Mark Joseph Stern writes about the law for Slate. In this post, he writes about the Supreme Court’s acquiescence to Trump’s effort to become the all-powerful authoritarian of the federal government, unfettered by laws, Congressional powers, precedent, or norms. This is a Court whose majority claims to be “originalists”, “textualists,” faithful to the language of […]
Mark Joseph Stern writes about the law for Slate. In this post, he writes about the Supreme Court’s acquiescence to Trump’s effort to become the all-powerful authoritarian of the federal government, unfettered by laws, Congressional powers, precedent, or norms.
This is a Court whose majority claims to be “originalists”, “textualists,” faithful to the language of the Constitution.
But now we can say with certainty that the six-member reactionary majority will reliably give Trump whatever power he wants.
The most recent example of the Court’s obsequiesence to Trump is its ruling that gave Trump the power to fire members of independent commissions whose members can be removed–by law–only “for cause,” such as corruption, malfeasance, failure to act responsibly.
