Posted on 02/18/2025 11:33:28 AM PST by Macho MAGA Man
It mentions Humphrey's Executor v. United States when discussing how Chief Justice Roberts began chipping away at that ruling and might continue to do so.
It looks like Roberts might be tearing down those limits, not further set them. But we'll see what happens with Dellinger.
-PJ
Do you really think Roberts won't toss it out altogether?
Marshall said that the inferior officers who carry out the Executive's directives are speaking for him, so any encroachment on the Executive's power also encroaches inferior officers.
I can see the argument that Congress is creating an "independent" agency within the Executive branch, but I come down on the side that even creating an independent agency violates separation of powers. That's why I hypothesized the President creating his own pick on Congressional committees, even if that Congressman would be "independent" of the Executive.
Presidents like to claim that the Department of Justice is "independent," but AGs like Robert F. Kennedy, Janet Reno, Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, and Merrick Garland sure weren't acting like they were independent of the President.
Why didn't Congress create the Department of Justice to be independent in the same way they created later departments? My guess is that by 1935 the Progressives had taken over the government (the 1913 amendments) and started pushing the boundaries of past practices. These so-called "quasi-legislative" and "quasi-judicial" officers seem like a poke in the eye to separation of powers. We have one legislature and one judiciary; there is no room for any quasi- in the Executive branch; that's just a foot in the Executive's door by the legislative branch.
-PJ
Watch Mexican soap operas and you’ll realize it’s the natural habitat of blondes. ;).
In reality I agree, plus I think he’s light in the loafers.
From there - if they agree to hear the case but issue an Order that Dillinger can remain in his position, that would be interesting.
Or they agree to hear the case but the TRO and no injunction is issued. That would seem to signal the further limiting of Humphrey’s
Or they decide not to hear the case and the TRO expires.
After doing some reading, I would predict 1 or 3.
As an aside I never understood Sean Spicer’s case when he got booted from the Naval Academy Board of Visitors given the times we are in now. One thing seem certain, when a Democratic President again takes office, I would expect political appointees to be fired and removed within the first month with few exceptions. It’s a different era.
Anything Amy Berman Jackson does is corrupt.
She worked with corrupt Muller prosecutor Andrew Weissman to frame roger stone.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.