"The Constitution, mirroring the English tradition of limited executive power developed during the English Civil War, placed restrictions on the president to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." An honest Originalist would say the Framers inserted this language to make sure presidents could not ignore legislative edicts by simply ignoring laws. The Supreme Court justices, as it happens, are Originalists of a quite dishonest flavor. And so the stricture that presidents can't ignore Congress transmogrifies into the power to ignore Congressional commands."
"Gutting collective bargaining rights or transforming antitrust law into a cudgel for Republican donors to buy media companies ... those are acceptable assaults on the economy because who cares about consumers, am I right? Justice Keggerator seemed most interested in laying the faux academic groundwork for distinguishing the Federal Reserve, appearing satisfied with Solicitor General Sauer's response that "There's two adjectives there or an adjective and an adverb, unique and distinct," which is gibberish but sounds better after a few beers."
The oral argument in Trump v. Slaughter resembled a wrestling match as conservative justices sought to reverse-engineer a preferred outcome. The Constitution's Take Care Clause originally limited executive power to ensure presidents enforce laws rather than ignore them. A dishonest form of originalism has transformed that restriction into a license for presidents to disregard congressional commands. The Court appears unwilling to permit radical executive control over the Federal Reserve but willing to permit assaults on labor rights and antitrust enforcement that benefit political allies and donors. Strategic jurisprudence is shaping doctrinal distinctions to protect financial interests while expanding executive authority.
Read at Above the Law
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]