Confidence Restored in Our Election Process No Thanks to Republicans

The President can generally fire his political appointees at will, though the Supreme Court has long upheld certain statutory limitations on the President’s removal power


Which it’s why it’s important for our congress and Supreme Court need to be faithful to our nation first


The republicans are trying hard to dismantle them
 
BidenPresident said:
Justice Department is part of the Executive branch. Anyone in third grade would know this.
Click to expand...

<hand up> I have a 3rd grade edu and I know that if a law enforcement agency is seen as a military arm of the president, Republican or Democrat. I would not like that. For example, I think Barr should be tried for domestic war crimes for gassing those protestors so twump could hold up his fake bible like a bitch.
 
evince said:
The presidential authority to direct and control an administration is especially clear with respect to law enforcement and national security, the story goes, since the President himself has a constitutional duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” and is the “Commander in Chief.”

This is a nice theory. Sometimes (though not often) I wish that it were so. But the theory has been repudiated in law, and especially in practice, for a long time. There are far too many examples to cover, but here are a few relevant ones. The President can generally fire his political appointees at will, though the Supreme Court has long upheld certain statutory limitations on the President’s removal power (including in the context of the Clinton-era independent counsel statute). The FBI Director’s ten-year term—through which Congress signaled that the Director has independence from electoral politics—raises the political stakes for a President who fires an FBI Director mid-term, as President Trump learned last year. And career civil servants below these senior political appointees (like just-retired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe) have extensive legal protections against presidential firing.

Those are the main “legal” guarantees of DOJ/FBI independence. They are very few, and they are not the most important. The most important guarantees of DOJ/FBI come not from the Constitution or statutes, but from norms and practices that since Watergate have emerged within the Executive branch.
Click to expand...




the theory has been repudiated in law, and especially in practice, for a long time. There are far too many examples to cover,
 
evince said:
The presidential authority to direct and control an administration is especially clear with respect to law enforcement and national security, the story goes, since the President himself has a constitutional duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” and is the “Commander in Chief.”

This is a nice theory. Sometimes (though not often) I wish that it were so. But the theory has been repudiated in law, and especially in practice, for a long time. There are far too many examples to cover, but here are a few relevant ones. The President can generally fire his political appointees at will, though the Supreme Court has long upheld certain statutory limitations on the President’s removal power (including in the context of the Clinton-era independent counsel statute). The FBI Director’s ten-year term—through which Congress signaled that the Director has independence from electoral politics—raises the political stakes for a President who fires an FBI Director mid-term, as President Trump learned last year. And career civil servants below these senior political appointees (like just-retired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe) have extensive legal protections against presidential firing.

Those are the main “legal” guarantees of DOJ/FBI independence. They are very few, and they are not the most important. The most important guarantees of DOJ/FBI come not from the Constitution or statutes, but from norms and practices that since Watergate have emerged within the Executive branch.
Click to expand...

Exactly! Again, Comey when investigating Flynn, was acting independently of the president. All twump could do was to fire Comey (remember, he did buy tweet while Comey was traveling? What a bitch twump is).

Then twump appointed Wray as FBI director. Now, since I brought up Wray, you know Christopher Wray, the twump apponted FBI director? twump's own director stated, with certainty that:

THE 2020 ELECTION WAS THE MOST SECURE ELECTION IN US HISTORY

Suck on that, you Republican Nazi demons.
 
BidenPresident said:
"Being faithful to the constitution and it’s intent isn’t cowardly"

Then why did you write that to me?
Click to expand...



Im trying to point out there are limits to the president being able to order the DOJ to do things



I was not trying to insult you personally



I’m trying to point out why it’s wise and not cowardly for Biden not to make the mistakes Trump made that weakens our entire system
 
evince said:
Im trying to point out there are limits to the president being able to order the DOJ to do things



I was not trying to insult you personally



I’m trying to point out to why it’s wise and not cowardly for Biden not to make the mistakes Trump made that weakens our entire system
Click to expand...


Trump won. Pathetic.
 
evince said:
Im trying to point out there are limits to the president being able to order the DOJ to do things



I was not trying to insult you personally



I’m trying to point out to why it’s wise and not cowardly for Biden not to make the mistakes Trump made that weakens our entire system
Click to expand...

I was. She called me a coward for trying to come up with a solution for bringing twump to justice without getting everyone killed!
 
It’s kinda like a scotus member letting his family member do all manner of questionable political acts and never recusing themselves on cases that cross the path of those actions
 
You seemed to fail to calculate into the equation that it’s anti constitutional for him to ask the DOJ to do his bidding


He can hire



He can fire



He has no executive authority to threaten to fire someone for acting against their own sworn duty


They swore to protect the constitution


Not to an individual president
 
So a president who respects that sworn duty of another doesn’t want to shame both offices by making requests that a past president be gone after



Just like a scotus judge is not supposed to shame the court even in appearance by not recusing
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top