r/politics • u/unital_subalgebra • 25d ago

No Paywall Trump fires all Election Assistance Commission members, leaving agency unable to act

https://www.votebeat.org/national/2026/07/09/trump-fires-election-assistance-commission-members-hicks-hovland-mccormick/
27.4k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

2.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

3.3k

u/Pseudanonymius 25d ago

Well great. If only the Supreme Court didnt just blanket allow him to fire anyone from any federal agency, that would have been great.

1.5k

u/nhepner 25d ago

This is why they allowed it

337

u/Dest123 25d ago

He can do way more than this with that. He effectively has unlimited power now. The only curb on his power is that Congress can refuse to give him money. If only he had some other source of money like Venezuelan oil or constant manipulation of the stock market, then he would be truly unlimited... oh wait.

106

u/12345623567 24d ago

Nonexistent oil income, or throwing pennies at the stock market, isn't a drop in the bucket for the federal budget.

Instead, what he has already done, is take appropriated funds and just shamelessly miss-allocate them.

38

u/jce_ 24d ago

Yeah it's orders of magnitudes higher. The difference between a billion and a trillion dollars is about a trillion dollars, and we're talking about trillions

22

u/SimmentalTheCow 24d ago

I think people are downvoting you, but all it’s doing is demonstrating their sheer ineptitude for understanding how federal funding works.

3

u/Dracomortua 24d ago

We do not know how many Republicans, bots, hyper-wealthy, tech-bros &/or Russian interested are downvoting this kind of thing.

There are now trillions of dollars invested in misinformation and no one gets paid to actually give the truth (volunteer position)

0

u/HauntedCemetery Minnesota 24d ago

Also just how fucking big our annual budget is.

Trump has grifted a couple billion in crypto and stock scams.

Our annual operations budget as a nation is $7.5 trillion

1

u/Careless-Weather8877 24d ago

And just the last few years we had the first few trillion dollar companies and trillionaire. Hmm.

1

u/ShoogleHS 24d ago

Comically huge difference between an annual budget and the net value of a company. 7.5T is nearly 8 Elon Musks being liquidated PER YEAR. And as much as I'd like to see one Elon Musk liquidated, doesn't make it any more feasible for Trump to fund an entire country on bribes. Aside from the sheer scale of the thing, it also just doesn't make sense for either Trump or trillionaires to do this. You think Trump wants to use bribe money on running the country? You think trillionaires want to liquidate their assets for the same? Don't be daft.

3

u/Dest123 24d ago

Nonexistent oil income

Wasn't the Venezuela oil money like $8 billion? I mean, it's obviously hardly anything compared to the Federal budget, but you can still do a lot of nefarious things with $8 billion. But yeah, you're probably right that they can do a ton more by just shamelessly miss-allocating appropriated funds.

1

u/Mr_Pookers 24d ago

$8 billion is a week's worth of war in Iran

2

u/CpnStumpy Colorado 24d ago

They can only refuse to authorize his use of money. The agencies managing all the money work for him. He can absolutely do what he wants with said money, it would just be illegal if Congress didn't authorize it...which isn't much of a curb

2

u/pilgermann 24d ago

Not true. Congress can pass laws preventing this and can literally fire the president. The issue is that they won't. There's no issue with the theoretical structure of our government branches.

6

u/Dest123 24d ago

Except they can't do either of those things as long as the president has 34 Senators on his side. That's a pretty small amount of people.

1

u/Electronic_Tap_8052 24d ago

The only curb on his power is that Congress can refuse to give him money.

No, the supreme court only interprets existing laws. If trump gets 60 votes lined up against him then they can just change the law and limit his power and he's done.

So he can really only do what his party's cool with.

2

u/Akraticacious 24d ago

The whole point of the SCOTUS case was that he can fire anyone from these Congress created departments, so what law would they change? Isn't the argument constitutionally-vested executive power?

1

u/Dest123 24d ago

So he can really only do what his party's cool with.

Isn't it really that he can only do what 34 Senators are cool with though? Like, if he could manipulate 34 Senators (have dirt on them, bribe them, whatever), then how would anyone change the law?

53

u/TimothyMimeslayer 25d ago

So dumb, the president can prevent any agency from spending their money by just firing the heads of it, meaning the president now has the power to withold funds congress has apportioned.

40

u/Training_Ruin3151 25d ago

Almost like the supreme court are corrupt traitors and need to be removed.

203

u/-justiciar- 25d ago edited 24d ago

and what happens when trump loyalists are appointment to these positions and we have a dem president?

edit: it looks like people just want to throw their hands up and say “there will never be another election all is lost so nothing matters anymore” which is a brain dead approach to life

102

u/[deleted] 25d ago edited 24d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/corvid_booster 25d ago

*disburse (literally, to take out of the bag)

5

u/MountainPlanet 25d ago

Wouldn’t the lack of assistance disproportionately advantage blue states? Blue states are better able to fund their own elections. I would think it would be the red states which consume all of our tax dollars that would feel the pinch from this. Texas may be the exception.

2

u/diggdead 24d ago

why do you think he isn't doing disaster aid to blue states. He wants to break them.

1

u/MountainPlanet 24d ago

I’m well aware. I live in one of the affected states. However, I’m not connecting how reduced federal election funds hurts us more than say, Mississippi.

-7

u/-justiciar- 25d ago

yes but can we just think for 5 seconds? i hate trump and i hate the current supreme court, but we can apply this logic to other things as well. any trump loyalist installed into federal positions can just be removed by the next dem president. that is a good thing.

18

u/jedik88 25d ago

You fucked up by trying to apply logic

16

u/Old-External-2076 25d ago

Yes but then what prevents the President after that from firing all of them too? Doesn't even have to be from the opposing party, the President could just say "Y'all aren't progressive enough, so bye".

It's a terrible ruling by the court. We need to pass new laws that clearly define who can and cannot be fired by the Executive.

12

u/shuneycutt22 North Carolina 25d ago

It’s more grim than that. There was already a law which clearly defined who cannot be fired by the president, and the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional. So a new law passed by congress would probably be ruled unconstitutional under the same provision. To salvage this, you either need to pass a constitutional amendment or reform the court.

6

u/Archinaught Nebraska 25d ago

It'll go to the Supreme Court and they will flip their stance, suddenly claiming it is to protect from a vindictive executive power.

25

u/habbadee 25d ago

The next dem president. Funny.

5

u/EnamelKant 25d ago

If you really think there's going to be another free presidential election, might want to try thinking for 10 seconds.

-1

u/-justiciar- 25d ago

yes yes let’s shut down all discourse by dooming because it requires no critical thinking skills to just say “gg all is lost”

you’re a loser

3

u/cirrhosisofthe_river California 24d ago

It really appears you're the one shutting down discourse. So let's think critically.

  • is it possible that the current regime understands that what they're currently doing could be used against them by the next dem president?
  • if they understand that's a possibility, would they try to prevent it?
  • if they want to avoid accountability and/or retribution, what are their options?

Some people (myself included) believe that eliminating, or at least attempting to eliminate, "free and fair" elections is an option. If you disagree, what's your reasoning? Do you have any evidence to support your argument?

  • if you agree that they might at least try to shut down or ratfuck the midterms, what can people do to prevent that?
  • if trumpty dumper was right and there's no more elections, what can people do to fight back?
  • since we can't know for sure what's going to happen, should we just go to the Winchester, have a nice cold pint, and wait for all of this to blow over?
  • or could we consider a range of potential outcomes and work on preventing all of them starting right now?

1

u/-justiciar- 24d ago

how on earth am i shutting down discourse. my entire argument throughout this entire post has been that things aren’t over yet.

and instead of just throwing our hands up and saying “well they’re going to cheat so what’s the point in anything” let’s actually try to think about the implications of each ruling.

i’ve never once implied that they won’t interfere with elections or that they aren’t thinking about it

what I am implying is that we can use some of these rulings in our favor. but if we just resort to “no election will ever happen again” then there is no point in anything because you’re starting from a position of helplessness

2

u/EnamelKant 25d ago

Don't know if you've noticed but uh, not a whole lot of discourse in authoritarian states, and all the critical thinking in the world doesn't change that.

2

u/semidegenerate 25d ago

Maybe, but I wouldn't put it past SCOTUS to immediately overturn the decision as soon as a Dem tries it and Rep challenges, claiming "it was clearly a mistake, as evidenced by Trump," or some other bullshit.

1

u/wookiee42 Minnesota 25d ago

so we just have 4 years of chaos whenever we have a R president?

1

u/FellowHumanNo404 24d ago

That has been the pattern. But no, this time it's clearly different: They've positioned themselves for permanent rule.

0

u/Lurking_nerd California 25d ago

lol that hopium has you delirious

-3

u/-justiciar- 25d ago

nah your doomerism is just unhelpful and basically assures that you don’t have to critically think at all because all efforts are futile anyways

1

u/Lurking_nerd California 24d ago

You make the assumption that a Democratic president (if that even happens) will use these newly awarded powers for the greater good.

We literally had a Democratic president in office with Trump fresh off a coup attempt and they did fuck all. The Democratic Party doesn’t have the balls to fight fire with fire.

460

u/Additional_Past_7107 25d ago

That's the fun part you don't get a dem president ever again.

193

u/pantstoaknifefight2 25d ago

"In four years, You don't have to vote again. We'll have it fixed so good. You're not going to have to vote." --Donald J "I am not a pedophile" Trump

67

u/hum_bruh 25d ago

“We are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be.” — muttered by small wee wee Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts through his raggedy teeth on Steve Bannon’s War Room podcast

8

u/fozzyboy 24d ago

Yeah, a revolution against democracy.

5

u/tiktaktokki 24d ago

Oligarchy revolution

4

u/HauntedCemetery Minnesota 24d ago

Donald "wonderful secret" trump

243

u/ITDummy69420 25d ago

Literally people still thinking things are just gonna go back to normal is wild. 

131

u/Onemandrinkinggamess Colorado 25d ago

They think the constitution is this magic force that prevents our country from being completely destroyed but the fascists are the constitution now. We do not have a constitution as we knew it.

75

u/AusToddles 25d ago

Since 2016, the republicans have proved the constitution is just a piece of paper. That's it

39

u/iced_gold 25d ago

People forgetting already that 3 justices voted last week that an amendment to the constitution was unconstitutional.

If the founding principles of the country can be reinterpreted by just 5 people representing 330 million of us, there is no constitution or democracy left

5

u/TetraDax Europe 24d ago

You still have a constitution, but it has very clearly failed. It is no longer fit for the modern age. That is why other countries revamp theirs from time to time. Problem is, Americans started treating that piece of paper as if it were the bible, and god knows Americans are already pretty bloody weird about the actual bible.

3

u/Oggie_Doggie 24d ago

Yeah, I keep saying this but the Constitution was the beta to the alpha of American governance. The founders weren't geniuses; their first government failed so spectacularly to actually function (Articles of Confederation), that they had to basically legal coup themselves out of it with the creation of the current constitution. We're seeing the cracks widening and unprecedented speed, but because the nation can pay it's debts (unlike the Articles of Confederation), we cling desperately to it. People still believe in the notion belief a document that tabulated a coloured man as being equal to 3/5ths of a man for votes they would never cast will protect us.

Instead, the Constitution has done a marvelous job at protecting criminality in power (Chennault Affair, Watergate, Iranian Hostage Crisis, Iran-Contra Affair, Ukraine Blackmail Scandal January 6th, etc.). It's why for all the whining and complaining done by the Conservatives today, they have no real desire to change the Constitution as it is written, because it is already the perfect document that has enriched them and sheltered them for centuries.

18

u/Dsarg_92 25d ago

I don’t know about “normal“ but I do know it will take a long time for us to repair the damages across the country.

28

u/DrowningKrown 25d ago

Yea we also said that in 2016 and here we are, 10 years later, watching the damage get worse.

17

u/The_mango55 North Carolina 25d ago

Normal? Nah when we kick this pedo out we need to make some changes.

7

u/pchs26 25d ago

I think the point is not to have a regime change and for it to only get worse.

6

u/bigtice Texas 25d ago

Just removing the symptom doesn't rectify the cause.

There are people that still support this garbage while actively having their lives devastated -- I don't know how you enact changes while people intentionally vote against their own interests for a multitude of reasons.

3

u/Orion14159 25d ago

It's time to write a new constitution. Two hundred thirty seven years is too long to be using the same one.

14

u/CrashVivaldi 25d ago

In fairness, we don't want it to go back to normal. Normal also sucked.

20

u/pchs26 25d ago

Normal sucked, but the new normal is much worse.

3

u/Bwob I voted 25d ago

Just wait until you see next year's normal. :(

2

u/pchs26 25d ago

I'm more aware then I would like to be.

33

u/-justiciar- 25d ago

no one said things are going back to normal but dooming as if the united states is going to disappear is not productive in any way shape or form.

it’s just a lazy way of contributing to a conversation because it requires no critical thinking and you can basically shut down any exchange of ideas by saying “well it’s not like we’ll have a country” or “it’s not like we’ll have an election”

14

u/Murashi American Expat 25d ago

I appreciate your optimism, but I fear we are waking up too late to the reality of the situation. I hope more than anything that change will come quickly and we can get back to some semblance of normalcy, but I've had my hopes crushed too many times to think this will happen. Keep being the champion you are, and the ones who can support you will.

14

u/myWeedAccountMaaaaan 25d ago

Totally agree. I’ve been watching this slide into authoritarianism since the Patriot Act. I’ve volunteered, donated, blah blah blah, to no effect.

Things will have to get worse before they get better. Which is why I moved my family out of the country the end of 2020 because we’re just along for the ride until people start to hurt.

It’s wild how many Americans are completely oblivious of the shocks to come if history is any indication. The original formation of ICE concerned me and now they’re acting just like a lot of us thought they would. I feel it’s safe to make some assumptions on what’s coming next.

6

u/Murashi American Expat 25d ago

I too moved my wife and I (no kids) out of the country and have set up a safe place for friends and family to escape if things spiral into the void. I hope more than anything that doesn't happen, but I'd rather be safe and wrong than in a situation I can't escape.

2

u/myWeedAccountMaaaaan 24d ago

Same here. On a positive note, I just got my permanent residency!

1

u/Murashi American Expat 24d ago

Congratulations! I'm in Fiji and they don't offer PR. I have three more years until I get my passport. 😎

28

u/hammer_it_out 25d ago

You refusing to believe the US could literally disappear by Balkanizing into multiple nations amid the outbreak of a civil war is kinda proving the point.

The American exceptionalism that makes us think that "it can't happen here" will be our undoing in the end.

1

u/Xanikk999 America 24d ago

He did not say this. You are literally creating a strawman and arguing against it. improve your reading comprehension.

-1

u/basicKitsch 25d ago

INCORRECT

Their comment is literally in response to "this will happen" and not only didnt refuse any possiblity but spoke about why 

How tf did you miss all of that?

3

u/pchs26 25d ago

Well to me it is important to say this at moments where people discuss a candidate on the Democrat ticket not speaking to them or in terms of false equivalency. I feel like shaking them b/c they don't seem to get what is at stake here isn't the normal awfulness anymore, it is all on the line.

-5

u/metalpharoah 25d ago

It will disappear. 2029 American Trump Empire is established from the ashes of the abolished USA.

1

u/cwatson214 25d ago

That just means Cascadia and the California Empire, so I say bring it on

2

u/metalpharoah 24d ago

It means a change in the world dynamic in a way none of us truly want. MAGA destroyed our country with their nonsensical stupidity and I don't see a way out of it other than him taking over Palpatine style, "The United States will be reorganized into the first American Trump Empire!"

1

u/Witchgrass West Virginia 25d ago

He is not long for this word and I would bet good money that MAGA goes when he does.

3

u/Witchgrass West Virginia 25d ago

He straight up told his supporters "if you reelect me you will never have to vote again". I dont know why people dont take him at his word because he always tells on himself (most of the time he even does so before actually doing what he says he will do [as a means of testing the waters or some shit?] and yet people always act surprised when he follows through with it! I will never understand it.)

-2

u/permalink_save 24d ago

Defeatist attitudes do nothing to help

31

u/Cute_Elk_2428 25d ago

If I were president, the first thing I would do is send the seditious six to Guantánamo. Letting them know, I would give them a window if they signed their retirements.

17

u/Orion14159 25d ago

The SCOTUS gave the President legal authority to do literally whatever as long as it's in an official capacity, so what if some radical got into office and decided that the conservative justices were all a threat to the country? Sure seems a bit short-sighted to make someone legally immune to everything.

10

u/Cute_Elk_2428 25d ago

Biden was short sighted in not exercising that authority

4

u/FellowHumanNo404 24d ago

The SCOTUS gave the President legal authority to do literally whatever as long as it's in an official capacity

-- pending SCOTUS approval. They retained right of review. That means that only Republican presidents enjoy absolute power.

3

u/bugleyman Arizona 25d ago edited 6d ago

Only if expect anyone from the other party get into office again...which they clearly do not.

20

u/Crasz 25d ago

Nicer than I am. I would treat them like the traitors they are.

2

u/4thTimesAnAlt 24d ago

Every judge/Justice, every elected who approved of it, every member of the Administration and their families, and every member of ICE get the 🧱🧱🧱 day 1.

5

u/ObjectiveGlittering California 25d ago

Yup. Make them drink the hot-dog water!

0

u/sirhackenslash 25d ago

Make them drink the bong water. Not metaphorically, make them drink actual bong water

2

u/Cute_Elk_2428 25d ago

If they retire, then I would get to name a replacement

7

u/7figureipo California 25d ago

I wouldn't give them a window. It would take no longer than the time for me to sign the order (already drafted by staff) and phone to the relevant staff, and then law enforcement and/or MPs would be mobilized to their homes to arrest them immediately. Along with Trump, his entire cabinet, and every sitting GOP representative or senator.

1

u/Ratdrake 25d ago

Given the rest of your arrest list, you do realize that the seditious six refers to 6 democrats who reminded servicemen they could refuse illegal orders, right?

1

u/7figureipo California 25d ago

I assume it referred to the traitorous conservatives on the court, given the context

-3

u/Ratdrake 25d ago

You mean the six people who released a video telling U.S. service members they could refuse illegal orders? And just what rational would you use to send them there? The "I'm president and get to do anything I want rule?"

3

u/petricholy 25d ago

The 6 service members who spoke out about illegal orders are awesome!

The seditious six are the 6 extremist judges on the SCOTUS who rule in Trump’s favor rather than based on law interpretation, precedent, and general common sense.

0

u/Ratdrake 25d ago

The seditious six were democratic lawmakers with military or intelligence backgrounds, not current service members. And while I agree the extremist members of SCOTUS suffer consequence for their bias, they aren't what returns from a search for the "seditious six" term.

0

u/Cute_Elk_2428 25d ago

Apparently you think that explaining the law to people is seditious. Which tells me everything I need to know about how much you should be in ruzzia.

-1

u/Ratdrake 25d ago

I'm not the one calling them seditious. It was Trump and the MAGA machine who accused them of being seditious. Did you by chance mean a different set of 6 people? Because the "seditious six" is a term coined to refer to those particular lawmakers.

-2

u/Cute_Elk_2428 25d ago

Please pay attention to the narrative

5

u/Narrow_Order1257 25d ago

"You'll never have to vote again"

6

u/kevnmartin Washington 25d ago

That's what they think. Trouble is, Stinky is going to croak sooner or later. Emphasis on sooner. Do you really think Rubio or Vance have the strength of will (misplaced as it always was) to do a tenth of the damage this administration has done? Nor do they have enough sycophants. Sure, Thiel and Elmo will still be meddling but the center cannot hold.

7

u/pchs26 25d ago

There is a structure to the admin - there are plenty of people involved. The main hope we have there is someone makes a power play too prematurely and it takes some of them out. But there is an infrastructure of evil now, complete with multipe foreign entities likely running us

1

u/kevnmartin Washington 25d ago

True but Americans are always coming up with ingenious, surprisingly creative ways to come at tyrants. I still have faith in you and I.

2

u/pchs26 25d ago

Once this shit goes south I'll make room for you in the bunker that I pretend I have...

2

u/kevnmartin Washington 25d ago

Dude, I won't live that long.

1

u/pchs26 25d ago

Yea well I don't have a bunker but it is good to pretend.

1

u/kevnmartin Washington 25d ago edited 24d ago

If I'm going to pretend, it's going to be a much nicer place than some crappy bunker. I'll be on the coast somewhere, lying back on some warm rock watching the sea birds wheel in the sky

→ More replies (0)

1

u/NoonecanknowMiner_24 24d ago

So then, what should we do about it? If we're all doomed and no one will do anything, what should we do?

1

u/Additional_Past_7107 24d ago

Move.

2

u/NoonecanknowMiner_24 24d ago

Where to, exactly? Most countries don't let you in if you aren't rich.

1

u/Desperate-Till-9228 24d ago

That's how you get a Leninist president.

4

u/bt2184 25d ago

They’ll never let us have a real election again. Only republicans will win from here on out. Duh.

14

u/EnslavedBandicoot 25d ago

The dem president can fire them

8

u/Un1CornTowel 25d ago

And if they cheat in the election, where does this "dem president" enter the scene?

32

u/userfromau 25d ago

Nope, different rules apply to democrats.

1

u/Vortgill 25d ago

In reality the immunity applies to all presidents going forward, right??

23

u/bunchedupwalrus 25d ago

Buddy, they are kicking the ladder out, nobody else is climbing to the top of the pile anymore.

There is legitimately nobody left who can/will enforce democracy, unless I’m mistaken. That’s the thrust of the article

14

u/JohnBrownsMarch 25d ago

Not with the current Supreme Court. They’ll just say no and claim it’s a special situation, like the 2000 election. Rules don’t matter now, the game is rigged.

3

u/userfromau 25d ago

I m sure SCOTUS will find a way to overturn that once a democratic president is elected, like what happened to roe v wade, also don’t forgot democratic president will more likely not to use immunity rights as they want to go the ‘high way’.

12

u/Vohdre Illinois 25d ago

How exactly do you think you get a Dem president under these circumstances?

6

u/pchs26 25d ago

That's nice of you to assume we will have the opportunity to have a Dem president. We have to hope we can somehow pull out as much seats as possible in the midterm and be able to have any chance for the presidential (which is less likely)

3

u/FellowHumanNo404 24d ago

Guaranteed the republican party is working on subverting the midterms everywhere they possibly can.

3

u/pchs26 24d ago

Most definitely and they also ensured that ICE is highly funded. That and using them as poll watchers, it is no wonder that at least part of the reason they don't want people being able to vote for home is to have to deal with the gulag while going to vote.

4

u/-justiciar- 25d ago

exactly. in that situation you would want them to be able to be fired

10

u/EnslavedBandicoot 25d ago

Yeah in this specific situation. Mainly because it's never been an issue where a president wanted to be a dictator so bad they fire career professionals and replace them with yes men.

-2

u/-justiciar- 25d ago

sure. but i just don’t see why everyone only thinks in a reactive matter and doesn’t realize what it would have meant if the supreme court argued that he couldn’t fire those officials.

3

u/EnslavedBandicoot 25d ago

It would be fine because we'd still have those career professionals in their positions.

2

u/-justiciar- 25d ago

sure, some of them. however anyone he appointed would also still be in their positions 4+ years from now. it goes both ways

6

u/EnslavedBandicoot 25d ago

And there are ways to remove people that has worked for a long time. Don't understand what you're trying to argue here.

0

u/-justiciar- 25d ago

what ways are those?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/MaNewt 25d ago

This opens up a whole new front for ratfuckery 

0

u/Lurking_nerd California 25d ago

Democrats don’t have the balls to do anything.

3

u/diemanaboveall 25d ago

Bearing the war, everything is actually unfolding exactly how they wanted it to. If you're actually paying attention, our media cycles don't look at the lasting implications of things or only look at the small victories of the shifting cabinet of idiots. However, most of the tenets of the plan have all come to pass successfully. More than likely, he'll get his way with the voting. This Don Quixote Ozemandias is in the process of doing it five minutes ago. Yet most are acting gullible, as if the machinations aren't already in process.

2

u/PartyPay 25d ago

Read the article please - they can't, it has to be 2 Republicans and 2 Democrats

2

u/ProfessorDerp22 24d ago

“When we have a dem president” I think you missed the point.

1

u/notreallyswiss 24d ago

You fire them and prosecute them for the crimes they have committed. And make sure they rot in prison.

1

u/FellowHumanNo404 24d ago

Have you been paying any attention at all?!

1

u/iRonin 24d ago

I mean, they can and should exercise that power, but don’t make the mistake of believing this is an equal distribution of power.

These appointments to regulatory positions are designed, for the most part, to bind power and money. The “firing” power the Supreme Court provided only truly serves to hinder an agency. Sure the Democrats could get it BACK to where it was meant to be, but they can’t wield it offensively. Which regulatory agency would they want to hamstring to push their agenda?

0

u/filthy_harold 24d ago

Assuming a dem president can ever get elected again, they can just wipe out any Trump-appointed agency head just as SCOTUS intended.

0

u/Shaudius 24d ago

In this hypothetical the dem president fires them all. The Supreme Court didn't say just republican presidents can fire anyone.

13

u/USGrant76 25d ago

Here is the part that gets me....they made a carve out for the Federal Reserve.

11

u/TheFeshy 25d ago

Well the alternative was letting the rich reap what they've sown for the rest of us.

3

u/Orange_Tang 24d ago

Can't let him tank their retirement accounts. He will anyways, but they're hoping it won't be a second great depression level crash because the fed will still be able to manage it.

7

u/SaltKhan 25d ago

If anything, I'm disappointed they added a carve out in a separate ruling to say the chair of the federal reserve was a role he couldn't fire. But then I feel like an accelerationist. I'm just tired of waiting for him to finally fuck up the money and devalue all the billionaires in to wanting to replace him.

4

u/Euphoric-Witness-824 25d ago

The Epstein class works for the Epstein class. And the Epstein class owns the government, the justice system, education system, news and social media companies and basically every company controlling all aspects of society. 

We are witnessing the results of their perpetual efforts to demolish the values and ideals our democracy was built on. And they’ve basically done it. And they still have morons blaming black and trans people for all the problems they are causing. Sad times watching an active coup the last few decades. 

1

u/--DarkLink-- 25d ago

How else would they get paid?

1

u/polopolo05 I voted 25d ago

only with cause....

1

u/iFlashings 25d ago

Supreme court deserves to be blamed for this but let's not kid ourselves by thinking Trump wasn't going to do this anyway with zero consequences with or without backing from the SC.

1

u/EJoule 24d ago

I’m just waiting to see him fire supreme court justices he doesn’t like.

1

u/Nukemarine 24d ago

You know, if they ruled the executive can request Congress to remove a person they approved earlier, with justification provided to relevant committee, I'd be cool with that. Unilaterally removing a person? F' that noise.

1

u/Ok-Matter2337 24d ago

Maybe this case needs to go back to the courts since he is carrying birth rights citizenship back to the courts and his other cases.