It's Now In John Roberts Hands Thanks To Appellate court Trump AppointeePosted By James Brown |
Is the bolded above a typo, if not it is gibberish. The Court often avoids the merits of an issue on the grounds of standing. The standing requirement is ancient and appropriate. Also not relevant to this matter. So, the Supremes will indeed consider the merits.Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman
"what do you think of the arguments below on the merits?"
Well, first of all, my point here is that the conservatives on the court routinely state they will not consider the merits of a case unless it suits their belief system.
The case from the appeals court has been decided there on procedural grounds and not on the merits of the issue as stated in your reply. So, when I note it'll be interesting to see what the cons will do with this, my take continues to be they will tow the line of the Trump administration and decide the issue on its merits and not on procedural grounds as they should and in other cases would do.
My personal take on the merits as stated is that the law regarding removal of the department head in question violates his due process as established by law. In other words, while the president may have the authority to order his removal, he is still obligated to follow the procedures for doing so, which, clearly, in this case, he did not.
I think we agree on the merits by the way. According to the statute (which is a product of the Legislative Branch) the Executive Branch must show cause to fire this person, and they have not. On the contrary, the Executive argues that it is an undue burden to show cause and not be able to fire this person at will. This is a legit separation of powers question, and I would not be surprised to see the Executive Branch win. I think however, that showing cause if the position is specifically an oversight position is not unduly burdensome.
