Support




Contact
Ace:
aceofspadeshq at gee mail.com
CBD:
 cbd at cutjibnewsletter.com
Buck:
buck.throckmorton at protonmail.com
joe mannix:
 mannix2024 at proton.me
MisHum:
 petmorons at gee mail.com
J.J. Sefton:
 sefton at cutjibnewsletter.com
Syndicate this site (XML)
Powered by
Movable Type





Supreme Court Seems Likely To Rule That the President Has Control Over, Get This, the Exectutive Branch

" " " Reformers " " " decided that the actually-responsible, actually-elected political leaders were too corrupt so we should give power to appointed bureaucrats who, of course, cannot be corrupt and only want What's Best for Everybody.

A plethora of "independent" agencies were created. Into these agencies were poured executive power, taken from the actual Executive. And it was claimed the actual president could not fire the commissioners of these agencies, even if they were appointed by previous presidents and were now working to thwart the will of the current elected president.

It's this last part that got the most attention from the Supreme Court during oral arguments today. What kind of a system, they wondered, allows prior presidents, who no longer have any constitutional power -- like Joe Biden -- to essentially continue governing through the commissioners he appointed, stopping the actual Chief Executive of the United States from carrying out his duties?

Why is the dead hand of the last president allowed to strangle the current one?


The Supreme Court's questions seem to indicate that they find this bizarre arrangement to be unconstitutional and will reverse a 1935 precedent called Humphrey's Executor and find that the executive power of the United States is entrusted to the elected Chief Executive and the appointments of prior presidents cannot bind him.

The Supreme Court signaled Monday that it's prepared to hand President Donald Trump another win in his drive to consolidate his power over federal agencies.

During arguments over Trump's dismissal of Federal Trade Commission member Rebecca Slaughter, the high court's conservative majority appeared intent on overturning or effectively gutting a 90-year-old precedent that upheld restrictions on the president's ability to fire leaders of independent agencies across the executive branch.

"I think broad delegations to unaccountable independent agencies raise enormous constitutional and real world problems for individual liberty," Justice Brett Kavanaugh said during the arguments.

Overturning that precedent, known as Humphrey's Executor, has become a key goal for conservatives.

"The text and structure of the Constitution confer on the president the exclusive and illimitable power to remove executive officers, and as a result of that Humphrey's should be overruled," Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the justices on Monday, repeatedly calling the 1935 ruling "a decaying husk."

The White House told Slaughter in March that she was fired, without citing any concern about her performance or conduct. A federal appeals court ruled that Slaughter should be reinstated, but the Supreme Court said her dismissal could take effect while it considered the merits of her claim -- and now seems poised to rule against her.

...

Kavanaugh sought reassurances that such a ruling wouldn't allow presidents to fire Federal Reserve governors.

"We recognize and acknowledge ... that the Federal Reserve is a quasi private, uniquely structured entity that follows a distinct historical tradition," Sauer said, calling the Fed "sui generis," or in a category by itself.

The Supreme Court has also lined up for argument next month a case over Trump's attempt to fire Federal Reserve Board member Lisa Cook. The justices signaled in May that they were inclined for historical reasons to give the Fed more autonomy than other agencies. And in October they issued an order that allowed Cook to stay in her job until the court resolves that fight.

Justices Samuel Alito and Amy Coney Barrett suggested the court could rule for Trump in the FTC case, while leaving the knotty issues around some other agencies for another day. Alito proposed that the court could "reserve decision on those agencies that may not come before us in the near future, or perhaps at any time in the future."

Eric Daugherty
@EricLDaugh

🚨 BREAKING: Justice Brett Kavanaugh intellectually PUMMELS DEI Justice Ketanji Jackson at the Supreme Court on whether President Trump can fire a Democrat member of the FTC 🔥

JACKSON: I don't understand why the president gets to control everything and outweigh Congress' authority and duty to protect the people!

KAVANAUGH: "When both houses of Congress and President are controlled by the same party - them creating a lot of these 'independent' agencies with or extending current independent agencies, into these situations, to THWART future presidents of the opposite party..."

TRANSLATION: DEI Jackson wants single party rule to destroy Article 2 under the guise of "independence," Kavanaugh warns that's antithetical to the presidency.

Low-IQ Justice Jackson "doesn't understand" a lot of things.

It's not just that she's stupid. It's also that this is preferred method of left-wingers to passively-aggressively disagree. Instead of saying "I disagree," they almost always say "I don't understand why..." and then specify the thing they disagree with.

She is constantly, constantly saying "I don't understand why..."

Gorsuch rejects the Democrats' claim that there is a "fourth branch of government" -- the federal bureaucracy, which Democrats hold may shackle a Republican president. (Republican bureaucrats cannot, of course, bind a Democrat president).

The bureaucracy has no power except what the President devolves to them, and they may only use that power in the way that the Chief Executive decides.


In related news, the Supreme Court has agreed to review the issue of birthright citizenship.

Posted by: Ace at 06:23 PM




Comments

(Jump to bottom of comments)

1 Yes!

Posted by: lin-duh at December 08, 2025 06:23 PM (rdRUo)

2 KBJ's favorite phrase is I don't understand and it seems as if there's a lot of things she doesn't understand.

Justice Autopen.

Posted by: CaliGirl at December 08, 2025 06:26 PM (ajCaF)

3 KOWABUNGA

Posted by: Hokey Pokey at December 08, 2025 06:26 PM (YlWIZ)

4 It's definitely a meme now that lefties argue by claiming not to understand things. But in Jackson's case I'm willing to entertain that she actually doesn't understand anything.

Posted by: Ian S. at December 08, 2025 06:26 PM (UmGiD)

5 JUST IN - SUPREME COURT: "President Trump is on the cusp of an apparent Supreme Court VICTORY with justices signaling they may allow him to fire a [Democrat] member of the Federal Trade Commission *WITHOUT* cause."

Article II is CLEAR.

==

What does it mean for the Federal Reserve ? And whatsherface that was fired ??

Posted by: runner at December 08, 2025 06:27 PM (g47mK)

6 What a concept, the president can actually hire and fire people who work for him.

Posted by: Mister Scott (Formerly GWS) at December 08, 2025 06:27 PM (0N4FZ)

7 As I was saying.

Posted by: JackStraw at December 08, 2025 06:27 PM (viF8m)

8 How many dem admjns have liquidated everyone even approaching not liberal? Clinton, Obama, fucking Biden? They all did it.

Posted by: Aetius451AD work phone at December 08, 2025 06:27 PM (zZu0s)

9 I don't get my hopes up. I've learned from experience.

Posted by: NCKate at December 08, 2025 06:27 PM (uQzkA)

10 The Supreme Court faces a critical birthright citizenship decision.

On January 20th of this year, President Trump signed an order to stop automatic birthright citizenship.


===

This is going to be interesting.

Posted by: runner at December 08, 2025 06:28 PM (g47mK)

11 It's clear that the intent of the law is that the experts should get to run everything. Whoever appoints the first bunch of experts is in charge forever.

Posted by: Justice Jackson at December 08, 2025 06:29 PM (98kQX)

12 Imagine a ceo not able to fire employees or get rid of departments. It would be insane.

And yet the left thinks it’s cool if the federal
Govt works this way.

Posted by: Its Go Time Donald at December 08, 2025 06:29 PM (DR7Cw)

13 At its core, "I don't understand" is a micro-scale gaslight.

Frame the argument as though the counter-argument is inherently confusing and nonsensical. Before you even have got to either.

Posted by: Warai-otoko at December 08, 2025 06:29 PM (Vq1pX)

14 The problem with Marxist revolution is that it favors ideology over reality. Lysenkoism is a perfect example. The late stage Soviet Union couldn't make an economy work and resorted to thuggery like all leftists. Yeltsin going to Dallas is the greatest example. He muttered to himself all the way back to Moscow. Or he was drunk
Posted by: Smell the Glove at December 08, 2025 06:21 PM (bfwj/)
---
Because ideology is the simplification that reality will obey a theory, and can serve to keep belief in a system that is failing. And is really the only hope a ideological regime has of even presenting a "carrot" to vary from the real stick it pragmatically must rely on more and more.

It's also dancing with the one you were attracted to enough to let bring you to the dance. The ideology is attractive--and it was the original simplification that seduced you onto the path of the ideology.

Posted by: Axeman at December 08, 2025 06:29 PM (krQz2)

15 Fundamental changes, fuck yeah !

Posted by: Ben Had at December 08, 2025 06:30 PM (sDNVV)

16 Ok, OT (sort of)

This is a great turn of phrase:

'You killed it on purpose and now youre confused by the corpse.'

Posted by: Aetius451AD work phone at December 08, 2025 06:30 PM (zZu0s)

17 10 The Supreme Court faces a critical birthright citizenship decision.

On January 20th of this year, President Trump signed an order to stop automatic birthright citizenship.


===

This is going to be interesting.
Posted by: runner at December 08, 2025 06:28 PM (g47mK)

If the Supreme Court allows it via EO, Congress better get off their arse and codify if. Ah, who am I kidding?

Posted by: Dr. Fausti - I WAS The Science at December 08, 2025 06:30 PM (8hxDK)

18 KBJ has the intellectual firepower of a rutabaga, and sits on the highest court in the land.

Wild.

Posted by: ballistic at December 08, 2025 06:30 PM (3BwY8)

19 So this mean Trumps owns the "A"s.

If it end in admin or commish then Trump owns them lock, stock, and barrel.

Posted by: rhennigantx at December 08, 2025 06:31 PM (gbOdA)

20 KBJ wants to ProtectDemocracy(TM) by having unelected
'experts' run the place. It's right there in the Whatever Clause of the Constitution.

Posted by: Chuck Martel at December 08, 2025 06:31 PM (Dv3i1)

21 Maybe it�s a recognition that Humphrey's Executor was poorly reasoned and that there is no such thing in our constitutional order as a 4th branch of government..

==

Was "birthright citizenship" interpretation of the 14th also poorly reasoned ?

"According to estimates from the Migration Policy Institute and Penn State’s Population Research Institute, ending birthright citizenship would result in an average of 255,000 children being born in the U.S. without citizenship each year, and would increase the number of unauthorized migrants living in the U.S. by 2.7 million by 2045, and 5.4 million by 2075.

The Pew Research Center found in 2022 that about 4.4 million U.S.-born children under 18 live with an unauthorized immigrant parent."

Posted by: runner at December 08, 2025 06:31 PM (g47mK)

22 Before you even have got to either.
Posted by: Warai-otoko at December 08, 2025 06:29 PM (Vq1pX)

Also frees you from. Having to argue for your argument and why the other argument is wrong. Lazy.

Posted by: Aetius451AD work phone at December 08, 2025 06:31 PM (zZu0s)

23 I think Trump is going to get this but probably not an end to birthright citizenship. The real big one , which I think the court is going to rule against, is his tariffs. That is going to be a monumental fuckening of his whole polucy.

Posted by: steevy at December 08, 2025 06:31 PM (YwEeS)

24 At its core, "I don't understand" is a micro-scale gaslight.

Frame the argument as though the counter-argument is inherently confusing and nonsensical. Before you even have got to either.

Posted by: Warai-otoko at December 08, 2025 06:29 PM (Vq1pX)
---
Funny, I posted that earlier in the day.

It's good to get other people's eyes watching the same sleight of hand, though.

They'll paint some sort of straw man on you, and then ridicule you for being a poor example of the straw man they expect you to be.

Posted by: Axeman at December 08, 2025 06:32 PM (krQz2)

25 The executive power of the United States is vested in a president.

I seem to recall that phrase somewhere. Dicta on a SCOTUS ruling? Op-ed? I know it's written down somewhere.

Now whether the court should pay any attention to it is another question. And it is pretty ambiguous and confusing, gotta admit.

Posted by: rhomboid at December 08, 2025 06:32 PM (U/Byj)

26 Lazy.
Posted by: Aetius451AD work phone at December 08, 2025 06:31 PM (zZu0s)

Konami Code Communism. I'm not just cracking jokes. Everything they do is designed to win without having to win.

Posted by: Warai-otoko at December 08, 2025 06:32 PM (Vq1pX)

27 The Executive Branch executes. It's right there in the name.

Posted by: huerfano at December 08, 2025 06:32 PM (98kQX)

28 100 to nothing this wasn't her opinion when Bribe'em was President.

Posted by: Ben Had at December 08, 2025 06:32 PM (sDNVV)

29 Low-IQ Justice Jackson "doesn't understand" a lot of things.

It's not just that she's stupid.



It's just that she's stupid.

Posted by: rickb223 at December 08, 2025 06:32 PM (9bIJg)

30 Of course if the Federal Bureaucracy isn't chopped down (hello again Congress!), this only matters in the short term.

Posted by: Dr. Fausti - I WAS The Science at December 08, 2025 06:33 PM (8hxDK)

31 The meme of:

It's amazing how much leftist discourse is just them pretending not to understand things, thus making discourse impossible.

Posted by: Blanco at December 08, 2025 06:33 PM (MHpW9)

32 I have a feeling that they will split the baby on the tariffs. Something along the lines of what is done is done and cannot give money back because national security, but in the future cannot do without Congress. It's a tax!1!!

Posted by: runner at December 08, 2025 06:33 PM (g47mK)

33 yay! good news!

Posted by: sock_rat_eez at December 08, 2025 06:33 PM (Cjt/F)

34 I don’t get it.

Posted by: nurse ratched at December 08, 2025 06:33 PM (W2Pud)

35 If the Supreme Court allows it via EO, Congress better get off their arse and codify if. Ah, who am I kidding?
____

I don't know if this would how the SC would be able to rule, but I was hoping they'd just say that 14th Amendment doesn't allow for citizenship for children born to people not subject to the jurisdiction of the state, JUST LIKE IT F*CKING SAYS!!!! and it would be unconstitutional to interpret it any other way.

Posted by: Chuck Martel at December 08, 2025 06:33 PM (Dv3i1)

36 " " " Reformers " " " decided that the actually-responsible, actually-elected political leaders were too corrupt so we should give power to appointed bureaucrats who, of course, cannot be corrupt and only want What's Best for Everybody
_______
Surely such exemplars as John Brennan and Christopher Wray are proof that they are wholly uncorruptable.

Posted by: Eeyore at December 08, 2025 06:34 PM (s0JqF)

37 Konami Code Communism. I'm not just cracking jokes. Everything they do is designed to win without having to win.
Posted by: Warai-otoko at December 08, 2025 06:32 PM (Vq1pX)

Valid.

Posted by: Aetius451AD work phone at December 08, 2025 06:34 PM (zZu0s)

38 It's amazing how much leftist discourse is just them pretending not to understand things, thus making discourse impossible.
____

Why do you hate immigrants?

Posted by: Leftist at December 08, 2025 06:34 PM (Dv3i1)

39 "Unauthorized" seems to be replacing "Undocumented" as the euphemism for "Illegal."

Posted by: I am the Shadout Mapes, the Housekeeper at December 08, 2025 06:35 PM (PiwSw)

40 Justice Autopen.
Posted by: CaliGirl


AA Jackson
Affirmative Action Jackson.

Posted by: AZ deplorable moron at December 08, 2025 06:35 PM (M6rYb)

41
I don't get my hopes up. I've learned from experience.
Posted by: NCKate

Yeah, we've been on cusps before.

Posted by: Bertram Cabot, Jr. at December 08, 2025 06:35 PM (pkeXY)

42 Every law enacted by Congress should come with an expiration date. That would solve so many problems.

Posted by: Its Go Time Donald at December 08, 2025 06:35 PM (DR7Cw)

43 Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

Posted by: nurse ratched at December 08, 2025 06:35 PM (W2Pud)

44 As we Great Minds noted here back when they were first fired, that they would have been better off taking their lumps and letting Humphrey's stand.

Because there's neither the mood nor the Court in this country for sympathy to unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats.

But lefties gotta leftie and district court wins are big Ws that should be Law.

I liked the bizarre argument that I think Kagen was trying to make.
Something like, "but if Congress is accountable to the people and Congress created these agencies--for the benefit of the people--then the agencies are accountable to the people right?"

Yes, yes: That's why no one has ever complained about the quality of service at the DMV--cause they're totally accountable to the people.

Posted by: People's Hippo Voice at December 08, 2025 06:35 PM (HXT0k)

45 Left-Left-Left-Left-Left-Left-Left-Left-B-A-B-A-Select-Start

Posted by: Warai-otoko at December 08, 2025 06:35 PM (Vq1pX)

46 So, Is this a bone and they are still in the mode of holding back reality and the exiled constitution as much as possible,

Or is this a sign that their preference is cascading? And future rulings will go to rational rule of law instead of rule of vibes.

Posted by: bob (moron incognitus) at December 08, 2025 06:36 PM (GyoJP)

47 The Executive Branch executes. It's right there in the name.
Posted by: huerfano


If only. Because I have a list.

Posted by: rickb223 at December 08, 2025 06:36 PM (9bIJg)

48 One if by land,
Two if by sea.

You fucking imbeciles!

Posted by: Rev. Wishbone at December 08, 2025 06:36 PM (1zOXE)

49 39 "Unauthorized" seems to be replacing "Undocumented" as the euphemism for "Illegal."
Posted by: I am the Shadout Mapes, the Housekeeper at December 08, 2025 06:35 PM (PiwSmuxjnlike

Much like how homeless (formerly known and a bum) is transitioning to unhoused.

Posted by: Its Go Time Donald at December 08, 2025 06:36 PM (DR7Cw)

50 5 JUST IN - SUPREME COURT: "President Trump is on the cusp of an apparent Supreme Court VICTORY with justices signaling they may allow him to fire a [Democrat] member of the Federal Trade Commission *WITHOUT* cause."

Article II is CLEAR.

==

What does it mean for the Federal Reserve ? And whatsherface that was fired ??
Posted by: runner at December 08, 2025 06:27 PM (g47mK)

So the question becomes, is the Federal Reserve itself Constitutional? Only the US Government is supposed to mint coins, which leads to control over the money supply itself. Congress itself put out the first US currency during the Revolutionary war.

The Fed Reserve itself, IMO, is outside of the Constitutional Limits... as it is NOT controlled by any of the Three Branches of Government.

Posted by: Romeo13 at December 08, 2025 06:36 PM (mP0Kj)

51 She is constantly, constantly saying "I don't understand why..."
_______
Surely that is the single most admirably honest thing about her.

Posted by: Eeyore at December 08, 2025 06:37 PM (s0JqF)

52 if only is right

I think most of us have a list

Posted by: sock_rat_eez at December 08, 2025 06:38 PM (Cjt/F)

53 Federal reserve is a private entity right? Private banks own shares of it, I believe. But with a leader appointed by the president t. It’s a weird relationship.

Posted by: Its Go Time Donald at December 08, 2025 06:38 PM (DR7Cw)

54 How many dem admjns have liquidated everyone even approaching not liberal? Clinton, Obama, fucking Biden? They all did it.

Posted by: Aetius451AD work phone at December 08, 2025 06:27 PM


But it was (D)ifferent then.

Posted by: Mister Scott (Formerly GWS) at December 08, 2025 06:38 PM (0N4FZ)

55 I don't understand how President Biden was able to nominate Ketanji Brown Jackson for a position on the Supreme Court.

Shouldn't that nomination have been made by Congress? Of course, Congress (Senate) had to approve her placement, but I don't understand how Biden got to make the selection. It's almost like his authority outweighed Congress' in the selection process.

#LiterallyHitler

Posted by: Orson at December 08, 2025 06:38 PM (dIske)

56 The plaintiffs attorney got stomped by Gorsuch. He did his client no favors.

Posted by: Smell the Glove at December 08, 2025 06:38 PM (bfwj/)

57 >>I liked the bizarre argument that I think Kagen was trying to make.
Something like, "but if Congress is accountable to the people and Congress created these agencies--for the benefit of the people--then the agencies are accountable to the people right?"

The people elect one person to be their voice, the president. He is the only one elected by all the people.

I don't think that's the winning message she thinks it is.

Posted by: JackStraw at December 08, 2025 06:39 PM (viF8m)

58 Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the justices on Monday, repeatedly calling the 1935 ruling "a decaying husk."




The phrase "a decaying husk" is from a 1985 commentary regarding another Humphrey's Executor case authored by one John Roberts.

Posted by: Miklos so notes at December 08, 2025 06:39 PM (N7hqt)

59 >>Why do you hate immigrants?

Posted by: Leftist at December 08, 2025 06:34 PM

They smell funny and around here, at least, they talk in warbles and grunts.

Posted by: huerfano at December 08, 2025 06:39 PM (98kQX)

60 So the 14th is like the end zone.
Just touch the pilon or the ball passes through the plane of the endzone.
You could literally have the vagina in Mexico and the Baby passes into America.

TA FUCKING DA

Citizen.

Posted by: rhennigantx at December 08, 2025 06:39 PM (gbOdA)

61
KBJ wants to ProtectDemocracy(TM) by having unelected
'experts' run the place. It's right there in the Whatever Clause of the Constitution.
Posted by: Chuck Martel

It's what she was taught in "school."

Posted by: Bertram Cabot, Jr. at December 08, 2025 06:39 PM (pkeXY)

62 >>Why do you hate immigrants?

Where do I begin...

Oh.. wait..

Posted by: Blanco at December 08, 2025 06:39 PM (MHpW9)

63 Charlotte's mayor put out a statement on the latest stabbing on our light rail. An illegal tried killing a guy. The mayor pushes back on the bad PR by yelling she can't be responsible for immigration. Just recently up to her tits actively thwarting ICE, DHS, etc. But not her fault now, yall. Stupid bitch. And the sheriff can eat dicks too with his statement on the new law named after Uke chick.

Posted by: NCKate at December 08, 2025 06:40 PM (uQzkA)

64 "I don't understand why the president gets to control everything and outweigh Congress' authority and duty to protect the people!"

Congress has no such authority. It is terrifying that a supreme court justice doesn't know this.

The duty to "protect" the people is the president. The duty to control everything belongs to the president. If congress doesn't like it, they are free to defund. Congress has the power of the purse. They have NO POWER in day-to-day management of the execution of the work.

It's funny, in principle, I have no objection to independent agencies, in practice, leftists, like with everything else, corrupt the independence.

Posted by: El Mariachi - Attorney at Law at December 08, 2025 06:40 PM (gDhA9)

65 Oh goody, there's an LGBT version of A Christmas Carol on Amazon Prime Video: Scrooge and Marley.

Yuck.

Posted by: I am the Shadout Mapes, the Housekeeper at December 08, 2025 06:40 PM (PiwSw)

66 Look, the Gov letting a private entity print the money, then borrow it back from the private entity is just good business.

If you can get it.

Posted by: connected and litigious at December 08, 2025 06:40 PM (cS1cw)

67 3 of "our" Senators voted for that idiot DEI Supreme.

Posted by: Crusader at December 08, 2025 06:40 PM (Cjcf6)

68 While Jackson (and Sotomayor) are obviously pretty stupid, it's not required to be intellectually sub-mediocre like them to be a ridiculous lawless destructive force on the courts, as currently constituted, with self-appointed plenary power as virtual legislatures, executives, and constitutional conventions.

Kennedy's unhinged diatribe in Obergefell and his comical absurdity and usurpation in Hamdan v. Bush, and Roberts in the O-care case, were recent examples of incredibly destructive, lawless rulings that didn't depend just on stupid justices.

The constitutional system lies in ruins. There is zero-point-zero prospect of it being fixed, even on the margins. The glorified clerks known as judges have about 93% too much power, but there is hardly anyone inside or outside the legal cult who even understands this or cares about it.

Posted by: rhomboid at December 08, 2025 06:40 PM (U/Byj)

69 Much like how homeless (formerly known and a bum) is transitioning to unhoused.
Posted by: Its Go Time Donald


Hmmm

Posted by: Miklos, untrousered at December 08, 2025 06:40 PM (N7hqt)

70 35 If the Supreme Court allows it via EO, Congress better get off their arse and codify if. Ah, who am I kidding?
____

I don't know if this would how the SC would be able to rule, but I was hoping they'd just say that 14th Amendment doesn't allow for citizenship for children born to people not subject to the jurisdiction of the state, JUST LIKE IT F*CKING SAYS!!!! and it would be unconstitutional to interpret it any other way.
Posted by: Chuck Martel at December 08, 2025 06:33 PM (Dv3i1)

Yeah, that makes sense, but I wouldn't pin my hopes on it. As runner said, it will be interesting in many ways. If they (hopefully) end it, think of the logistics of all the newly non-citizens already here. Or if they split the baby and put a date on it, the massive incoming wave trying to beat the deadline.

Posted by: Dr. Fausti - I WAS The Science at December 08, 2025 06:41 PM (8hxDK)

71 I'm setting up a Pew Pew Research Center.

Posted by: fd at December 08, 2025 06:41 PM (vFG9F)

72 It's amazing how much leftist discourse is just them pretending not to understand things, thus making discourse impossible.

Posted by: Blanco at December 08, 2025 06:33 PM (MHpW9)
---
They are well-practiced at it.

They have decades of experience in the 20th century of asking "How would you explain that to somebody who doesn't understand why?"

Not realizing that somebody can understand a concept, and that sadly, maybe there are some who will never understand, because they weren't blessed with that facility. You cannot tell what lack of understanding is conditional and which is structural.

But for years upon years they've demanded that our concepts must be made clear to those who "don't understand".

They've never put that burden upon themselves, mind you, if you don't understand then you're "just ignorant". And somebody to be progressively moved out of the way of "progress" as they define it. (Not as the least common denominator understands it.)

Posted by: Axeman at December 08, 2025 06:41 PM (krQz2)

73 gorsuch was brilliant

Posted by: cherries in season at December 08, 2025 06:42 PM (yumdX)

74 Miklos! Boldog karácsonyt!

Posted by: I am the Shadout Mapes, the Housekeeper at December 08, 2025 06:42 PM (PiwSw)

75 Wait Scrooge and Marley were lovers? Well they are British after all...

Posted by: steevy at December 08, 2025 06:43 PM (YwEeS)

76
Jumanji Jackson is Madea in a robe, isn't she?

Posted by: Frank Barone at December 08, 2025 06:43 PM (IifOV)

77 Why do you hate immigrants?

Where do I begin...

Oh.. wait..
Posted by: Blanco

Chavez the Hugo could answer this

Posted by: Miklos and the Horde cry out at December 08, 2025 06:43 PM (N7hqt)

78 They've never put that burden upon themselves, mind you, if you don't understand then you're "just ignorant". And somebody to be progressively moved out of the way of "progress" as they define it. (Not as the least common denominator understands it.)
Posted by: Axeman at December 08, 2025 06:41 PM (krQz2)

They revel in the absurdities of their "theories". They luxuriate in it. The more incoherent, the more Authentic. You just wouldn't understand, they say, only Experts know the true knowledge.

Posted by: Warai-otoko at December 08, 2025 06:44 PM (Vq1pX)

79 Posted by: Axeman at December 08, 2025 06:41 PM (krQz2)

I always liked what Ed Koch would say when he talked to especially stupid journalists:

"I can explain it to you; I can't comprehend it for you."

Posted by: I am the Shadout Mapes, the Housekeeper at December 08, 2025 06:44 PM (PiwSw)

80 "Much like how homeless (formerly known and a bum) is transitioning to unhoused.
Posted by: Its Go Time Donald

Hmmm
Posted by: Miklos, untrousered"

I've been unhoused and unburdened.

Posted by: Camela at December 08, 2025 06:44 PM (vFG9F)

81 Every single article on this has to mention that Humphreys is "over 90 years old."

Like, damn, we kids just can't grasp the wisdom of the towering minds of the nineteen aughts or some stupid shit.

Laws against gay marriage were around for nearly 250 years but somehow that did stop "sweet mysteries of the night" from over-turning that.

Posted by: People's Hippo Voice at December 08, 2025 06:44 PM (HXT0k)

82 54 How many dem admjns have liquidated everyone even approaching not liberal? Clinton, Obama, fucking Biden? They all did it.

Posted by: Aetius451AD work phone at December 08, 2025 06:27 PM


But it was (D)ifferent then.
Posted by: Mister Scott (Formerly GWS) at December 08, 2025 06:38 PM (0N4FZ)

The purge of the Military under Biden will be felt for many years... because once purged, the good Soldiers and Sailors don't have a way back into the fold.

Posted by: Romeo13 at December 08, 2025 06:45 PM (mP0Kj)

83
The Fed is private only in the sense that it wants to be thought of that way. :-) It's a damn complicated fiction set up to delegate monetary policy power out of the hands of Congress. Politicians are terrible with the money power. Imagine AOC controlling the printing presses. Private banksters ain't so much better, but they are better than AOC.

So, I'd argue that the money power is a legislative power, and it's execution must be by the executive, ie the President. But they wanted to take the money power out of the hands of the president as well, since he's a politician too.

Posted by: publius, Rascally Mr. Miley (w6EFb) at December 08, 2025 06:45 PM (w6EFb)

84 ending birthright citizenship would result in an average of 255,000 children being born in the U.S. without citizenship each year, and would increase the number of unauthorized migrants living in the U.S. by 2.7 million by 2045, and 5.4 million by 2075.

The Pew Research Center found in 2022 that about 4.4 million U.S.-born children under 18 live with an unauthorized immigrant parent."
Posted by: runner

They can have citizenship in whatever country their parents actually belong to. And they can be deported.

Posted by: FeatherBlade at December 08, 2025 06:45 PM (a+4eV)

85 Boldog karácsonyt!
Posted by: I am the Shadout Mapes,


Köszönöm!

Neked is!

Posted by: Miklos expects misinterpretation at December 08, 2025 06:45 PM (N7hqt)

86 Scotus being scotus, my guess is he will be allowed to fire this one person. Every other person fired will then get to appeal to the scotus over and over because they are a bunch of chickenshits.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at December 08, 2025 06:46 PM (n5tGW)

87 Given the mast majority of people who use public transportation are anti-car leftist vermin, I kinda don’t care if they kill each other on the train.

Posted by: Its Go Time Donald at December 08, 2025 06:46 PM (DR7Cw)

88 I don't know if we're producing enough men to supply the bags of dick our cities' mayors need to eat.
I suppose that's what the green dildoes are for.

Posted by: gKWVE at December 08, 2025 06:46 PM (gKWVE)

89 JKB does not understand what a woman is, how can she be expected to understand the three co-equal branches of our government?

Posted by: Eromero at December 08, 2025 06:47 PM (LHPAg)

90 >>They can have citizenship in whatever country their parents actually belong to. And they can be deported.

Posted by: FeatherBlade at December 08, 2025 06:45 PM

I keep seeing that they don't even speak the language in their home countries. Bullshit. Their parents don't speak English. How do they communicate with them?

Posted by: huerfano at December 08, 2025 06:48 PM (98kQX)

91
The Court has let the Fed get away with a lot of shit they shouldn't have. Buying up all the bad MBS dogshit is a prime example -- that, to me (and a lot of others) was a clear violation of the Federal Reserve Act, but they let it go. Why, that's complicated monetary policy shit during a global financial meltdown, we, the courts don't know shit about that, so we'll let them do what they want.

Posted by: publius, Rascally Mr. Miley (w6EFb) at December 08, 2025 06:48 PM (w6EFb)

92 Oh boy, this is why 'attack attack attack' is such an effective strategy against idiots.

Posted by: Anna Puma at December 08, 2025 06:48 PM (2GVsD)

93 87 Given the mast majority of people who use public transportation are anti-car leftist vermin, I kinda don’t care if they kill each other on the train.
Posted by: Its Go Time Donald


Oh blow it out your ass.

I take public transport every day.

Posted by: nurse ratched at December 08, 2025 06:49 PM (W2Pud)

94 Don't all Somalis have citizenship automatically conferred when they consummate their marriages to their siblings?

Posted by: Eeyore at December 08, 2025 06:49 PM (s0JqF)

95 Posted by: publius, Rascally Mr. Miley (w6EFb) at December 08, 2025 06:45 PM (w6EFb)

But allowing banks to set monetary policy is just as bad. It's why the inflation TARGET is 2%... a target they never seem to meet.

Posted by: Romeo13 at December 08, 2025 06:50 PM (mP0Kj)

96 Yeah, we've been on cusps before.
Posted by: Bertram Cabot, Jr. at December 08, 2025 06:35 PM (pkeXY)

I read that in a Mike Tyson voice.

Posted by: Alberta Oil Peon at December 08, 2025 06:50 PM (npFr7)

97 I keep seeing that they don't even speak the language in their home countries. Bullshit. Their parents don't speak English. How do they communicate with them?
Posted by: huerfano at December 08, 2025 06:48 PM (98kQX)


Their entire lives are in their parents home language. Little Jose or Juanita can barely string together a sentence in English.

It’s yet another lie by the left.

Posted by: Its Go Time Donald at December 08, 2025 06:50 PM (DR7Cw)

98 Remember: the same legal scholars that will swear Humphrey's is Sound Constitutional Law, will tell you that birthright citizenship is in Super Constitution.

LOL, know how I know that the left has probably already lost this one?

Cause in today's argument, one of the Left Bloc made a snide comment about how they can't just put a footnote in the opinion, "that we're not dealing with that question" today.
She was trying to argue that they can't overturn the precedent b/c it'll upset so much other rules, that they must keep status quo or write rules for every possible firing.

LOL.
Birthright citizenship is a footnote.
And overruling opens a whole can of worm questions not before the Court.

Posted by: People's Hippo Voice at December 08, 2025 06:50 PM (HXT0k)

99 It's amusing that the Left had no problem with Biden campaigning on "nominating a black female to the USSC."

He had no idea whom. He didn't qualify the statement with something like "a highly qualified, accomplished and deserving individual." Nope, he just said "I'm going to nominate a black woman to the bench."

Now, apply that logic, process, and reasoning to any other job in the entire country. It's a violation of the EEOC. Discriminatory. And, as a result we end up with a retard influencing defining law for the rest of us.

Posted by: Orson at December 08, 2025 06:50 PM (dIske)

100 Cusps, Mike Tyson?

Wouldn't that be a cuspid?

Posted by: Anna Puma at December 08, 2025 06:51 PM (2GVsD)

101
KBJ's favorite phrase is I don't understand and it seems as if there's a lot of things she doesn't understand.

Justice Theater Kid (JTK).

JTK: "I don't ... I don't ... I ... ... line!"

Prompter: "I don't understand."

JTK: "Yeah! I don't understand..."

Posted by: Krebs v Carnot: Epic Battle of the Cycling Stars (TM} at December 08, 2025 06:51 PM (xG4kz)

102 Me smart! Kunte Kinte Jackson dumb! Not smart like me. Dumb.

Posted by: Zombie Harambe at December 08, 2025 06:51 PM (R/m4+)

103 12 Imagine a ceo not able to fire employees or get rid of departments. It would be insane.

And yet the left thinks it’s cool if the federal
Govt works this way.

Posted by: Its Go Time Donald at December 08, 2025 06:29 PM (DR7Cw)
________
But if the CEO tries to fire a bunch of employees who are diverse in race and gender, that can not be allowed, right?

Posted by: Eeyore at December 08, 2025 06:52 PM (s0JqF)

104 Left: everything old is bad and racist and needs to be destroyed

Also left: how dare you undo nearly 100 year old court decisions!!!!

Posted by: Its Go Time Donald at December 08, 2025 06:52 PM (DR7Cw)

105 Evening.

Posted by: Robert, The Love Walrus at December 08, 2025 06:53 PM (xt2dn)

106 *waves to Robert*

Posted by: Anna Puma at December 08, 2025 06:53 PM (2GVsD)

107 Jasmine Crockett can't really understand a lot of things either.

Posted by: fd at December 08, 2025 06:53 PM (vFG9F)

108 5 JUST IN - SUPREME COURT: "President Trump is on the cusp of an apparent Supreme Court VICTORY

What does it mean for the Federal Reserve ? And whatsherface that was fired ??
Posted by: runner at December 08, 2025 06:27 PM (g47mK)

SC will carve out an exception for Fed Reserve commissioners so they can't be fired by Pres. Trump.

Posted by: Joemarine at December 08, 2025 06:53 PM (y171U)

109 But if the CEO tries to fire a bunch of employees who are diverse in race and gender, that can not be allowed, right?
Posted by: Eeyore at December 08, 2025 06:52 PM (s0JqF)

They also have to fire good workers who are white and male.

Saw this at my company this summer. Some real DEI dead wood was rightfully let go. But they had to throw in a few white guy sacrificial lambs to avoid the lawsuits. It was such bullshit. But from what I’ve heard two of the dudes landed right back and got new jobs almost immediately.

Posted by: Its Go Time Donald at December 08, 2025 06:54 PM (DR7Cw)

110 LBGT+ football night at the FIFA in Seattle is

Iran vs Egypt

Opening ceremonies they throw faggots off the Big Screen.

Posted by: rhennigantx at December 08, 2025 06:54 PM (gbOdA)

111
I like to think of the Fed as JP Morgan and the insiders (at the time) of the US Treasury as merging together and making themselves independent.

JP Morgan famously bailed out the US govt. That was a bad thing were a private banker(ster) had more monetary power than the damned federal govt. The creation of the Fed was the two merging together, really. And making themselves independent.

Posted by: publius, Rascally Mr. Miley (w6EFb) at December 08, 2025 06:54 PM (w6EFb)

112 From reading Wong Ark I always thought the court reached the right decision for the wrong reason. They said anyone born here is a citizen. However Congress had passed a law which allowed his parents amongst others to have permanent resident status. They had made his parents and by extension their child "subject to the jurisdiction thereof

Posted by: Smell the Glove at December 08, 2025 06:54 PM (bfwj/)

113 Can someone ‘splain to me why the high regard for “precedent”? What does it mean other than “we’ve always done it that way”?

I’m not finding this especially persuasive per se. It can be a good and proper thing, but it is not a guarantee. Slavery, after all, is Biblical. Most people are against Slavery, although they often can’t explain why very convincingly unless they start delving into tautological arguments.

Posted by: Common Tater at December 08, 2025 06:54 PM (0DQ9k)

114 "I don't understand why the president gets to control everything and outweigh Congress' authority and duty to protect the people!"

Congress has no such authority. It is terrifying that a supreme court justice doesn't know this.

Posted by: El Mariachi - Attorney at Law at December 08, 2025 06:40 PM (gDhA9)
---
MOST importantly, the Democrats want to expand this in a way that gives the minority proportional access to the power of this made-up "role". The Constitution gives no end-run power to the minority of the Houses.

Congress has a LOT of power to counteract the president. Especially if 2/3rds of both houses believe the President is wrong.

But it's insufficient for the partisan slap-fight that the Democrat party has all its chips on. That partisan back-biting can be the way forward, especially with a compliant media to back you.

That's definitely not clear from the Constitution or the balance of powers.

This is what the Democrats want when they are in the minority, some power that does not require the vote along dug-in partisan lines, that they themselves ----with the captive media--bear the primary responsibility in digging in.

Posted by: Axeman at December 08, 2025 06:54 PM (krQz2)

115 *Waves at Anna*

Posted by: Robert, The Love Walrus at December 08, 2025 06:54 PM (xt2dn)

116 This is a great turn of phrase:

'You killed it on purpose and now youre confused by the corpse.'
----

Did that come with a broadsword through the chest?

Posted by: clarence at December 08, 2025 06:55 PM (zBC00)

117 What would happen if, when KBJ says "I don't understand..." another justice just retorted "That shows how stupid you are."

Posted by: Eeyore at December 08, 2025 06:55 PM (s0JqF)

118 Dr. Oz is just now getting around to maybe if possible sometime in the future magically threatening to pull Medicaid aid to MN because of the fraud. Sigh.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at December 08, 2025 06:55 PM (n5tGW)

119 91
The Court has let the Fed get away with a lot of shit they shouldn't have. Buying up all the bad MBS dogshit is a prime example -- that, to me (and a lot of others) was a clear violation of the Federal Reserve Act, but they let it go. Why, that's complicated monetary policy shit during a global financial meltdown, we, the courts don't know shit about that, so we'll let them do what they want.
Posted by: publius, Rascally Mr. Miley (w6EFb) at December 08, 2025 06:48 PM (w6EFb)

What is bettah? That entire meltdown was due to Treasury and Fed Res regulations in the first place. It was caused because they allowed Mortgage based securities to be used as Bank Reserve Currency... at face value.

So they then used their self created crises, to get a Yuge 'Loan' from the Fed Res and Treasury, and then use it, and ordered closings, to consolidate the Banking Industry.

File this under, never let a self created crises go to waste... kinda like Covid.

Posted by: Romeo13 at December 08, 2025 06:55 PM (mP0Kj)

120 >>>Low-IQ Justice Jackson "doesn't understand" a lot of things.

Her selling point was she couldn't define a woman. Not much lower one can go from there.

Posted by: Comrade Flounder, Disinformation Demon at December 08, 2025 06:55 PM (1duiP)

121 The Court has let the Fed get away with a lot of shit they shouldn't have. Buying up all the bad MBS dogshit is a prime example -- that, to me (and a lot of others) was a clear violation of the Federal Reserve Act, but they let it go. Why, that's complicated monetary policy shit during a global financial meltdown, we, the courts don't know shit about that, so we'll let them do what they want.

Posted by: publius, Rascally Mr. Miley (w6EFb) at December 08, 2025 06:48 PM


The bottom line is that you can't have a federal bureau that is not answerable to anyone either congress or the president no matter what law they made up. The federal reserve exists outside of the framework of the constitution and that should never have been allowed to happen.

Posted by: Mister Scott (Formerly GWS) at December 08, 2025 06:55 PM (0N4FZ)

122 107 Jasmine Crockett can't really understand a lot of things either.
Posted by: fd at December 08, 2025 06:53 PM (vFG9F)

Jasmine Jackson Crocket Lee

Posted by: rhennigantx at December 08, 2025 06:55 PM (gbOdA)

123 115 *Waves at Anna*
Posted by: Robert, The Love Walrus at December 08, 2025 06:54 PM (xt2dn)

I hate you both.

Posted by: Michelle Fields at December 08, 2025 06:56 PM (PiwSw)

124 120 >>>Low-IQ Justice Jackson "doesn't understand" a lot of things.

Her selling point was she couldn't define a woman. Not much lower one can go from there.
Posted by: Comrade Flounder, Disinformation Demon at December 08, 2025 06:55 PM (1duiP)

She is not a botanist.

Posted by: rhennigantx at December 08, 2025 06:56 PM (gbOdA)

125 Eyeore

"KJB you stupid sl*t."

Posted by: Anna Puma at December 08, 2025 06:57 PM (2GVsD)

126 will reverse a 1935 precedent called Humphrey's Executor and find that the executive power of the United States is entrusted to the elected Chief Executive and the appointments of prior presidents cannot bind him.

Honestly the huge pile of bullcrap decisions and laws passed over the years is so vast that it is truly difficult to even keep up with it all. Like the law that says it eh president doesn't appoint somone to a position the federal courts can (and a judge ruled only they can). Where does this crap come from???

Forcing congress to have to focus on its job to pass laws and fund the government instead of punting it all to the courts needs to be addressed as well.

Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at December 08, 2025 06:57 PM (dfIr7)

127 118 Dr. Oz is just now getting around to maybe if possible sometime in the future magically threatening to pull Medicaid aid to MN because of the fraud. Sigh.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at December 08, 2025 06:55 PM (n5tGW)

Hold on there buddy, not so fast.
- 2 year study

Posted by: Its Go Time Donald at December 08, 2025 06:57 PM (DR7Cw)

128 Triffid > KJB

Posted by: Anna Puma at December 08, 2025 06:57 PM (2GVsD)

129 Low-IQ Justice Jackson
.....

She's Somalian?

Posted by: wth at December 08, 2025 06:57 PM (v0R5T)

130 Low-IQ Justice Jackson "doesn't understand" a lot of things.
====

Such as what is a woman.

Posted by: San Franpsycho at December 08, 2025 06:58 PM (6/Q3k)

131 KJB was put on the court precisely because she doesn’t understand, nor does she want to. Her single objective is to subvert and undermine the current constitutional order. When you take a step back and look at her rulings with that perspective it isn’t confusing or legally illiterate. It’s obvious, deliberate and purposeful subterfuge.

The final protector of the constitution who is keeping Democrats from their grotesque, unconstitutional distortions is for the most part our Supreme Court. It’s why Democrats want to take power and destroy it.

People need to keep that in mind.

Posted by: Vengeance at December 08, 2025 06:58 PM (B5Sbl)

132 It's amusing that the Left had no problem with Biden campaigning on "nominating a black female to the USSC."
———-

Even more amusing, nobody had the balls to point out this was blatantly illegal.

Posted by: Common Tater at December 08, 2025 06:58 PM (0DQ9k)

133 Robert

Any Christmas suggestions for Tensor?

Posted by: Anna Puma at December 08, 2025 06:58 PM (2GVsD)

134 Why aren't they taking up the issue of having a so-called "quasi-private" organization? That seems pretty Con-sus in itself. (I just made that up: feel free to use in your own comments.)

Posted by: GWB at December 08, 2025 06:58 PM (XEURU)

135 Michelle

Just wave with the other arm, you can do it.

Posted by: Anna Puma at December 08, 2025 06:58 PM (2GVsD)

136 Every single article on this has to mention that Humphreys is "over 90 years old."
_________
I thought being old was reason for a law to be disregarded.

Posted by: Eeyore at December 08, 2025 06:58 PM (s0JqF)

137 Don't bet on the Commissar Judges to do what the Supreme Court orders

Posted by: Skip at December 08, 2025 06:58 PM (Ia/+0)

138 What does it mean for the Federal Reserve ? And whatsherface that was fired ??
--
Roberts says the rule is kinda, "back when these agencies were formed, they didn't have much power. so it was fine to have restrictions then."
Fed was pretty powerful when formed.

But I think it falls. B/c it's not just "engages in Executive functions" but also accountability.
And the Fed, no matter how well-intentioned, nor how highly-qualified the governors, entirely lacks accountability to the People.

And there's just no room in the Constitution for any branch of government to be completely insulated from the will of the People.

Bu, bu, but! The Courts!
Can be held in check by the other branches.
The Fed ... cannot.
A 7 year term that none of the branches can shorten? With the only accountability to the People being, should a term expire during the term of the President?
That's not any sort of accountability.

Posted by: People's Hippo Voice at December 08, 2025 06:58 PM (HXT0k)

139
I'm still attempting to understand exactly wtf Ozempic Labia are.

Posted by: BifBewalski at December 08, 2025 06:59 PM (48yvf)

140 Con-sus = Constitutionally suspect, for those in Rio Linda.

Posted by: GWB at December 08, 2025 06:59 PM (XEURU)

141 >that precedent, known as Humphrey's Executor
----

when I first heard this term, I thought it was a maxim, like Occam's Razor or something
the stuff I learn here

Posted by: Don Black. Message: Get Christy Love! at December 08, 2025 06:59 PM (ZxPkt)

142 >>>"I think broad delegations to unaccountable independent agencies raise enormous constitutional and real world problems for individual liberty," Justice Brett Kavanaugh said
---

When his wife heard that she up and left the house - headed straight to Walmart and purchased two packages of extra large, extra support underwear for Brett. She was absolutely glowing with joy.

Posted by: Braenyard - some Absent Friends are more equal than others _ at December 08, 2025 06:59 PM (Ow52c)

143 It has to be over 100 years old for Dems, unless it is inconvenient.

Posted by: Anna Puma at December 08, 2025 07:00 PM (2GVsD)

144 “He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.“

Posted by: Article II Section 3 at December 08, 2025 07:00 PM (4786I)

145 I like con-sus. But from what my childruns tell me sus is no longer cool to say. Neither is Riz. 😀

Posted by: Its Go Time Donald at December 08, 2025 07:00 PM (DR7Cw)

146 Those who don't like precedents being overturned ignore reality. Plessy v Ferguson said "separate but equal " was constitutional. So Brown v Board of Education should never have overturned Plessy. Got it

Posted by: Smell the Glove at December 08, 2025 07:00 PM (bfwj/)

147 139 Lean beef curtains?

Posted by: steevy at December 08, 2025 07:01 PM (YwEeS)

148 I'm still attempting to understand exactly wtf Ozempic Labia are.
Posted by: BifBewalski at December 08, 2025 06:59 PM (48yvf)

They make you lose your appetite?

Posted by: GWB at December 08, 2025 07:01 PM (XEURU)

149 KJB, "why did Humphrey get executed?"

Posted by: Anna Puma at December 08, 2025 07:01 PM (2GVsD)

150 Posted by: Orson at December 08, 2025 06:50 PM (dIske)

I submit that saying you will ONLY fill a Federal Job with someone of a specific Race or Sex, is against Federal Law.

Civil Rights Act of 64 says you can't do that... yet... they BLATANTLY have done so for decades.

Posted by: Romeo13 at December 08, 2025 07:01 PM (mP0Kj)

151 I'm sure I'm in the minority here, but federal employees are still employees, and employees do have some rights. I understand the executive should have plenary powers over the executive branch, but do we really want people fired without cause? Key phrase- without cause. There has to be some structure or guardrails for such things, because it's not just the people you don't like that are going to get canned.

Posted by: Ex Rex Reeder at December 08, 2025 07:01 PM (MZ+PY)

152 The Dems lost the presidency. So they lost the executive power.

Then by the same abrasiveness and cantankerousness, they lost both houses. So now they don't have the same role in "checking" the executive either.

The Dems now want the Court of deputize their representatives as many Inspector Generals so that the minority has some power.

Just like all that "alternative slate of elector" stuff was legal in 2020, and "reformed" by bills passed in 2021. If the Democrats ever regain Congress, Republicans will never see this deputization power, because the Dems would no longer need it, in the case of a Democratic executive, and it would prove far to effective as a means for a Republican minority to hector a Democratic president.

Posted by: Axeman at December 08, 2025 07:01 PM (krQz2)

153 "I'm still attempting to understand exactly wtf Ozempic Labia are.
Posted by: BifBewalski"

Picture a flying elephant.

Posted by: Dumbo at December 08, 2025 07:01 PM (vFG9F)

154 At one time, Plessy v. Ferguson was precedent, too.

Posted by: I am the Shadout Mapes, the Housekeeper at December 08, 2025 07:01 PM (PiwSw)

155 KJB deliberately didn’t define a woman. That’s because the subversive legal standards she wants to pursue morph and change based on need. They are not precedent, nor established caselaw unless they suit Democrats evil intentions. Their meaning is what they want them to be on the case du jour.

Posted by: Vengeance at December 08, 2025 07:01 PM (B5Sbl)

156
I'm still attempting to understand exactly wtf Ozempic Labia are.
Posted by: BifBewalski

Paper thin. Feather light. Newly dewy.

Posted by: Krebs v Carnot: Epic Battle of the Cycling Stars (TM} at December 08, 2025 07:01 PM (xG4kz)

157 Michelle

Just wave with the other arm, you can do it.
Posted by: Anna Puma

and then go see my carpenter about the other one.
He'll fix you up.

Posted by: Inspector Krogh at December 08, 2025 07:01 PM (v0R5T)

158 …and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.” Meaning: they serve at the President’s pleasure.

I get this but not a sitting SCOTUS Associate Justice?

Posted by: Cow Demon at December 08, 2025 07:02 PM (4786I)

159 I know the Trump Administration is trying to show that it's not greedy, but saying the Federal Reserve is different by calling it sui generous has no Constitutional basis either.

Sui generous is a Latin legal term for "a unique kind of bullshit that's not in the Constitution", in some way unlike all the other bullshit that's not in the Constitution.

Posted by: Minuteman at December 08, 2025 07:02 PM (47/pr)

160 "According to estimates from the Migration Policy Institute and 21. Penn State’s Population Research Institute, ending birthright citizenship would result in an average of 255,000 children being born in the U.S. without citizenship each year, and would increase the number of unauthorized migrants living in the U.S. by 2.7 million by 2045, and 5.4 million by 2075.

The Pew Research Center found in 2022 that about 4.4 million U.S.-born children under 18 live with an unauthorized immigrant parent."
Posted by: runner

Penn State knows better. Trust them for absolutely nothing. 255,000 sounds like solely those in Pennsylvania now, not the future.

Posted by: L - No nic, another fine day at December 08, 2025 07:02 PM (NFX2v)

161 I'm sure I'm in the minority here, but federal employees are still employees, and employees do have some rights. I understand the executive should have plenary powers over the executive branch, but do we really want people fired without cause? Key phrase- without cause. There has to be some structure or guardrails for such things, because it's not just the people you don't like that are going to get canned.

Posted by: Ex Rex Reeder at December 08, 2025 07:01 PM (MZ+PY)
---
I don't want people obeying illegal orders either, but give an example of somebody fired without cause.

Posted by: Axeman at December 08, 2025 07:02 PM (krQz2)

162 Every single article on this has to mention that Humphreys is "over 90 years old."

==

2A is 234 years old

Posted by: runner at December 08, 2025 07:02 PM (g47mK)

163 They pulled the " but it has been law for 50 years!" With Roe

Posted by: steevy at December 08, 2025 07:02 PM (YwEeS)

164 but do we really want people fired without cause? Key phrase- without cause

—

You mean just like millions of people who get laid off every year wIhoUt cAusE in the private sector? Boo fucking hoo.

Posted by: Its Go Time Donald at December 08, 2025 07:02 PM (DR7Cw)

165 “Such as what is a woman”

Oh, make no mistake she knows. Not too bright, but everybody north of drooling tard knows what a woman is.

What was astonishing, in our new clown world she is not allowed to acknowledge what a woman is in a public forum. That’s why she hedged in testimony - “I’m not a Bilogist”. Who can say!? It takes a Village, or something.

The New Truth has been Revealed. And - Do Not Anger The New Truth Arbiters.

Posted by: Common Tater at December 08, 2025 07:02 PM (0DQ9k)

166 Key phrase- without cause. There has to be some structure or guardrails for such things, because it's not just the people you don't like that are going to get canned.
Posted by: Ex Rex Reeder at December 08, 2025 07:01 PM (MZ+PY)

I'm the exact opposite.

I think that good bad or indifferent every single position in the executive branch should be fired any time there's a new president. Tabula rasa. Start from scratch.

Oh, no one could hire that many people?

Exactly.

There should not *be* that many people.

Posted by: Warai-otoko at December 08, 2025 07:03 PM (Vq1pX)

167 154 At one time, Plessy v. Ferguson was precedent, too.
Posted by: I am the Shadout Mapes, the Housekeeper at December 08, 2025 07:01 PM (PiwSw)

An argument I love to make when these idiots talk so much about how important precedence and stare decisis are.

Posted by: Cow Demon at December 08, 2025 07:03 PM (4786I)

168 149 KJB, "why did Humphrey get executed?"
Posted by: Anna Puma at December 08, 2025 07:01 PM (2GVsD)
________
For calling a differently abled person a "retard".

Posted by: Eeyore at December 08, 2025 07:03 PM (s0JqF)

169 The executive power of the United States is vested in a president.

I seem to recall that phrase somewhere. Dicta on a SCOTUS ruling? Op-ed? I know it's written down somewhere.

Now whether the court should pay any attention to it is another question. And it is pretty ambiguous and confusing, gotta admit.
---
Yeah, the document that starts "We the People" must have meant to continue--"except for these really, really important things, those must be reserved to The Experts."

It's right there on paper placemat My Leftie Constitution that Brown traces out in crayon every session.

Posted by: People's Hippo Voice at December 08, 2025 07:03 PM (HXT0k)

170 " do we really want people fired without cause?"

There's always a cause.

Posted by: fd at December 08, 2025 07:04 PM (vFG9F)

171
Melania. Shades and stompy boots:

https://is.gd/S297Ke

Posted by: publius, Rascally Mr. Miley (w6EFb) at December 08, 2025 07:04 PM (w6EFb)

172 I'm sure I'm in the minority here, but federal employees are still employees, and employees do have some rights. I understand the executive should have plenary powers over the executive branch, but do we really want people fired without cause? Key phrase- without cause. There has to be some structure or guardrails for such things, because it's not just the people you don't like that are going to get canned.
Posted by: Ex Rex Reeder at December 08, 2025 07:01 PM (MZ+PY)
====

Civil Servants are employees with merit systems protection.

This case is about presidential appointees.

Posted by: San Franpsycho at December 08, 2025 07:04 PM (A0sqA)

173 At one time, Plessy v. Ferguson was precedent, too.

Posted by: I am the Shadout Mapes, the Housekeeper at December 08, 2025 07:01 PM (PiwSw)
---
Dredd Scott is still doing service as establishing the precedent "substantive due process". Not so much the "Founders never intended black people to be full citizens" anymore.

Posted by: Axeman at December 08, 2025 07:04 PM (krQz2)

174 166 Key phrase- without cause. There has to be some structure or guardrails for such things, because it's not just the people you don't like that are going to get canned.
Posted by: Ex Rex Reeder at December 08, 2025 07:01 PM (MZ+PY)

I'm the exact opposite.

I think that good bad or indifferent every single position in the executive branch should be fired any time there's a new president. Tabula rasa. Start from scratch.

Oh, no one could hire that many people?

Exactly.

There should not *be* that many people.
Posted by: Warai-otoko at December 08, 2025 07:03 PM (Vq1pX)
_______
Strictly speaking, that would include the military. Not a great idea.

Posted by: Eeyore at December 08, 2025 07:05 PM (s0JqF)

175
Which branch of the government is the Federal Reserve in? Executive? Or no particular branch, like it's government-aligned, but actually not in the government?

Posted by: Semi-Literate Thug at December 08, 2025 07:05 PM (azNOR)

176 " do we really want people fired without cause?"

There's always a cause.
Posted by: fd
.....

sometimes they poop in the hallway.

Posted by: wth at December 08, 2025 07:05 PM (v0R5T)

177 The military is as bloated as every other govt institution.

Posted by: Its Go Time Donald at December 08, 2025 07:05 PM (DR7Cw)

178
Show me the man, I'll show you the cause to fire him.

Posted by: publius, Rascally Mr. Miley (w6EFb) at December 08, 2025 07:05 PM (w6EFb)

179 I understand the executive should have plenary powers over the executive branch, but do we really want people fired without cause?

Yes.

Posted by: The American Tax Payer at December 08, 2025 07:06 PM (R/m4+)

180 >>>I'm still attempting to understand exactly wtf Ozempic Labia are.

Posted by: BifBewalski

>A dusty ham wallet?

Posted by: Rev. Wishbone at December 08, 2025 07:06 PM (1zOXE)

181 Any Christmas suggestions for Tensor?
Posted by: Anna Puma at December 08, 2025 06:58 PM (2GVsD)

No, but I did post two images of big tittied lesbians making out in the shower.

SFW my ass.

Posted by: Robert, The Love Walrus at December 08, 2025 07:06 PM (xt2dn)

182 2A is 234 years old
Posted by: runner at December 08, 2025 07:02 PM (g47mK)

2A is in the Supreme Law of the Land. And it recognizes a right: the right to self defense - that cannot go away even if 2A could be repealed. (Your rights don’t just go away, you see: they are natural and cannot be taken. If a government attempts to take your rights it then enters the realm of immorality.)

Posted by: Cow Demon at December 08, 2025 07:06 PM (4786I)

183 "Key phrase- without cause. There has to be some structure or guardrails for such things, because it's not just the people you don't like that are going to get canned."

No, don't think so. The "guardrails" are ..... elections. Specifically the presidential election - presidential executive powers being the base topic of this thread.

Elections for Congress also are a form of guardrail, via the power of the purse. In almost all matters - don't be distracted by the stunning cowardice and passivity of Congress in this respect, that's a matter of character (voters and elected), not a constitutional or process issue.

Posted by: rhomboid at December 08, 2025 07:06 PM (U/Byj)

184 >> I'm sure I'm in the minority here, but federal employees are still employees, and employees do have some rights. I understand the executive should have plenary powers over the executive branch, but do we really want people fired without cause? Key phrase- without cause. There has to be some structure or guardrails for such things, because it's not just the people you don't like that are going to get canned.

Seriously? Do you know that almost all states in the US allow private companies to fire employees without cause? Why should government employees have rights that the people who pay their salaries don't have?

Posted by: JackStraw at December 08, 2025 07:06 PM (viF8m)

185 No, but I did post two images of big tittied lesbians making out in the shower.

SFW my ass.
Posted by: Robert, The Love Walrus at December 08, 2025 07:06 PM (xt2dn)

Scissor me timbers.

Posted by: Cow Demon at December 08, 2025 07:06 PM (4786I)

186 but do we really want people fired without cause? Key phrase- without cause. There has to be some structure or guardrails for such things, because it's not just the people you don't like that are going to get canned.
Posted by: Ex Rex Reeder at December 08, 2025 07:01 PM (MZ+PY)

If they are politically opposed to the policies that you want them to implement, that is just cause.

Posted by: Alberta Oil Peon at December 08, 2025 07:06 PM (npFr7)

187 Strictly speaking, that would include the military. Not a great idea.
Posted by: Eeyore at December 08, 2025 07:05 PM (s0JqF)

Maybe make an exception for enlisted and NCOs?

But honestly scrapping everyone over O-5 every four years wouldn't be such a bad idea....

Posted by: Warai-otoko at December 08, 2025 07:07 PM (Vq1pX)

188 KJB was just following the Marxists rules, she said a female was a female and a make was a male she would have been tossed out of the club

Posted by: Skip at December 08, 2025 07:07 PM (Ia/+0)

189 Seriously? Do you know that almost all states in the US allow private companies to fire employees without cause? Why should government employees have rights that the people who pay their salaries don't have?
Posted by: JackStraw at December 08, 2025 07:06 PM (viF8m)

And no government employee, anywhere, on any level, for any reason, has any business belonging to a union.

Posted by: Cow Demon at December 08, 2025 07:07 PM (4786I)

190 Every single article on this has to mention that Humphreys is "over 90 years old."

==

2A is 234 years old
Posted by: runner at December 08, 2025 07:02 PM (g47mK)

The Constitution is, like, over a hundred years old n shit.

Posted by: Ezra Klein at December 08, 2025 07:08 PM (xt2dn)

191 "Buying up all the bad MBS dogshit is a prime example -- that, to me (and a lot of others) was a clear violation of the Federal Reserve Act, but they let it go. ..." Posted by: publius

You know this stuff better than I do, but the Fed RESERVE IS NOT PRIVATE. It is mostly run by certain banks, but it is a federal government entity. They manipulate rates (for their own benefit?) but they are paid fees, they don't "own the fed reserve.

and that's about all I know about that (said in Edith Ann voice)

Posted by: illiniwek at December 08, 2025 07:08 PM (vbXSk)

192 Government is largely a Democrat jobs programs, especially in the states. It is largely a patronage program where the employees are rewarded for their loyalty to the Democrats agenda and politics. They are awarded outsized wages, conditions, and benefits inconsistent with similar jobs in the private sector. That’s because Democrats see taxpayer monies as their personal piggy bank to spend whatever they want. It’s why you will never see a Democrat state, Democrat legislature or a Democrat president cut spending, engage in meaningful anti fraud measures, or programs like DOGE. It undermines their entire Ponzi scheme.

Posted by: Vengeance at December 08, 2025 07:08 PM (B5Sbl)

193 I'm still attempting to understand exactly wtf Ozempic Labia are.

Posted by: BifBewalski
.....

Have you ever watched Naked and Afraid?

Posted by: wth at December 08, 2025 07:08 PM (v0R5T)

194 The last President -- Grover Cleveland -- who had two terms that did not follow each other also spent much of his time trying to reform the federal government. Cleveland fought the spoils system, which was full of abuses, in favor of the civil service.

Probably a good call at the time.

Now, Trump is fighting the abuses of the civil service in favor of essentially implementing the spoils system again.

To be honest, I'm not sure how to split that baby... which is best, aside from a permanent Pinochet Helicopter solution to leftists in government.

Posted by: SimoHayha at December 08, 2025 07:08 PM (0Aoc4)

195
Sui generous is a Latin legal term for "a unique kind of bullshit that's not in the Constitution", in some way unlike all the other bullshit that's not in the Constitution.
Posted by: Minuteman at December 08, 2025 07:02 PM (47/pr)

So the legal version of the poem on the Statue of Liberty?

Posted by: CaliGirl at December 08, 2025 07:08 PM (ajCaF)

196 143 It has to be over 100 years old for Dems, unless it is inconvenient.

Posted by: Anna Puma at December 08, 2025 07:00 PM (2GVsD)

I have no idea why, but I read that as 'incontinent' the first time.

Posted by: SpeakingOf at December 08, 2025 07:09 PM (6ydKt)

197 Which branch of the government is the Federal Reserve in? Executive? Or no particular branch, like it's government-aligned, but actually not in the government?

===

Not a branch, but the Act of 1913 gave the President authority to appoint and remove (for cause) governors.

Posted by: runner at December 08, 2025 07:09 PM (g47mK)

198 Well Robert, Tensor's LLM on naughty is not the best beast in the menagerie.

Posted by: Anna Puma at December 08, 2025 07:09 PM (2GVsD)

199 I really can't see Trump firing somebody who's following an XO.

Unless of course they are fired for being too expensive a luxury position for the American people to support, as found by DOGE. (Which by the way, contained sufficient amount lawyers and HR as well as tech experts)

Posted by: Axeman at December 08, 2025 07:09 PM (krQz2)

200 175
Which branch of the government is the Federal Reserve in? Executive? Or no particular branch, like it's government-aligned, but actually not in the government?
Posted by: Semi-Literate Thug at December 08, 2025 07:05 PM (azNOR)

And can Congress delegate the Creation of Money, to an entity that is OUTSIDE of Government control?

Posted by: Romeo13 at December 08, 2025 07:09 PM (mP0Kj)

201 I'm sure I'm in the minority here, but federal employees are still employees, and employees do have some rights. I understand the executive should have plenary powers over the executive branch, but do we really want people fired without cause? Key phrase- without cause. There has to be some structure or guardrails for such things, because it's not just the people you don't like that are going to get canned.

Posted by: Ex Rex Reeder at December 08, 2025 07:01 PM


Counter point...if you are appointed to your job by the president he has the constitutional authority to fire you for any reason or no reason. presidential appointed employees do not enjoy civil service protections, that is settled case law.

Posted by: Mister Scott (Formerly GWS) at December 08, 2025 07:10 PM (0N4FZ)

202
Congress has no such authority. It is terrifying that a supreme court justice doesn't know this.
Posted by: El Mariachi

She doesn't know this on purpose. It's why she was autopenned into being.

Posted by: BifBewalski at December 08, 2025 07:10 PM (48yvf)

203 "Civil Servants are employees with merit systems protection."

Aren't the laws creating this system just as unconstitutional as all the other infringements on executive power?

Our "system" is an enormous coral reef, much (most?) of it, by this point, merely built on inertia (and passivity and civic culture collapse), with lots of convenience and laziness thrown in.

How is it remotely constitutional for the executive to not have plenary power over federal hiring/firing?

Posted by: rhomboid at December 08, 2025 07:10 PM (U/Byj)

204 Show me the man, I'll show you the cause to fire him.
Posted by: publius, Rascally Mr. Miley (w6EFb)
.....

he crosses his legs like a girl, talks with his hands and abuses hair products.

Posted by: wth at December 08, 2025 07:10 PM (v0R5T)

205
he crosses his legs like a girl, talks with his hands and abuses hair products.
Posted by: wth at December 08, 2025 07:10 PM (v0R5T)

Lol that didn't really narrow it down much.

Posted by: Warai-otoko at December 08, 2025 07:11 PM (Vq1pX)

206 ***Justice Brett Kavanaugh said
---

youtube.com/watch?v=BLcw71tkIDg

Posted by: Braenyard - some Absent Friends are more equal than others _ at December 08, 2025 07:12 PM (Ow52c)

207 "and that's about all I know about that (said in Edith Ann voice)"

just refreshed my memory on Edith Ann ... I should have said -- "And that's the truth" --(said in Edith Ann voice).

Posted by: illiniwek at December 08, 2025 07:12 PM (vbXSk)

208 Tensor's LLM on naughty is not the best beast in the menagerie.
Posted by: Anna Puma at December 08, 2025 07:09 PM (2GVsD)

No kidding. I'm thinking it's just a half-assed attempt at getting people onto their new pay site.
Meanwhile, here I am making images of hot busty lesbians for free.

Posted by: Robert, The Love Walrus at December 08, 2025 07:12 PM (xt2dn)

209 And can Congress delegate the Creation of Money, to an entity that is OUTSIDE of Government control?

Posted by: Romeo13 at December 08, 2025 07:09 PM


No they can't. Coining of money and regulating it's value rests solely with the congress. It's literally in Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 of the constitution.

Posted by: Mister Scott (Formerly GWS) at December 08, 2025 07:12 PM (0N4FZ)

210 >> You know this stuff better than I do, but the Fed RESERVE IS NOT PRIVATE.

You're exactly right. They just pretend to be private. The Fed has control of those sovereign money power of the United States, the ability to create and destroy money, the dollar. This is BFD of a power.

They pretend the 12 Regional Banks are privately owned. All banks have to "by stock", but that's a fiction really. The member banks don't control it. It makes profit from it's money power operations, which is basically interest paid. That's how it pays it's own expenses. All excess profits are returned right to the US Treasury.

You could merge the balance sheets of the Fed and Treasury together, than you'd see the interest paid by the Treasury on the T's the Fed holds actually fund its expenses, with the rest going right back into the Treasury.

Result, monetized debt doesn't pay interest, fed govt funds the Fed just like any other agency.

Posted by: publius, Rascally Mr. Miley (w6EFb) at December 08, 2025 07:13 PM (w6EFb)

211 Hmmm
Posted by: Miklos, untrousered at December 08, 2025 06:40 PM (N7hqt)
---
I've got my eye on you, buddy.

Posted by: Sunday Morning Book Thread at December 08, 2025 07:14 PM (ESVrU)

212 Look, the Gov letting a private entity print the money, then borrow it back from the private entity is just good business.

If you can get it.
Posted by: connected and litigious at December 08, 2025 06:40 PM (cS1cw)

amazingly enough, I have noticed a number of people making this claim out in the big wide world also made fun of Ron Paul and his silver dimes, and make fun of goldbugs.
It is almost as if they don't understand things.

Posted by: Kindltot at December 08, 2025 07:14 PM (rbvCR)

213 68
'The glorified clerks known as judges have about 93% too much power, but there is hardly anyone inside or outside the legal cult who even understands this or cares about it.'

At last someone respects that court as much as I do.
I don't even like the Supreme Court as a concept now.
It's just a bunch of narcissists virtual signaling and calling it law.
We already have Congress.

Posted by: Dr. Claw at December 08, 2025 07:14 PM (fd80v)

214 209 And can Congress delegate the Creation of Money, to an entity that is OUTSIDE of Government control?

Posted by: Romeo13 at December 08, 2025 07:09 PM


No they can't. Coining of money and regulating it's value rests solely with the congress. It's literally in Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 of the constitution.

Posted by: Mister Scott (Formerly GWS) at December 08, 2025 07:12 PM (0N4FZ)

All of that was true until; what JP Morgan wants, JP Morgan gets.

Posted by: SpeakingOf at December 08, 2025 07:14 PM (6ydKt)

215 I've got 300+ credits on Tensor, what shall issue forth?

Posted by: Anna Puma at December 08, 2025 07:15 PM (2GVsD)

216 The biggest mistake we've made as a country is to invert the relationship between the citizens and the government.

This is our country. We hire people to manage it just like hire other people to serve the needs we don't want to do ourselves. When they do what we ask they keep their jobs. When they run a lawnmower over the flower bed and take a dump on the patio we fire them.

They work for us. They aren't our masters.

Posted by: JackStraw at December 08, 2025 07:15 PM (viF8m)

217 The Framers never envisioned a permanent bureaucracy, much less one outside their reach and within their constitutional powers. They also specifically stated you cannot give that power, that is the people’s power, to anyone else. So ultimately the primary argument is- what power belongs to which branch.

Posted by: Vengeance at December 08, 2025 07:15 PM (B5Sbl)

218 Miklos? What has happened to thy trouser ?

Posted by: runner at December 08, 2025 07:15 PM (g47mK)

219 194 The last President -- Grover Cleveland -- who had two terms that did not follow each other also spent much of his time trying to reform the federal government. Cleveland fought the spoils system, which was full of abuses, in favor of the civil service.

Probably a good call at the time.

Now, Trump is fighting the abuses of the civil service in favor of essentially implementing the spoils system again.

To be honest, I'm not sure how to split that baby... which is best, aside from a permanent Pinochet Helicopter solution to leftists in government.
Posted by: SimoHayha at December 08, 2025 07:08 PM (0Aoc4)
________
To my mind, give me the spoils system every time. New president, new bureaucrats. Not nearly so subject to abuse as the civil service (spit!)

Posted by: Eeyore at December 08, 2025 07:15 PM (s0JqF)

220 *sigh

we can never rest on our laurels !

Posted by: runner at December 08, 2025 07:16 PM (g47mK)

221 Just that tiny snippet of Kavanaugh illustrates the problem.

No, august judicial god, it's not about "raising questions" about personal liberty, or anything else.

It's pretty simple. Listen, take notes if you need to.

It's plainly unconstitutional, as it limits or usurps executive authority, which under the constitution is vested in the president (that's kind of a direct quote). Jeebus. Glorified clerks simply cannot make clerk-type decisions without attempting to sound like the panel at Nuremberg. Always with the mountains of over-determined nonsense extraneous to the issue, and to their actual, very very limited authority or competence.

Posted by: rhomboid at December 08, 2025 07:16 PM (U/Byj)

222 Most of the Federal Reserve Act is unconstitutional. Start there

Posted by: Vengeance at December 08, 2025 07:16 PM (B5Sbl)

223 Posted by: publius, Rascally Mr. Miley (w6EFb) at December 08, 2025 07:13 PM (w6EFb)

Current Fed Res Balance sheet is $6.5 TRILLION dollars...

Current US GDP? $23.5 Trillion...

So... currently Fed Res OWNES 1/4 of GDP... for doing nothing more than, creating money.

Posted by: Romeo13 at December 08, 2025 07:17 PM (mP0Kj)

224 If anyone is interested, the Russians will be undocking from the ISS.

Roscosmos - Soyuz MS-27
Undocking International Space Station ISS - Space Affairs Live
Undocking Date: December 8, 2025
Undocking: 8:41 p.m. EST (December 9, 0141 UTC, 02:41 CET)

https://youtu.be/vkKeb_qkDno

Posted by: Joyenz at December 08, 2025 07:17 PM (2F0/Y)

225 They work for us. They aren't our masters.
Posted by: JackStraw at December 08, 2025 07:15 PM (viF8m)

Correct. Fire all their asses tomorrow and no one would miss them.

Posted by: Layabouts, Neerdowells and Blackguards at December 08, 2025 07:17 PM (R/m4+)

226 Which branch of the government is the Federal Reserve in? Executive? Or no particular branch, like it's government-aligned, but actually not in the government?
---
Exactly.

If it's without, then it flat cannot have any governmental power; absolutely cannot set the lending rates.
And Congress has no business "advising" or "consenting" to the appointments.

If it's within, which branch?
And how is it accountable, in a tangible, immediate way, to that branch?

Posted by: People's Hippo Voice at December 08, 2025 07:18 PM (HXT0k)

227 I'm sure I'm in the minority here, but federal employees are still employees, and employees do have some rights. I understand the executive should have plenary powers over the executive branch, but do we really want people fired without cause? Key phrase- without cause. There has to be some structure or guardrails for such things, because it's not just the people you don't like that are going to get canned.

Posted by: Ex Rex Reeder at December 08, 2025 07:01 PM

Counter point...if you are appointed to your job by the president he has the constitutional authority to fire you for any reason or no reason. presidential appointed employees do not enjoy civil service protections, that is settled case law.
Posted by: Mister Scott (Formerly GWS) at December 08, 2025 07:10 PM (0N4FZ)

Personally, I think the President has the authority to fire the paper pusher at the food stamp office if he wants.

Civil service protections were a way of solving the problem of blatant corruption that came with the old spoils system but ended up replacing it with a different kind of corruption. Civil service jobs should be term limited. You can get hired but you need to live after a certain period of time.

Posted by: Robert, The Love Walrus at December 08, 2025 07:19 PM (xt2dn)

228 I love watching leftists on Twixxer yell that the constitution is very clear on birth citizenship, and the court doesn't even need to look at the issue. When on every single other constitutional issue its too complex and has all these vagaries penumbras and we have to use the EU to decipher it all and besides its old and was written by slave owners.

Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at December 08, 2025 07:19 PM (dfIr7)

229 151 I'm sure I'm in the minority here, but federal employees are still employees, and employees do have some rights. I understand the executive should have plenary powers over the executive branch, but do we really want people fired without cause? Key phrase- without cause. There has to be some structure or guardrails for such things, because it's not just the people you don't like that are going to get canned.
Posted by: Ex Rex Reeder

Stop!! Most career civil servants must be fired for "just cause," requiring documentation of poor performance or misconduct.

Civil service employees have so much more protection than "at will" employees. (And the fed. unions are basically worthless.) However, the tiny catch in civil service is you have to make it to 'career' status, which could vary in years. Why hire someone as an investigator or accountant and they're incompetent, likely untrainable?? No, get rid of them.

There can also be reductions in force for a sub-agency where employees aren't needed, yet won't transfer into another job at another worksite to save their positions, and so on. That's life, and it's way worse over in private industry.

Posted by: L - No nic, another fine day at December 08, 2025 07:19 PM (NFX2v)

230 To my mind, give me the spoils system every time. New president, new bureaucrats. Not nearly so subject to abuse as the civil service (spit!)
Posted by: Eeyore at December 08, 2025 07:15 PM (s0JqF)



For one, under the spoils system, corruption will tend to be more blatant, and obvious, because the corrupt know they have only 4 years to make their pile. The professional civil service can afford to be more devious, and less blatantly greedy, because they are in it for the long haul.

Posted by: Alberta Oil Peon at December 08, 2025 07:19 PM (npFr7)

231 215 I've got 300+ credits on Tensor, what shall issue forth?

Posted by: Anna Puma at December 08, 2025 07:15 PM (2GVsD)

A Neko Christmas Carol?

Posted by: SpeakingOf at December 08, 2025 07:20 PM (6ydKt)

232 I hate the term "spoils system". It's horrendously loaded.

Exercising the power you were given by the people is not a "spoil". It's a reward.

And if you don't want people coveting appointed positions of power, then don't give those positions so much damn power in the first place. No one should be that willing to move heaven and earth just to be second assistant aide to the deputy backup toenail clipper of the secretary of the damn interior.

Posted by: Warai-otoko at December 08, 2025 07:20 PM (Vq1pX)

233 I generally view people captured by Marxist ideology as in some fundamental way dumb.

From the most intellectual technically-feasible-sounding proponent to the rank-and-file grunt for the cause.

There is a base-level of unreason you have to have to be a Marxist. Therefore, it matters a lot more to me how effective they are in the role of advancing stupidity more than how natively stupid they are.

Posted by: Axeman at December 08, 2025 07:20 PM (krQz2)

234 Fox had Biden’s Social Security guy write an opinion piece where he try to say that Trump is undermining Social Security by making it more efficient.

This is the guy who was letting illegal immigrants into SS and SSDI. He also interpreted the rules to allow non citizens here under TPS, etc. to pilfer those programs.

But Fox is totally on your side, you guys.

Posted by: Vengeance at December 08, 2025 07:20 PM (B5Sbl)

235 Civil service protects and promotes its own interests.

Spoils system promotes and protects their boss' interests.

Each is very subject to having idiots in charge. But one is more responsive to rapidly changing events.

Posted by: Anna Puma at December 08, 2025 07:20 PM (2GVsD)

236 Nood.

Posted by: I am the Shadout Mapes, the Housekeeper at December 08, 2025 07:21 PM (PiwSw)

237 I think Trump is going to get this but probably not an end to birthright citizenship. The real big one , which I think the court is going to rule against, is his tariffs. That is going to be a monumental fuckening of his whole polucy.
Posted by: steevy


No problem - country "X" instead of paying a tariff is simple banned.

Posted by: Operator Error at December 08, 2025 07:21 PM (XTlsM)

238 Dawgs and katz living together ... any minute now!!!

Posted by: Adriane the Not Cynical Enough Critic . . . at December 08, 2025 07:21 PM (3ZUWJ)

239 Oh look. Faith of our Fathers is on tv.

*farts*

Posted by: Vengeance at December 08, 2025 07:21 PM (B5Sbl)

240 A neko Christmas carol?

Figgy pudding nyah?

Posted by: Anna Puma at December 08, 2025 07:21 PM (2GVsD)

241 Personally, I think the President has the authority to fire the paper pusher at the food stamp office if he wants.

Long as its a federal executive department job, yep.

Which branch of the government is the Federal Reserve in? Executive? Or no particular branch, like it's government-aligned, but actually not in the government?

Its not in any and is unconstitutional crap. I thought we settled a that federal bank junk under Andy Jackson

Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at December 08, 2025 07:21 PM (dfIr7)

242 I've got 300+ credits on Tensor, what shall issue forth?
Posted by: Anna Puma at December 08, 2025 07:15 PM (2GVsD)

I keep imagining Santa Claus with a bazooka.

Posted by: Robert, The Love Walrus at December 08, 2025 07:22 PM (xt2dn)

243 I understand the executive should have plenary powers over the executive branch, but do we really want people fired without cause?

I believe in the universal right of bosses to fire employees for any damn reason they please.

Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at December 08, 2025 07:23 PM (dfIr7)

244 For one, under the spoils system, corruption will tend to be more blatant, and obvious, because the corrupt know they have only 4 years to make their pile. The professional civil service can afford to be more devious, and less blatantly greedy, because they are in it for the long haul.

Posted by: Alberta Oil Peon at December 08, 2025 07:19 PM (npFr7)

While also working several years for an agency then jumping ship to a corporation that was being regulated by that agency.
Then when their party gets back into the White House they can come back at a higher position and then repeat the process when the time comes.

That revolving door has been quite lucrative for many a bureaucrat.

Posted by: SpeakingOf at December 08, 2025 07:25 PM (6ydKt)

245 >>Exercising the power you were given by the people is not a "spoil". It's a reward.

I would argue a mandate.

To make another stupid analogy, when I hire a plumber I hire the people he chooses to work with him. I don't hire a plumber and then expect he will bring along some DEI hires.

I hate lifetime appointments and special status for government employees. It's stupid on its face for any form of democracy and promotes extremism. If you can never be fired why wouldn't you let your freak flag fly?

We've tried it their way and it sucks. Let's try it by letting presidents bring in everyone they want including judges. We'll stop seeing lurches to the left in a heartbeat.

Posted by: JackStraw at December 08, 2025 07:26 PM (viF8m)

246 And can Congress delegate the Creation of Money, to an entity that is OUTSIDE of Government control?
Posted by: Romeo13 at December 08, 2025 07:09 PM (mP0Kj)

US never had a central bank, all money creation and loans have been handled by private banks which are chartered by the various states, and by the Congress for the First and later Second bank of the US. This changed after the Federal Reserve act, which set a combine of banks up to regulate and backstop both banks nationally and to backstop the US government the next time it got its tit in a wringer. In short it formalized the situation of the big banks in 1912, and later was modified for the Depression.
Sec Bessent is making noises about trimming the Fed, taking the setting of rates and banking regulations away and giving it to the Treasury. Not sure if that is good, but that is what is coming.

Posted by: Kindltot at December 08, 2025 07:27 PM (rbvCR)

247 227. Civil service jobs should be term limited. You can get hired but you need to live after a certain period of time.
Posted by: Robert, The Love Walrus

Wut? Need to...live, work, die after or for a certain time period?

Btw, MTG - a Federal employee of the Legislative Branch - leaves after 5 years so she'll be vested for the purpose of receiving a pension. Those are the rules.

Posted by: L - No nic, another fine day at December 08, 2025 07:28 PM (NFX2v)

248 If you are interested in the history of money and banking in the United States, Murray Rothbard wrote a very big book called The History of Money and Banking In the United States which is a very fun book if you are interested in money and banking.

Jesus Huerta de Soto wrote an even bigger book about the subject, but it is about the theories of money and banking.

Posted by: Kindltot at December 08, 2025 07:29 PM (rbvCR)

249 172. Civil Servants are employees with merit systems protection.

This case is about presidential appointees.
Posted by: San Franpsycho

👍

Posted by: L - No nic, another fine day at December 08, 2025 07:30 PM (NFX2v)

250 If somebody actually finds a reason to advance that "Unintended Consequences is a right-wing talking point", it's such a ball of confusion and arrogance that it doesn't matter if they are a parrot or an instigator of that ball of sludge.

How it turns a review of how methods match up to intentions as a counter to "fundamental change" into a personal flaw is the problem, whether believed or simply mouthed by the carrier.

Ironically, they "understand" the concept every time they argue that a Republican bill will not "do what it proposes" but only have destructive "side effects". As they do for every bill they don't like.

Posted by: Axeman at December 08, 2025 07:31 PM (krQz2)

251 , but do we really want people fired without cause? Key phrase- without cause.
Posted by: Ex Rex Reeder at December 08, 2025 07:01 PM (MZ+PY)

Yes.

Posted by: Pete Bog at December 08, 2025 07:31 PM (Kkaqr)

252 Btw, MTG - a Federal employee of the Legislative Branch - leaves after 5 years so she'll be vested for the purpose of receiving a pension. Those are the rules.
Posted by: L - No nic, another fine day at December 08, 2025 07:28 PM (NFX2v)

Said pension should be required to be funded entirely from budgetary surplus for the years they were in office.

Posted by: GWB at December 08, 2025 07:32 PM (XEURU)

253 Nood Cafe

Posted by: FeatherBlade at December 08, 2025 07:34 PM (a+4eV)

254 Btw, MTG - a Federal employee of the Legislative Branch - leaves after 5 years so she'll be vested for the purpose of receiving a pension. Those are the rules.

That seems silly. The vesting period should at least be longer than a single Senatorial term of office.

Posted by: FeatherBlade at December 08, 2025 07:36 PM (a+4eV)

255 Also, seems that if you're creating a power not subject to the Executive, you might be meddling outside the limits of the Constitution.

Posted by: GWB at December 08, 2025 07:36 PM (XEURU)

256 Could someone please wax poetic about Gov unions?

Posted by: connected and litigious at December 08, 2025 07:37 PM (cS1cw)

257 What's the difference between an Officer and an Employee.

Posted by: javems at December 08, 2025 07:37 PM (8I4hW)

258
That seems silly. The vesting period should at least be longer than a single Senatorial term of office.
Posted by: FeatherBlade
---

Is good to have government job.

Posted by: Braenyard - some Absent Friends are more equal than others _ at December 08, 2025 07:39 PM (Ow52c)

259 Before "Whataboutism", we used to that this objection called "Irrelevant" when somebody was distracting from a main issue with a case that was not germane to a discussion.

"Whataboutism" just attacks the use of two words. Kind of an anti-shibboleth.

You could be talking about a case with a number of similarities. You could be comparing and contrasting--or even challenging an implication that your opponent is treating as some universal absolute.

But because your words can be characterized as "what about", some net-illiterate thinks you've committed some sort of a fallacy.

Posted by: Axeman at December 08, 2025 07:40 PM (krQz2)

260 What's the difference between an Officer and an Employee.

Posted by: javems at December 08, 2025 07:37 PM (8I4hW)
---
None necessarily.

"Employee" is a relationship to the government as employer and compensation. "Officer" is a relationship to the purpose of employment.

Posted by: Axeman at December 08, 2025 07:43 PM (krQz2)

261 Those who don't like precedents being overturned ignore reality. Plessy v Ferguson said "separate but equal " was constitutional. So Brown v Board of Education should never have overturned Plessy. Got it
Posted by: Smell the Glove at December 08, 2025 07:00 PM (bfwj/)

The danger of changing precedents willy-nilly is then a judge can feel free to change anything they want to on a whim. Which they often do now. Creating a new precedent by overturning an old one should be resorted to rarely. And even Brown resulted in the problem with forced school bussing, mega districts with large administrations and overhead and the end of parental involvement directly with the teachers.

Posted by: Oldcat at December 08, 2025 07:46 PM (8avO+)

262 Braenyard at 142: I have no idea what that means but it is hysterical!

Posted by: Wenda at December 08, 2025 07:48 PM (JdCmc)

263 Could someone please wax poetic about Gov unions?
Posted by: connected and litigious at December 08, 2025 07:37 PM (cS1cw)

The President should be able to fire anybody. Government unions are immoral because the "owner" the American taxpayer is wholly unrepresented in negotiations.

Posted by: Oldcat at December 08, 2025 07:49 PM (8avO+)

264 Thank you.

Posted by: connected and litigious at December 08, 2025 07:50 PM (cS1cw)

265 Btw, MTG - a Federal employee of the Legislative Branch - leaves after 5 years so she'll be vested for the purpose of receiving a pension. Those are the rules.

That seems silly. The vesting period should at least be longer than a single Senatorial term of office.
Posted by: FeatherBlade at December 08, 2025 07:36 PM (a+4eV)

Elected representatives should not get a federal pension. Maybe a match on 401k contribution for staff.

Posted by: Oldcat at December 08, 2025 07:52 PM (8avO+)

266 Could someone please wax poetic about Gov unions?
Posted by: connected and litigious at December 08, 2025 07:37 PM (cS1cw)

The President should be able to fire anybody. Government unions are immoral because the "owner" the American taxpayer is wholly unrepresented in negotiations.
Posted by: Oldcat at December 08, 2025 07:49 PM (8avO+)
---
Pro-union Presidents, up to and including JFK, said that public unions should never be a thing.

Posted by: Axeman at December 08, 2025 07:54 PM (krQz2)

267 KBJ will never be removed by impeachment, but she may be removed by her fellow justices in the sense that she will be openly ridiculed unlike any previous justice, not given any majority opinions to write, and maybe then offered a paycheck to become dean of some law school when a Dem president can replace her. She really is an embarrassment for them.

Posted by: Ted Torgerson at December 08, 2025 09:16 PM (R86kT)

268 222 Most of the Federal Reserve Act is unconstitutional. Start there
Posted by: Vengeance at December 08, 2025 07:16 PM (B5Sbl)

Proof?

Posted by: Cow Demon at December 08, 2025 10:22 PM (4786I)

(Jump to top of page)






Processing 0.05, elapsed 0.0492 seconds.
14 queries taking 0.013 seconds, 276 records returned.
Page size 164 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.



MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Frequently Asked Questions

What is the Deal with the Cowbell?
Why is the Ace of Spades called "the Death Card"?
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Primary Document: The Audio
Paul Anka Haiku Contest Announcement
Integrity SAT's: Entrance Exam for Paul Anka's Band
AllahPundit's Paul Anka 45's Collection
AnkaPundit: Paul Anka Takes Over the Site for a Weekend (Continues through to Monday's postings)
George Bush Slices Don Rumsfeld Like an F*ckin' Hammer
Top Top Tens

Democratic Forays into Erotica
New Shows On Gore's DNC/MTV Network
Nicknames for Potatoes, By People Who Really Hate Potatoes
Star Wars Euphemisms for Self-Abuse
Signs You're at an Iraqi "Wedding Party"
Signs Your Clown Has Gone Bad
Signs That You, Geroge Michael, Should Probably Just Give It Up

Signs of Hip-Hop Influence on John Kerry
NYT Headlines Spinning Bush's Jobs Boom
Things People Are More Likely to Say Than "Did You Hear What Al Franken Said Yesterday?"
Signs that Paul Krugman Has Lost His Frickin' Mind
All-Time Best NBA Players, According to Senator Robert Byrd
Other Bad Things About the Jews, According to the Koran
Signs That David Letterman Just Doesn't Care Anymore
Examples of Bob Kerrey's Insufferable Racial Jackassery
Signs Andy Rooney Is Going Senile
Other Judgments Dick Clarke Made About Condi Rice Based on Her Appearance
Collective Names for Groups of People
John Kerry's Other Vietnam Super-Pets
Cool Things About the XM8 Assault Rifle
Media-Approved Facts About the Democrat Spy
Changes to Make Christianity More "Inclusive"
Secret John Kerry Senatorial Accomplishments
John Edwards Campaign Excuses
John Kerry Pick-Up Lines
Changes Liberal Senator George Michell Will Make at Disney
Torments in Dog-Hell
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat

Ann Coulter
National Review Online
The Perfect World
Free Republic
Lucianne
The Note

Syndicate this site (XML)

Powered by
Movable Type