103
Justices Seem Ready to Give Trump More Power to Fire Independent Government Officials
(www.nytimes.com)
this post was submitted on 08 Dec 2025
103 points (99.0% liked)
politics
26957 readers
1744 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
So, not independent. Cool.
Fuckheads.
Not anymore — there is no way they'd have gone along with this if it was a Democrat swapping out officials to his every whim
Isn’t SCOTUS an independent body? If so, does this green light their removal if a President wants to remove someone?
Congress can remove a justice with a majority vote in the house and a 2/3 supermajority in the Senate. This means you can't actually remove a judge unless they lose support from within their own party, and the Republicans have shown that they wont go along with removal no matter what.
This means that in practice, the path forward is to add additional judges, so that the Republicans are a minority, and unable to do any damage.
What if they want to remove one as an “official act”?
I think this is all horrible, but I really want them to eat their own dog food.
They are not members of the executive branch while the ftc and nlrb board members are.
Yes but different branch of government.
That's had zero meaning so far.
If you mean in the instance of the rule of law yes. But the theory that the president is making is that as the head of the exec he should be able to control the exec. including independent boards and committees. So to answer the original question they will say the difference is the supreme Court is the judicial branch.
I dunno who wrote this but most of the conservative justices seemed against it. Implying that if it is overturned a president could use it to make every commission independent jam in appointees with lifetime positions and no one could do anything about it.
They seem to understand they don't have actual party support anymore.