Posted on 03/04/2025 9:35:31 AM PST by Red Badger
That’s right. If you look at the differences between Article I and Ii, the original scope of the president was narrow for a purpose. The authors didn’t want a king.
If they were appointed by the previous president, then they can be removed by the current President.
Judge is full of it.
These are lifetime appointments?
quicker for scotus review
Judge Rudolph Contreras,
was he involved in a prior scandal? fisa?
Trump is doing this to get these to SCOTUS so they can rule on Executive Powers that have been chipped away
Another black-robed, far-left “pipe bomb” appointed by an idiot. Retarded and unelected.
She was so effective at her job that employees at the NSA, CIA, and Defense Intelligence Agency used a secure internal messaging system called Intelink for their sexually explicit conversations.
And she somehow didn't prevent homo sex in a Senate hearing room.
Yes, we can all count on Cathy Harris to do a top-notch, A1, bang-up, competent job.
If the President -who IS the executive branch - can’t fire someone who is hired to support the executive branch -then who does have the authority?
Impeach her...
Oh wait, we can’t do that because the senate will not vote to convict...
Now, doesn’t that sound silly when said outloud....
Don’t do your job because this group might not do theirs...
The people that think this way are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Fine, just don’t pay her.
“If the President -who IS the executive branch - can’t fire someone who is hired to support the executive branch -then who does have the authority?”
Well, obviously.... only a Democrat is authorized to hire or fire at will. You know... special people with that special “D” beside their name. I’m sure it’s in the Constitution there somewhere. If not, they’ll pencil it right in... any day now.
Expected. Humphrey’s Executor is controlling precedent that needs to be overruled by the Supreme Court.
That is true. You can’t fire elected individuals for obvious reasons. That is as it should be, so I’m glad your community figured out how to work around the person.
Perhaps your local county/city council can pass a recall election law.
The judge is following the law, which is based on a precedent from the 1930’s that needs to be overruled. That’s their job. The Supreme Court has been slowly chipping away at that decision for awhile, so hopefully, it will take this opportunity to overrule it. But that almost certainly will take some time.
inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office
I am pretty sure, she was removed for all three.
THAT JUDGE IS OUT OF HIS/HER LANE AND LOST IN EXTRA-CONSTITUTIONAL SPACE.
BAN THAT JUDGE FROM USING ALL U.S. GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS, PROPERTIES, FORMS OF COMMUNICATIONS, AND TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS.
“Humphrey’s Executor”
The Federal Trade Commission Act permitted the President to dismiss an FTC member only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” Roosevelt’s decision to dismiss Humphrey was based solely on political differences, rather than job performance or alleged acts of malfeasance.
In this case, it is only half done. If the individual is re-enstated, and deos not conform to the needs of the position based upon the actions required by the POTUS who is in charge overall of the machine, then it ends up as inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office anyway whether it is a politicial decision or not. She is there to perform a service based upon a job description. If she knowingly diverts from the requirement, she can be terminated. So it will just be a matter of time or she will be forced to conform to her position.
wy69
The judicial branch has no Constitutional authroity to rehire the person, either, and we know that through existing SCOTUS rulings.
It is entirely possible the law is valid and Trump can’t fire the person. The president does not have absolute power over everyone in the civil service, which is why for now, they are only firing those on probation.
If the president should have absolute power over the civil service, then the civil service law needs to be changed. Good luck with that considering you will need 60 votes in the senate.
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.