of a couple of useful court reforms though it would take a constitutional amendment to do them. In prime supreme court season in addition to the 9 justices, a 10th would be added and then a sitting jury (of the people) drawn from all the various 12 circuit Federal courts of appeal would also be empaneled to sit. The simple majority vote of the jurists in question provides the equivalent of 1 voting justice and the total votes on any case would be 11. That way the voice of the people has a voice in the decisions of great import that the Supreme Court is asked to undertake. Additionally the jury panel would be required to be a part of the decision process required in accepting a case for trial and for questions involving standing, 2 justices and the jury panel are required to decide. The jurists would be voted on by the people in their districts and as they would be required to sit through all major cases and be a part of the decision making process, these positions must be made federally paid and benefitted. These people would serve 4 years and could not run again.They would have to be at least 25 years of age, nonfelons, and at least a highschool graduate.
A similar jury system (1 majority jury decision =1 vote) would be empaneled for each of the Circuit courts of appeal with persons drawn from the circuit districts the courts serve. Again as these courts are busy, these folks would have to be paid and benefitted. Their term would be 2 years and they could serve twice. When the judges would decide not to take a case based on standing, the jury must be involved with 2 judges and the jury voting on whether a plantiff has “standing”!
My purposes for this bit of speculation has more to do with the voices of eveyday people that are being shut out. For that reason the rules changes would stipulate that the jurists so empaneled NOT be lawyers, nor paralegals, nor have had anything to do with the legal profession.
May the streets run black with the ink of pink slips.
This has a very limited reach. We’re not talking USSC judges or any other “confirmed” judges.
This is pretty close to fake news.
These are ‘administrative law judges’, mostly in the Social Security Administration. These are Civil Service bureaucrats and are within the Executive Branch.
This has nothing to do with the federal Judicial Branch.
...“The Government asked us to add a second question presented: whether the statutory restrictions on removing the Commission’s ALJs are constitutional,” Kagan said. “When we granted certiorari, we chose not to take that step. The Government’s merits brief now asks us again to address the removal issue. We once more decline. No court has addressed that question, and we ordinarily await ‘thorough lower court opinions to guide our analysis of the merits.’”...
1. The Court’s decision explicitly refused to address the question of firing judges, only how they are appointed.
2. The case is only about administrative law judges, not Article III judges, who can be removed only by impeachment.
Glory Halleluyah! Thanks for the post. News you won’t see on the MSM