this post was submitted on 09 Mar 2025
238 points (98.8% liked)

politics

21143 readers
4092 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Former federal prosecutor Joyce Vance warned that Chief Justice John Roberts may reverse a key Supreme Court precedent to benefit Donald Trump.

Trump seeks to overturn Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, a 1930s ruling that limits presidential power to fire officials.

Vance argues Trump is trying to consolidate executive power and undermine the judiciary. She cited Roberts’ language in a past ruling granting ex-presidents broad immunity as an "ominous sign."

The conservative court may prioritize politics over precedent.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 24 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

No. The exact opposite, actually.

John Roberts is basically signaling he's willing to vote in favor of the unitary executive theory, essentially finishing off what their previous ruling that gave Trump all-but-total immunity by saying that he also has the right to do what he wants and the other two branches have no authority to stop him.

At that point, Trump is a dictator. The judicial branch would be relegated to an advisory branch with no enforcement mechanism (and therefore, no force of law). Due to the previous ruling, Congress's ability to give oversight to Trump (even if they wanted to, which they don't), is already neutered since he can't even be legally investigated. Further, Congress passing bills at all would be largely irrelevant. Even if Congress overrides the President's veto, he'd still be able to effectively kill it anyway simply by refusing to execute it.

All those firings Trump and Musk have been doing? Perfectly legal. Impounding money that Congress has already earmarked? Perfectly legal. And Congress wouldn't be able to do a damn thing about it. Any bills they pass would simply be glorified suggestions and requests that Trump can either choose to fulfill or just choose to ignore. You can pass all the "Saving Widows and Orphans Act" bills you'd like, but they won't matter if Trump just refuses to release the money to fund them, which he would be able to do.