Hacker News Reader

Comment by hexator | Hacker News Reader

Yes but let's not pretend this isn't a new interpretation.

It isn’t a new interpretation. More or less this same interpretation was articulated by Justice Taft in Myers v. United States in 1926: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers_v._United_States.

It's not, really. In Seila Law v. CFPB (2020) the Supreme Court ruled that even directors seemingly protected by for-cause language (which the FCC charter does not have) can be removed at will unless the agency in question "exercises no part of the executive power" and is "an administrative body ... that performs ... specified duties as a legislative or as a judicial aid." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seila_Law_LLC_v._Consumer_Fina...

> 2020

Do you have a case which was not about the executive authority of Donald Trump specifically? When we talk about how controversial or how new this interpretation is, the question I really have in mind is, why should I believe that it was developed out of genuine legal analysis and not an unprincipled desire to give Trump more power?

Myers v. United States, written by Justice Taft in 1926: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/272/52/

It contains an exhaustive historical analysis explaining why the President has unrestricted power to remove executive officers.

The “unprincipled” decisions were the ones like Humphrey’s Executor that sought to find ways to implement the 20th century concept of an “expert administrative state.” That’s not the government that was created in our constitution.

Yeah the FCC is really about Weiner[1], if anything, not Humphrey's. Weiner established some precedent of "inferred" independence for agencies of a certain character (e.g. those whose function is wholly judicial or legislative) even when explicit removal protections are not included in the law.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiener_v._United_States

In 2020, five years ago, was essentially the exact same court as today, except KBJ replaced Breyer. The precedence in question dates to 1935 Humphrey's Executor v. United States where a conservative Supreme Court sought to cut back executive power of a liberal president. Now we have a conservative Supreme Court expanding executive power for a conservative president. If you think the Roberts court would have let Joe Biden have this much power well then I have a bridge and some student loans to sell you

Humphrey's, which held that for-cause protections are constitutional for agencies that meet certain tests, while broadly relevant to current events (FTC etc.), is not relevant to FCC as FCC charter does not have explicit for-cause protections.

> If you think the Roberts court would have let Joe Biden have this much power well then I have a bridge and some student loans to sell you

Yes, I do think the time horizon of every SCOTUS member is longer than four years. I believe Gorsuch when he says:

  I appreciate that, but you also appreciate that we're writing a rule for the ages. -- https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2023/23-939_3fb4.pdf

I think that they all have the hubris to see themselves as part of history and write their opinions for future generations. Not that they aren't biased by current events, but that they see themselves as larger than that.

> I think that they all have the hubris to see themselves as part of history and write their opinions for future generations.

Which some of them see as an opportunity

I bet you also think Originalists are consistent in their applitcaiton of their methodology. lmao

Reply on news.ycombinator.com