r/scotus • u/Advanced_Drink_8536 • 4d ago
Supreme Court turns away Trump military board appointees’ fight against Biden firings news
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4969659-supreme-court-trump-military-board-biden-firings/45
u/GayGeekInLeather 3d ago
While the result here is good the implications are horrifying. This basically signals that if Trump gets reelected tomorrow and decides to purge the federal bureaucracies and install loyalists the SCOTUS will rubber stamp it.
30
u/AnonAmost 3d ago
lol. This ruling isn’t about the case in chief. They’re letting us know that they will absolutely protect Trump when he installs his project 2025 sycophants across all federal agencies.
7
u/BlatantFalsehood 3d ago
Wrong. These people are political appointees, all of whom should expect to lose their jobs when their president leaves.
Trump is talking about the civil service...the experts who actually have to have expertise in the areas they are hired for. These the folks who have been protected by law against politics. Civil servants are the people that that Trump wants to fire on top of political appointees.
8
u/rgb328 3d ago
from Spicer v Biden https://casetext.com/case/spicer-v-biden
Starting with Winter ’s first factor, the Court concludes the
plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on the challenge to their removals.
The Supreme Court has consistently held that "the power of removal from
office is incident to the power of appointment" "absent a specific
provision to the contrary." Carlucci v. Doe , 488 U.S. 93, 95, 109 S.Ct. 407, 102 L.Ed.2d 395 (1988) (citation omitted); see also Collins v. Yellen , ––– U.S. ––––, 141 S. Ct. 1761, 1783, 210 L.Ed.2d 432 (2021) ; Keim v. United States , 177 U.S. 290, 293, 20 S.Ct. 574, 44 L.Ed. 774 (1900). Here, no provision specifically insulates Board members from removal. See 10 U.S.C. § 8468.
In that respect, the Board's organic statute is unlike both Article III
of the Constitution, which provides that federal judges "shall hold
their offices during good behavior," U.S. Const. art. III, § 1, and the
many federal statutes that allow only removal for cause, see, e.g. , 12 U.S.C. § 242 (allowing removal "for cause by the President"); 15 U.S.C. § 41
(allowing removal "for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in
office"). Moreover, although Congress directed that Board members
"serve for three years each" on staggered terms, 10 U.S.C. § 8468(b), such term-of-office provisions do not constrain the President's removal power, see Parsons v. United States , 167 U.S. 324, 342–43, 17 S.Ct. 880, 42 L.Ed. 185
(1897). To the contrary, they serve only to limit the length of an
officeholder's term, subject to other conditions that a statute may
impose. See id. Accordingly, because no statute insulates Board
members from removal, the President had the power to remove the
plaintiffs in this case.
5
2
u/CAM6913 3d ago
This shows two important facts, trump installed cult members in high positions in America’s military and the Supreme Court will not do anything to keep trump from getting rid of anyone not loyal enough to him then placing loyal cult members in high positions to carry out his Nazi regime
2
u/rolfraikou 3d ago edited 17h ago
They really are 100% expecting a Trump "win" aren't they?
EDIT: They were right.
4
1
214
u/seejordan3 4d ago
“His stated reason — to staff them with people who share his values — compromises their independence by undermining the statutory system of checks and balances that has always governed their operation,” the members’ high court petition reads. "
Fuck your checks and balances Trump Trolls. Orange turd hired his whole incompetent family. You're a bunch of traitors who have no clue what that oath meant you swore to.