this post was submitted on 22 Sep 2025
310 points (99.1% liked)

News

32520 readers
3318 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court said Monday it will consider expanding President Donald Trump’s power to shape independent agencies by overturning a nearly century-old decision limiting when presidents can fire board members. In a 6-3 decision, the high court also allowed the Republican president to carry out the firing of Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission, while the case plays out.

It’s the latest high-profile firing the court has allowed in recent months, signaling the conservative majority is poised to overturn or narrow a 1935 Supreme Court decision that found commissioners can only be removed for misconduct or neglect of duty. Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented from the decision allowing Slaughter’s firing. It comes after similar decisions affecting three other independent agencies.

“Congress, as everyone agrees, prohibited each of those presidential removals,” Kagan wrote. “Yet the majority, stay order by stay order, has handed full control of all those agencies to the President.” The majority did not detail their reasoning on allowing Slaughter’s firing, as is typical on the court’s emergency docket.

The justices are expected to hear arguments in December over whether to overturn a 90-year-old ruling known as Humphrey’s Executor. In that case, the court sided with another FTC commissioner who was fired by Franklin D. Roosevelt as the president worked to implement the New Deal. The justices unanimously found commissioners can be removed only for misconduct or neglect of duty.

That 1935 decision ushered in an era of powerful independent federal agencies charged with regulating labor relations, employment discrimination and public airwaves. But it has long rankled conservative legal theorists who argue such agencies should answer to the president. The Justice Department argues Trump can fire board members for any reason as he works to carry out his agenda. “The President and the government suffer irreparable harm when courts transfer even some of that executive power to officers beyond the President’s control,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote. Courts have no power to order reinstatement, only back pay, Sauer argued.

But Slaughter’s attorneys say that regulatory decisions will be based more on politics than on board members’ expertise if the president can fire congressionally confirmed board members at will. “If the President is to be given new powers Congress has expressly and repeatedly refused to give him, that decision should come from the people’s elected representatives,” they argued.

The court will hear arguments unusually early in the process, before the case has fully worked its way through lower courts.

The court rejected a push from two other board members of independent agencies who had asked the justices to also hear their cases if they took up the Slaughter case: Gwynne Wilcox, of the National Labor Relations Board, and Cathy Harris, of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Those cases will continue to work their way through the lower courts.

The FTC is a regulator enforcing consumer protection measures and antitrust legislation. The NLRB investigates unfair labor practices and oversees union elections, while the MSPB reviews disputes from federal workers.

The court has already allowed the president to fire all three board members for now. The court has suggested, however, that the president’s power to fire could have limits at the Federal Reserve, a prospect expected to be tested by the case of fired Fed Governor Lisa Cook.

top 46 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] minorkeys@lemmy.world 134 points 6 days ago (4 children)

The consolidation of power into the hands of a dictator. America is a failed state.

[–] not_that_guy05@lemmy.world 27 points 6 days ago
[–] Goodmorningsunshine@lemmy.world 24 points 6 days ago (3 children)

America is a failed state and WHAT THE FUCKING FUCK IS UP WITH HIS FUCKING MAKEUP

[–] mister_flibble@sh.itjust.works 16 points 6 days ago

As he gets paler and more sickly looking, the contrast between the cheeto dust and his natural complexion gets more pronounced.

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 8 points 6 days ago

They want you talking about that instead of his mini-stroke mouth droop.

[–] minorkeys@lemmy.world 7 points 6 days ago (1 children)

The emperor has no makeup.

[–] baronvonj@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago

There is no makeup in Ba Sing Se.

[–] SARGE@startrek.website 5 points 6 days ago

It has been for a long time, it's just still twitching.

[–] TeamAssimilation@infosec.pub 3 points 6 days ago

It’s becoming a banana republic, except the banana is money. How the turntables.

[–] einlander@lemmy.world 56 points 6 days ago (1 children)

They are banking on a democrat never having power again. Otherwise someone will use that power against them without impunity.

[–] vallancj2@sh.itjust.works 39 points 6 days ago

You're assuming a Democrat would grow a pair. They keep being so feckless.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 47 points 6 days ago

It figures that rulings which got made in the first place to hamstring a progressive get overturned to give free reign to a fascist.

[–] Ghyste@sh.itjust.works 26 points 6 days ago (1 children)

If the President has full power to fire congressionally confirmed positions, the Supreme Court is next

[–] d00phy@lemmy.world -1 points 6 days ago (1 children)
[–] Ghyste@sh.itjust.works 5 points 6 days ago

In the sense of eliminating the rest of the non-dick-sucking justices... No.

[–] SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world 19 points 6 days ago

Just burn the constitution and get it over with.

[–] Jerb322@lemmy.world 18 points 6 days ago

"Trump's friends in the Supreme Court"....

[–] DarkFuture@lemmy.world 8 points 6 days ago

Reminder that the conservative Supreme Court justices are traitors to the United States of America.

[–] Mediocre_Bard@lemmy.world 13 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Thank god their responses are written. We won't be able to understand a damn thing with all the orange cum in their mouths.

[–] PapaStevesy@lemmy.world 10 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Yeeeeeah, about that...

The majority did not detail their reasoning on allowing Slaughter’s firing, as is typical on the court’s emergency docket.

[–] ShieldsUp@startrek.website 2 points 6 days ago

Typical, but not required! If it was required they would probably write bullshit anyway, but this is not even the minimum of standards they are trying to uphold. A supreme joke of a court.

[–] LoafedBurrito@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I mean, why doesn't the supreme court just quit entirely at this point and let donald do whatever the hell he wants to do. They are useless in the fight for law and order and just give the nazi everything he wants.

The US is done, we are finished and those of us who make it to age 60 or 70 will be REALLY lucky.

[–] samus12345@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 days ago

those of us who make it to age 60 or 70 will be REALLY lucky.

Not as lucky as the ones who peace out early!

[–] FenderStratocaster@lemmy.world 14 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Politics aside, look at that fucking makeup. Who would vote for such fucking whacko looking person. It's outlandish to even contemplate an outsider looking in on this fucking mentally-ill psychopath.

[–] ThePantser@sh.itjust.works 7 points 6 days ago

But TAN SUIT!!!!!!

[–] Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world 11 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I wonder what they would say if he tried to fire a supreme court judge. That would be interesting.

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 14 points 6 days ago (1 children)

"When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal", probably.

[–] DarkCloud@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago

I think they've already said he can break the law. So yes.

[–] Sunshine@piefed.social 12 points 6 days ago

The Supreme Court sells out again.

[–] Blackfeathr@lemmy.world 8 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Gotta make sure that motorcoach gratuity gets delivered first!

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 9 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Actually, no. The Supreme Court was quite clear that what makes it a gratuity is that it comes after the action. So they cannot take delivery until some amount of time after the vote.

If it came before, then it's an illegal bribe. Timing is everything....

[–] Blackfeathr@lemmy.world 5 points 6 days ago

Ah but when it comes to bribes from Trump you gotta make sure the check clears first.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 6 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Sooo... The minorities and women on the court. Are they awake!?

The 3 liberal women always vote against this shit, but the other two minorities don't care. One is a black guy more fascist than any of the white guys, while the other is a devout Christian who sometimes puts her personal power over Trump, but only when Roberts and/or Kavanaugh are on board. They know how dangerous he is, and will only really stand up to maintain the court's power; otherwise they're yesmen for whatever Trump wants.

That 3 member bloc doesn't care about democracy or principles, only their own power. They're probably planning to put up strong opposition to any changes that could ever happen should a Dem take power, which is why nothing will ever be fixed until the current government collapses in totality, or someone truly radical isn't held back by liberal institutionalism and packs the court. That might not even work out short term, but at least it might kill their chokehold over America.

[–] possumparty@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 6 days ago

I mean, this is literally Clarence Thomas.

[–] Bwaz@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Gee, I wonder if that decision would have been made if a Democrat were the President. Or if they'd change it back should an election (somehow) make that happen, unlikely as that seems at this dictatorshipping point.

[–] samus12345@sh.itjust.works 2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Gee, I wonder if that decision would have been made if a Democrat were the President.

Yes. they know they can give the president whatever crazy unconstitutional powers they want, because Democrats are too afraid of being seen as uncivil to use them.

[–] hector@lemmy.today 2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

If there is another Democratic president their plan went horribly arry because they plan on fixing elections. In case 2020 didn't give it away...

[–] WanderWisley@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago

Hey America are we tired yet from all this winning?

[–] Gates9@sh.itjust.works 5 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Maybe all the really wealthy psychopaths you never hear about but control everything really did fuck off to Neuschwabenland or another planet or something because this cannot be “the plan”. Even Peter Thiel has to recognize that his Praetorian Guard is not gonna be like “Yes sir, Baron Harkonnen, replace our organs and turn us into a cybernetic slave soldiers! Anything for you sir!”. They’re gonna give him the buckwheats and take over his empire like every other warlord in history.

[–] Formfiller@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago

Peter Thiel is literally an insane comic book villain

[–] zephiriz@lemmy.ml 3 points 6 days ago (2 children)

So on this note anyone know a country that would accept a white guy and could have an early retirement for about $500k? Was thinking the Philippines. Any other recommendations? Don't really mind where just don't want to make the newspaper of some white guy killed in mugging.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 days ago

Mexico is quite awesome

There are some dangerous areas, but that ain't that different from the US where there are too various areas where you at not want to go of you don't want to get robbed.

Culturally it's very similar to the US, and it's dirt cheap. If you can keep some US remote job that would be even better. 500K should get you a reasonable nice home bit you'll still need to do some job for your day to day expenses

[–] DMCMNFIBFFF@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

I somewhat hope he lives long enough to run in 2028, 2032, and 2036 (the year he turns 90).

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago

You guys know what to do right