Law be damned, Trump asserts unilateral control over executive branch, federal service (2 Viewers)

[superchuck500]

Following the Project 2025 playbook, in the last week, Trump and his newly installed loyalists have moved to (1) dismiss federal officials deemed unreliable to do his bidding (including 17 inspectors general) - many of which have protections from arbitrary dismissal, (2) freeze all science and public health activity until he can wrest full control, (3) freeze all federal assistance and grant activity deemed inconsistent with Trump's agenda, and (4) moved to terminate all federal employee telework and DEI programs.

The problem is much of this is controlled by federal law and not subject to sudden and complete change by the president through executive order. Most notably is the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 that simply codifies what is the constitutional allocation of resources where Congress appropriates money to the executive branch for a specific purpose, the executive branch must carry out that statutory purpose. This is indeed a constitutional crisis and even if Congress abdicates to Trump by acquiescing, the courts must still apply the law - or rule it unconstitutional.

And meanwhile the architect of much of this unlawful action is Russell Vought, Trump’s OMB nominee who the Senate appears ready to confirm.

120. The Impoundment Crisis of 2025

The Trump administration's Monday spending freeze is likely to provoke a crisis over the constitutionality of "impoundment"—one that the justices could well have to resolve *very* soon.

www.stevevladeck.com

 

[superchuck500]

I mentioned it earlier,but she's becoming the Anthony Kennedy of the current court. He vote will have to be earned. I have
no problem with that. That said, I do hope she changes her opinion on Roe Vs Wade,

I was quite loud about opposition to ACB - she just didn't seem to have the pedigree or the experience in my opinion, but I'll admit that I didn't read many of her opinions at the Sixth Circuit. I think she is a very thoughtful, very bright jurist and I do indeed appreciate she she seems to have no tribe in this . . . she's independent and I think thoughtful and independent are very high up there on the attributes for SCOTUS. But I'm highly doubtful of her changing her view on abortion, I think that's a core value for her as a solid catholic and I think it's why she's on the Court.

That said, perhaps as she gets older and sees how Dobbs is far more impactful than simply the abortion question - and that she's basically fed women's reproductive health to the wolves, I suppose it's possible that her view could evolve.

 

[DaveXA]

"I don't want the president to be powerful"...yet you and your ilk in Congress are enabling the idiot in chief at every turn. What exactly have you done to keep him from becoming too powerful? Not a goddamm thing that I can tell.

 

[MT15]

I don't want the president to be powerful...yet you and your ilk in Congress are enabling the idiot in chief at every turn. What exactly have you done to keep him from becoming too powerful? Not a goddamm thing that I can tell.

He is talking out of both sides of his mouth. You could see the arrogance he has toward his constituents with his snide comment along the lines of - if you yell at me you won’t get any answers at all, and I’m the closest thing you have to a representative.

Sheer arrogance.

 

[superchuck500]

 

[faceman]

I was quite loud about opposition to ACB - she just didn't seem to have the pedigree or the experience in my opinion, but I'll admit that I didn't read many of her opinions at the Sixth Circuit. I think she is a very thoughtful, very bright jurist and I do indeed appreciate she she seems to have no tribe in this . . . she's independent and I think thoughtful and independent are very high up there on the attributes for SCOTUS. But I'm highly doubtful of her changing her view on abortion, I think that's a core value for her as a solid catholic and I think it's why she's on the Court.

That said, perhaps as she gets older and sees how Dobbs is far more impactful than simply the abortion question - and that she's basically fed women's reproductive health to the wolves, I suppose it's possible that her view could evolve.

Remember David Souter was appointed by Bush 1. he was thought to be a win for the right wing. He later became one of
the most liberal judges . ACB may backfire in Trumps face like Souter did Bush. We'll see.