Amy Howe at SCOTUSblog has a preview of today's oral argument at the Supreme Court in Selia Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a case that poses the issue of the constitutionality of federal agency heads serving fixed terms who can only be removed for cause. This is the same situation as the Commissioner of Social Security.
The right wing wants to throw as much sand as possible into the gears of regulatory agencies. The Social Security Administration isn't the target -- now -- but it may become collateral damage. It's seems odd to me that there has been so little attention paid to the potential effects of this case at Social Security which is orders of magnitude larger than CFPB.
Selia Law is the first case up today.
Well, conservatives have hated SSA since inception, so if a side effect is messing SSA up as well, it's a win win. One can put one's hand to one's forehead and exclaim "Lordy, I never wanted that to happen". All the while smiling about it happening.
ReplyDeleteIt is on the news or on NPR anyway. The ramifications of the outcome of this case are chilling.
ReplyDeleteHmm, would this potentially invalidate the new regulation regarding those who are illiterate or unable to communicate in English?
ReplyDelete4:51 - In all probability the original intent majority of the supreme court will just narrowly decide that the president can remove all agency heads at his discretion, irrespective of Congressional intent. Because of course our founding fathers, in their omniscient wisdom, foresaw multi-billion-dollar federal agencies that regulated interstate trade, security safety nets, internet, global warming, etc., and were able to summarize their vast knowledge in the single written page of our Constitution. It's doubtful that the court will invalidate the actions of agency heads since they were correctly appointed and approved.
ReplyDeleteHerbert Hoover might not get another opportunity to jack us up so he better act quickly thru Saul. Maybe Corona Beer virus will keep him busy at the Mexico border. Agree, this is a major blow against good government if it happen. There were very sound reasons for getting rid of to the victor go the spoils. Or, this will be to the billionaires go the spoils. Somewhere, a poor, neglected, lone billionaire needs a billion dollar tax cut.
ReplyDeleteanon@4:51pm,
ReplyDeleteSSA became an independent agency with its current structure as of 03/31/1995. So, this has the potential to throw the legality of every regulation done by every appointed commissioner since that time up in the air. Not to mention how it would affect prior federal case law involving those regulations.
So, the answer is who knows? I predict that Social Security litigation is going to inundate the courts, though.
Same result with the Fed. Trump is dying to fire his Fed Chief - which means if the Supremes agree, then every agency or commission which was supposed to be above politics, just became completely political.
ReplyDelete4:51 said:
ReplyDelete"Because of course our founding fathers, in their omniscient wisdom, foresaw multi-billion-dollar federal agencies that regulated interstate trade, security safety nets, internet, global warming, etc., and were able to summarize their vast knowledge in the single written page of our Constitution."
Of course they couldn't have foreseen the specific developments the future would bring. But, they did foresee the need to change the Constitution from time to time. That is why they created the amendment process. Unfortunately, at some point we rejected that process and opted instead to allow the courts to amend the Constitution at their whim. Some say, oh, the amendment process is too difficult. Well, it should be difficult, shouldn't it. We jettisoned the rule of law a long time ago, probably when the courts interpreted the Commerce Clause so broadly that it gave the federal government almost unlimited power. The aim of the Constitution was to limit the power of the federal government. So, in reality, we rejected the Constitution many, many years ago. What we have now is rule at the whim of the Courts.
I love the Doomsday scenarios here. Like they are going to invalidate everything since 1995. Seriously you believe this? C'mon Man!
ReplyDelete@10:03
ReplyDeleteIf the following three criteria are satisfied, if the argument of the Petitioner holds, the agency is in danger:
1. The agency is led by a single individual.
2. The agency head is appointed by the president, but confirmed by the senate.
3. The agency head has "for cause" protections.
That limits the scope, but SSA is one of the agencies where all 3 criteria are satisfied. Also, I'm not sure why you are referring to 1995. I'm not sure exactly when a particular agency first satisfied the three criteria. The SSA board was replaced by a single executive in the 40s, and I believe the "for cause" protections were enacted at least as early as the 70s. Also, a debate at oral argument was whether Humphrey's Executor v. United States should remain good law, which was from 1935, and that case directly addresses the "for cause" protections as to federal agency heads. So if that old of a case is being debated, the decision could be pretty far reaching, far more reaching than 1995.
As to whether I believe the Court will dismantle the SSA in this case? No, probably not. But if the argument is directly addressed (which is possible), there will be other cases. It is not like the current executive branch is likely to hold back if given the option.
10:35 point out the full amount of the absurdity. But Henny Penny and Chicken Little will continue. This blog loves to climb Mt. Molehill.
ReplyDelete