A Supreme Court Justice Warned Trump Is Asking Them to Dismantle the Government скачать в хорошем качестве

A Supreme Court Justice Warned Trump Is Asking Them to Dismantle the Government

Some of the biggest threats to democracy don’t arrive with sirens or spectacle. They show up quietly — in legal arguments about who can be fired, who can say no, and whether the law still constrains presidential power. That’s the fight now unfolding at the Supreme Court. Trump’s legal team is asking the Court to radically expand presidential removal power — effectively allowing a president to fire independent officials at will, even when Congress explicitly designed those roles to be insulated from political retaliation. During arguments, a Supreme Court justice openly warned that Trump’s position would upend the structure of the federal government itself. What Happened A series of cases involving the National Labor Relations Board, the Merit Systems Protection Board, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Office of Special Counsel have converged on one question: Can Congress limit a president’s ability to fire certain officials — or does the president have near-total control over enforcement? In early December, the D.C. Circuit ruled Trump could remove Democratic members of the NLRB and MSPB despite statutory “for-cause” protections. Days later, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a related FTC case that directly challenges a 90-year-old precedent allowing Congress to create independent commissions. This isn’t one ruling. It’s an escalating campaign. Why This Rhetoric Matters Trump and his allies frame this as a fight against “unelected bureaucrats.” It sounds populist. It sounds democratic. But that framing obscures the real issue: “I was elected” versus “the law still applies.” Independent officials exist because Congress passed laws requiring enforcement to be somewhat insulated from personal retaliation. Calling them “undemocratic” becomes a rhetorical shortcut — a way to justify removing the people whose job is to say no. When “accountability” starts meaning loyalty to the president rather than fidelity to the law, democratic guardrails quietly collapse. Key Context the Public Often Misses • These agencies affect workers’ rights, whistleblower protections, consumer enforcement, and civil-service safeguards. • If officials can be fired for political reasons, enforcement becomes unstable and personnel-driven. • The Supreme Court’s emergency docket has already allowed removals before final rulings — changing reality first, law later. • Overturning or narrowing long-standing precedent wouldn’t just affect Trump; it would permanently reshape executive power. • Once enforcement becomes personal, rights become conditional — and conditional rights aren’t rights at all. This isn’t about bureaucracy. It’s about whether “no” is still allowed in government. Sources & Further Reading • Reuters — D.C. Circuit allows Trump to remove NLRB and MSPB members https://www.reuters.com/world/us-cour... • Politico — Appellate court backs White House firing of labor board Democrats https://www.politico.com/news/2025/12... • The Guardian — Supreme Court hears arguments on Trump’s power to fire FTC commissioner https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2... • AP News — Supreme Court weighs limits on presidential power over independent agencies https://apnews.com/article/2149d7c380... For calm, progressive analysis that makes the mechanics of power visible — and explains how democratic norms get tested in real time — subscribe to Decoding The Rhetoric.