Now the good news. As noted by Justice Thomas, this decision when contrast against the Lisa Cook decision does not find alignment.
By a vote of 6-3, the justices struck down a federal law that bars the president from firing members of the Federal Trade Commission except in cases of “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” [PDF Ruling Here] That law, a majority of the justices ruled, violates the constitutional separation of powers between the three branches of government.
This lengthy 108-page decision supports the Unitary Theory of government in that the President can remove any agency head within the Executive Branch through plenary power, and the Legislative Branch and Judicial Branch cannot interfere. This is a major win for President Trump and beyond.
(6-3) Chief Justice ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ALITO, GORSUCH, KAVANAUGH and BARRETT joined, and in which THOMAS joined as to all but Part III–B. [GORSUCH filed a concurring opinion.] Justice SOTOMAYOR filed a dissenting opinion, in which KAGAN and JACKSON joined.
SCOTUS Blog – […] “Monday’s decision was a major victory for proponents of the “unitary executive” theory – the idea that the president should have complete control over the executive branch. Under this theory, the president should be able to fire any member of the executive branch, and laws – like the one that the court struck down – that restrict his ability to do so violate the separation of powers. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts contended that “the President must have the assistance of officers he can trust. Although it is up to the Senate to decide whether to confirm those with whom the President would prefer to work, neither Congress nor the courts may saddle him with those with whom he cannot work. Subordinates who exercise the President’s power are subject to removal by him. Then, and only then, can they remain accountable to the President, and the President to the people.” (more)
Activist judges and MSM apply the principle of “quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi”: What Biden was allowed to do, Trump is not!
I. Prelude
On 2/18/25, President Trump signed EO 14,215 ““Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies” which imposes a series of Administration limits on independent agencies created by Congress to align them with the administrations policy and to make them more directly accountable to the President through the OMB [1]. This directive is based on Article II, Section 1, cl. 1, and Section 3, last cl. of the Constitution, pursuant to which the President “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.”
II. Officials who were fired by President Trump due to political disagreements lost their lawsuits but received a lot of MSM support
Democrats refuse to acknowledge that President Trump draws the same conclusions from this SCOTUS rulings as Biden did:
[1] Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies – The White House
[2] The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board was created as part of a series of accounting reforms in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Many of the J6 defendants were felony charged by violating this law. On 6/28/24, in Fischer v. U.S. (No. 23-5572), SCOTUS found (Barrett, Sotomayor and Kagan dissenting) obstruction was only intended to apply to more limited circumstances involving forms of evidence tampering.
[3] In his in-part concurring and dissenting opinion Justice Thomas wrote: “Despite the defined structural limitations of the Constitution and the clear vesting of executive power in the President, Congress has increasingly shifted executive power to a de facto fourth branch of Government—independent agencies. These agencies wield considerable executive power without Presidential oversight. […] Because independent agencies wield substantial power with no accountability to either the President or the people, they pose a significant threat to individual liberty and to the constitutional system of separation of powers and checks and balances. […] Our tolerance of independent agencies in Humphrey’s Executor is an unfortunate example of the Court’s failure to apply the Constitution as written. That decision has paved the way for an ever-expanding encroachment on the power of the Executive, contrary to our constitutional design.”
[4] Following Supreme Court Decision: Waters Welcomes Resignation of Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Mark Calabria | U.S. House Committee on Financial Services Democrats
Hahaha. I LOVE the Latin phrase, which literally means “that which is permitted for Jupiter is not permitted for a cow (to do). ). Oh wow! Hilarious 😂. Do we dare assign an identity to the aforementioned cow??
She sits on the court.
That’s singular.
There’s more than one!!!
As “audiatur et altera pars“ should be a convincing principle, it often helps to get back to the original source. I hope this one-liner summarizes the matter clearly.
Trump should fire Lisa Cook and cite this decision as justification. Force the court to get off the fence.
If only the courts followed the law. Even the edicts coming from the Supreme Court are routinely ignored.
I’m reminded of the lawsuit against a bakery in Colorado that refused to bake a wedding cake for queers. It’s OK to call them queers instead of gay right? The Q in the LGBTQ means Queer – so I assume that’s P.C?
The case went all the way up to the S.C. The Supremes ruled in favor of bakery. And a year or so later Colorado took the bakery to court yet ago. AFTER the S.C. ruling.
So much for the Rule of Law. It’s now Mans Law. Whatever they say it is – that’s what it is. Every hear the term WROL?
I used to study the legal rulings and latest bills. Until I realized nobody pays any attention to the law anymore. I remember a judge yelling out in a proceeding – I don’t want to hear one more word out of you about that damned Constitution or I’ll have you locked up.
Yes, it’s a huge problem.
When Sundance posts his blog on X it’s out there for the whole world to see! Truth circulating the world! It’s how I look at it! Godspeed Sundance!
I bet somewhere there is little list already compiled.
Time to drag it out of whatever drawer it was shoved into while they waited for this ruling… and get crackin’.
Let the pink slips fly.
“In light of the tremendous loss in the Supreme Court today concerning Voter’s Rights, and the fact that “people’s” votes are allowed to be counted LONG AFTER an Election is over, it is more important than ever to pass THE SAVE AMERICA ACT, which is,
1. ALL VOTERS MUST SHOW PHOTO I.D. (IDENTIFICATION!).
2. ALL VOTERS MUST SHOW PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP.
3. NO MAIL-IN BALLOTS (EXCEPT FOR ILLNESS, DISABILITY, MILITARY DEPLOYMENT, OR TRAVEL!).
There is no excuse for a politician, or otherwise, to be against the above three requirements. There is only one reason to oppose — CHEATING!
The House of Representatives has approved this vital Act, THREE TIMES. The United States Senate seems unable to do so. In a time when there is a powerful Communist Movement taking place in our Country, one more dangerous than World War I, World War II, Pearl Harbor, or September 11th,
all Dumocrats, and our five Republican Senate Hold Outs, Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, Thom Tillis, Bill Cassidy, and Mitch McConnell must vote to SAVE OUR COUNTRY.
There can be no more excuses!
Thank you for your attention to this matter. President DONALD J. TRUMP”
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/116834002761429397
DITTO
Amen to that .
If todays Voter’s Rights ruling is a “tremendous loss”, how should we label denying to review Trump v. Carroll II?
We have entered a new dimension in which reality does not exist and is not considered. Travesty is a vast understatement.
Reality has always existed.
The reality is that those in power and those who have money (power and money) run the show.
Thus has it always been, with the possible exception right after the Constitution was ratified.
Thankfully, we have had a Constitution that has worked reasonably well for 250 years.
But the people with money and power and/or power and money still run the show.
Regular people in America are far, far better off than regular people in other parts of the world thanks to the foresight of our founders…who gave us the Constitution.
It’s not an issue of “voters’ rights”, it’s a matter of CITIZENS’ RIGHTS TO CHOOSE THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR CHOICE, to govern as WE WISH!
This is NOT “voter suppression”, it’s CITIZEN SUPPRESSION, to rob us of our choice.
Where is Mitch McConnell?
He went into the hospital back about two weeks ago and it’s been reported that he was released from the hospital.
Reports as to whether or not he’s in a nursing home, a rehab facility, or at home are sketchy.
How is Mitch supposed to vote on anything when he is medically indisposed?
0.o
He left written instructions to his staff on how to vote.
I read “retail facility” – I could just see him wandering around Home Depot.
If he’s still alive the only thing wandering is his mind.
President Trump should demand proof-of-life.
0.o
Which aisle would we find on? Plants, screws, or curtains?
Maybe Jake Tapper found a nursing home for him staffed by Haitians. He will be there for a spell.
Same way Biden did everything. McConnell is likely oblivious if not completely senile. His staff is running his seat just like Biden’s staff was.
Again, I ask….WHERE is Mitch McConnell? And WHY is NO ONE in the media or in the Administration asking this question?
The passage from the SCOTUS blog above is misleading.
“Chief Justice John Roberts contended.”.
I read the opinion.
Part of the closing,
“To “discharg[e] the duties of his trust,” the President
must have the assistance of officers he can trust. 30 Writ-
ings of George Washington, at 334”.
We can not quote the Founding Fathers in a synopsis of the opinion?
Nonsense.
The synopsis is supposed to be a short summary of the entire opinion,
“The passage from the SCOTUS blog above is misleading.”
I never cease to wonder why patriots consult the far-left SCOTUSblog on that matters.
“The passage from the SCOTUS blog above is misleading.”
I never cease to wonder why patriots consult the far-left SCOTUSblog on that matters.
If you have links to reliable sources then by all means post them.
Or keep wondering and complaining . . .
0.o
If Lisa Cook can stay in her position during appeal, to whom is she appealing if the Chief Executive can fire her anyway? Perhaps the decision is that yes, you can stay until you are fired, but … you’re fired.
The Fed is….different.
Thyme was of the essence on Cook decision 🙂
Basil Rathbone could reduce the roux with a reasoning of seasoning.
Paprika should know 🙂
That’s sage advice. 🙂
Too many [Lisa] Cooks spoiled the broth.
The Cook case merely concludes that an allegation is insufficient. It’s limited to the facts of the Cook case to date. It’s of very limited practical application and precedent.
Can she be fired by the new Fed chairman?
She can be fired by any President not named Trump.
Lol. Yep.
Prosecute Cook for mortgage fraud related crimes.
Court rules 6-3 that the Executive can use Executive powers.
Court rules 6-3 temporary status means temporary.
Seems the leftist district judges and leftist justices have an English language problem
They don’t have an English problem they’ve been appoint ed to serve as politicians in robes.
Well, they do have a bit of an English language problem (such as not being able to define a ‘woman’), but that is not really the problem at hand, which is that they are Leftists and see everything through that prism and that prism is intentionally false.
If they can’t define what a woman is, they don’t deserve a spot on the SC.
Court rules election “day” is NOT a day.
The law sets the election day as the Tuesday after the first Monday in November of even-numbered years. So if that is not actually a day but a month or 3 weeks or 6 1/2 weeks or whatever, then I guess it is an English language problem similar to not being able to define what a ‘woman’ is. Argh!
(In English, though maybe not universally at the Supreme Court, “argh” is an interjection typically used to express frustration, disappointment, anguish, or pain.)
Very troubling… Chief Justice Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett stabbed us in the back once again!
They have something to hide that having globalists in control keeps under the rug. They can’t be too contrary to the globalist push otherwise they will be outed and shamed – even worse, they will not be invited to any more DC cocktail parties – and they can’t have THAT.
Or nother possibility is that, at least in Barrett’s case, she has received a phone call that goes something like, “Nice family you got there – be a shame if something happened to any of them.”
I wouldn’t get too excited about the Cook and Election Day cases. In Cook’s case SCOTUS is saying that an allegation of wrongdoing unrelated directly to the Fed gov’s performance in office is insufficient cause for removal under the Fed Reserve statute. This case has very limited effect. Kavanaugh was the deciding vote and his vote was predicated on a very valid concern (in my view) that a democrat president could remove all Fed governors and install finance-illiterate sycophants on a whim. The Election Day result may be remedied by an act of Congress (I know, I know). But a majority of Congress should be able to agree, in a reconciliation bill, to not authorize funds to count ballots received after the date set for federal elections. Soooo, let’s get to work.
The FDA case is a very big deal. The establishment deep state is very afraid of what a president can do with this. If Trump can remove the head of a snake, he can take out everything and everyone else. Look out below….
a democrat president could remove all Fed governors and install finance-illiterate sycophants on a whim.
Imagine what Obama or (Jill) Biden would have done.
0bama/Biden didn’t have to remove Fed governors he just blackmailed them to do what he wanted. You think Too Late Powell really wanted to lower interest rates to zero during 0bama’s reign?
Since too late Powell wasn’t appointed until 2018 by President Trump, he probably did not expect to weigh in on Obama’s interest rates! 😉
Powell was a Fed Governor beginning in 2012. You must be thinking of him being Fed Chairman?
So who can fire the Fed members?
Congress?
Since they created the FED?
Seems that someone in one of the three branches of government needs to be able to fire them, or like Sundance says, you have created the fourth branch of government.
Where am I going wrong?
So who can fire the Fed members?
Answer: A Democrat!
Thank you 🇺🇸🦅
Then if a democrat President did that – it would be on him then wouldn’t it.
How is bank fraud unrelated to a federal reserve bank regulator along with false statements under oath in the confirmation hearings?
Court also finds that congress can regulate congress
Man do we live in a stupid country
I love (not) how the 2 fake justices throw us a bone when it effects a few dozen or a few hundred people at most, but say no when it effects the entire country.
Which of the five or six candidates do you consider “the 2 fake justices” ? And, why do you select such as “fake”?
Personally, I believe at least four should be removed by Congress via legislation for “bad Behaviour”; no “impeachment” necessary, judges “hold their Offices during good Behaviour”; “lifetime tenure” is a judicial “Lie” / collusive fraud. [“impeachment” only applies to certain “political” transgressions.]
“bad Behaviour” includes (based on long history – Colonies and England) – incompetence; breach of Oath “to support and defend the Constitution”; politicization (lack of independence, objectivity, etc.); usurping the Powers of the Legislature or Executive (e.g., “policy-making”, making “laws”); other overreach of Constitutional authority (e.g., perpetuating the “judicial fictions” – “judicial supremacy” when interpreting the Constitution; “lifetime tenure”); failing to administer the Article. III. inferior Courts as is the role of the “one supreme Court” (e.g., removing inferior Court justices who exhibit “bad Behaviour”).
https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/oath/oathsofoffice.aspx
“Which of the five or six candidates do you consider “the 2 fake justices” ?
They rotate voting against President Trump to deflect criticism. It’s all worked out in advance of the decision release by John Roberts.
Trump does not seem too upset by this ruling.
++++
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
The Cook Lawsuit, having to do with her suitability in sitting on the Board of the Federal Reserve, was sent back by the Supreme Court on a strictly procedural basis, we will take appropriate action immediately to make sure that someone who has committed wrongdoing will not be making vital decisions concerning the Welfare of the United States of America! Thank you for your attention to this matter. President DONALD J. TRUMP
6/29/26, 11:23 AM
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/116834083672690020
So to sum up, the president can fire people, except where it matters.. and the democrats can continue to cheat in elections. Great day for the republic.
Barrett, Roberts, Kavanaugh, and sometimes even Gorsuch, conspire to rotate their findings between the four of them so as to always be able to point to other rulings showing conservative (or liberal), depending on the makeup of the wine and cheese soiree they’re attending that week.
What is important to them is not the law but that they appear independent, swinging both ways. Barrett has two adopted black daughters (remember she cried with them whilst binge watching George Floyd videos), Roberts is a cuck, Kavanaugh has been brow beaten by Democrat women, and Gorsuch wants to appear as the smartest on the bench, ever. Did I mention antifa outside the doors?
Only Alito and Thomas can you count of and they’ll soon be retiring. God help us in selecting their replacements.
Hopefully Susie Wiles will not be the recommending official for the next court nominations.
Justice John Paul Stevens severed on the Supreme Court until he was 90 years old. He announced his retirement shortly before his birthday in 2010 and officially stepped down that June, concluding a nearly 35-year tenure on the bench.
Based on the John Paul Stevens precedent, Alito (76 years old) and Thomas (78 years old) have at least 12 to 14 years left on the Supreme Court or maybe even more, if the two want to beat John Paul Stevens’ record.
This court is so confusing….
@Sundance, any opinions on which way the birthright citizenship ruling will fall? That case, by far IMHO, is the most important in a loooooonng time (including RvW).
Tomorrow is another opinion day. Roberts will likely write birthright citizenship.
Not sure who will do trannies on girls’ sports teams or the case of whether campaign finance limits violate the 1st Amendment,
. . . Not sure who will do trannies on girls’ sports teams . . .
Kantangi will probably write that one since she doesn’t know what a woman is and neither do the trannies.
0.o
Which AI chat-bot does she use to organize her thoughts and write court opinions?
We “might” win the Tranny decision but there is ZERO chance on birthright citizenship!
A boss who can actually fire a useless or combative employee, who’d have thunk it.
do we think the release order of these decisions is of careful construction,
designed to convey the ” bi-partisan ” nature of the court
as a prelude to the birthright decision?
“see – win some/lose some, we’re not playing favorites…”
It must be Robert’s principled justice day. Because otherwise, the man tortures the Constitution.
Praise God for some sanity here. Now why the insane Cook decision?!!!! This court is maddening too often.
I notice that it is most frequently the women on the Supreme Court that seem logically inconsistent and the Chief Justice who seems to deliberately take certain positions.
Both conservatives and Reagan were already betrayed by Sandra Day O’Connor, who went hard left after Clarence Thomas joined the Supreme Court. Amy Barrett is not yet as terrible as Sandra Day O’Connor but she is pretty much a female clone of John Roberts.
Robert Barnes warned us that she was, above all, an “institutionalist”. And here we are. Disaster.
A fantastic ruling that upholds the Constitution and the framers’ wisdom in its design. But it all the more highlights the absurdity of the Cook ruling and suggests that angering the international monied interests, and their central bank construct, was a bridge too far even for this Supreme Court, even if, in the light of Slaughter, it conveys the image that this SC is all over the place in terms of interpretive predictability.
One more thing it highlights is that Barrett was a poor choice, for someone who came with such ostensibly originalist credentials. Thankfully, the President no longer gives credence to Federalist Society recommendations. I do remember that Bill Barr was a darling of that group, which says volumes.
J
Amy Barrett is solid proof that even if you clerked for Antonin Scalia for only one year, you can still be a wacky RINO with beliefs completely opposite of Scalia.
This makes sense since the FTC is a part of the executive branch.
Can we fire some of the Justices? A rhetorical question.
You can ignore their rulings so same thing.
Nothing the judiciary can do about it, and this is why the Framers intended the Judiciary to be the weakest branch of government.
Just have Congress say that voting and counting are both part of Election Day and be done with it.
Just reading the headline leaves a, well, duh, of course.
The Executive branch is the Executive branch; who didn’t know that? But I suppose this Cook gal has continued to be paid an inflated salary while the issue progressed through Court.
Just saw President Trump in the oval office. Seems like he sounded defeated regarding getting the Save America Act getting passed.
Emergency Executive Order. National Guard (and Border Patrol) at the polls for federal elections securing ID, paper ballots and same day vote counting requirements for fair elections.
I would trade any or all of these decisions for a Constitutional ruling on the anchor baby citizenship case. Everyone seems to expect bad news.
The gift of citizenship to the spawn of those who have STOLEN into our country will be the final blow, the death knell, of the Republic our founders bequeathed us. I continue to hold out hope that the SC won’t throw away that inheritance so lightly., mostly because I can’t bear to think otherwise.
We all must understand and read the small print in all modern law school charters. That small print reads “All common sense must be eradicated from law students. Failure to comply will result in tenure revocation”.
Time for this president to get busy. 🙂
I’ll take it.
The decision is 108 pages long.
I have not yet read it. I wonder how many lawyers have read it.
I wonder how many Supreme Court Justices have read it.
I wonder why Justices (presumably) go to law school, when we already know who the three dissenting Justices will be before the decision is issued, and before the case is heard.
It isn’t rocket science.
Every decision the “three justices” make against President Trump would be the exact opposite if Kamala Harris was President!
Seems logical, but we still have a Fed Cook problem.
Mary McCord?
Too bad the president can’t fire a handful of Supreme Court Justices!
Ah no. The other side could do the same, when their turn came.
The judicial branch violates the separation of powers doctrine every time they “rule” for or against an action taken by the legislative and executive branches. The judicial branch is systematically neutering the Constitution with every ruling.
Please future presidents, and Trump as well, please DON’T ever put another woman on the court. You need logic and emotion, not just emotion and no logic.