Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCould This Supreme Court Case Affect Robert Mueller?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-apos-apos-fire-140048522.htmlHeres the arcane part: Instead of appointing Administrative Law Judges, the SEC delegated that power to its chief administrative law judge. In Lucias case, as in others, the chief ALJ selected an ALJ whom the federal Office of Personnel Management had properly found to be qualified for that role. Lucia argued unsuccessfully to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that this selection was unconstitutional. He asserted that, under Article II of the Constitution, the ALJ had to be considered an Officer of the United States. As such, she could properly be appointed only by the president or by the Securities and Exchange Commission. The chief ALJ could appoint another ALJ only if the appointed ALJ were a mere employee, not an officer. The Supreme Court agreed to take the question under review.
This appointments issue has no direct implications for Mueller. As the head of a department, Acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed the special counsel, is constitutionally qualified to make both officer and employee appointments. Yet the Courts handling of the appointments question will have enormous implications for administrative justice in the United States. As pointed out in an amicus brief for neither party by administrative law scholars, Congress created the ALJ system in the 1940s to help with the multifarious oral evidentiary hearings that are common throughout the federal government. Most ALJs, 1,655 out of 1,926, provide hearings regarding claims before the Social Security Administration. The system was intended to respond to complaints that federal hearing officers were too biased in favor of the agencies they worked for. By giving administrative adjudicators a measure of independence, Congressand the Securities and Exchange Commissionwere trying to give private parties like Lucia more a fair shake when their cases came before the government.
snip
The deeper threat to the rule of law, however, comes not from the issue of appointments, but from another issue that the Court initially seemed to dodgenamely, whether administrative law judges must be dischargeable at will or whether, as is now the case, they may be fired only for good cause. And make no mistake, the ultimate target here is not just administrative law judges, but all federal administrators who are officers of the United States, includingperhaps especiallyindependent prosecutors like Mueller.
The Trump Administrators eagerness to pursue the removal issue could not be more palpable. First, the current solicitor general, Noel Francisco, reversed the position of the Obama Administration, which had defended the Securities and Exchange Commission, and put the government instead on Lucias side. Then, contrary to Lucias lawyers, who have explicitly argued that the removal question is not properly presented, Francisco urged the Court to address the removal question. When the Court declined to include the removal issue in its grant of certiorari, Francisco went ahead and briefed it anyway, urging that ALJs must be dischargeable for any failure to perform adequately or to follow agency policies, procedures, or instructions. The Supreme Court has now granted him permission to share in the oral argument on behalf of Lucia, even though among the reasons Francisco gave for sharing the podium is precisely that only the government has addressed in its brief the merits of the removal question. In a normal case, that would be a very strong reason for the Court not to take up the issue.
snip
The alternative to a unitary-executive presidency is a checks-and-balances presidency, in which it is most often up to Congress and to the departments of government that Congress created whether and how to balance the values of independent judgment and politically insulated accountability to the rule of law against the value of political accountability to the president. A case like Lucia, which implicates the evenhandedness of administrative judges, presents the least appealing context for expanding the presidents capacity to make political appointments. But equally, Americas Trumpian moment marks the least enticing time to certify a presidents supposed constitutional authority to fire officials at will. Dont let the technical details fool you. A lot is at stake in Lucia.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
0 replies, 811 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (2)
ReplyReply to this post