Trump Fires Acting Chair & General Counsel of NLRB

[Always in His Presence]

I don't think you thought this through very well. This means the Obamacare mandates are good, because the Supreme Court declared them legal. Or a billion other examples could be given. The legal power to do something does not mean that every use of that power is good. Might does not make Right.

Your mind reading machine is still broken - I mentioned following the law is good - you added a whole lot to try to make it sound like I said something else. - you are incorrect in your assumption.

Right, you have no idea whether the actual action was positive or negative. You're satisfied that Trump did it, and it was legal. Ergo good.

Your mind reading machine is still broken - I never addressed the individual actions - only that the President was following the law - Good Job Mr. President - you got all this from four words.

Because the way Congress, by law, planned these independent organizations to be set up helped to avoid political bias by having members hold terms that spanned presidential terms.

And the leaders in question were appointed by whom?

As should be obvious to a child, not all uses of power are necessarily good, regardless of their legality.

As well as it should be obvious to a child that the four words - were only four words and nothing else.

Oh. look - they were both placed POLITICALLY

MSPB Board Now Full as Third Nominee Confirmed​

The Senate has confirmed employment lawyer Cathy Harris to become chair of the MSPB board, giving Democrats a 2-1 majority on the key board hearing appeals of disciplinary actions against federal employees.​

​

Harris, of the Kator, Parks, Weiser & Harris firm in Washington, D.C., formerly was an assistant district attorney in the New York County district attorney’s office and has been an adjunct professor at the George Washington University law school.​

​

Gwynne Wilcox was confirmed by the Senate on September 6, 2023 to serve a second term as Board Member ending August 27, 2028. Ms. Wilcox previously served as a Member of the Board from August 4, 2021 until August 27, 2023, and she served as Chair of the Board from December 17, 2024 to January 20, 2025. On January 27, 2025, President Donald J. Trump removed Ms. Wilcox from the Board prior to her term’s expiration in 2028.​

​

There you have two POLITICAL APPOINTEES - and it is supposed to be a non political position?​

​

Perhaps I am not the one not thinking this through very well​

 

[essentialsaltes]

And the leaders in question were appointed by whom?

The sitting president, for a five year term, unless removed for cause.

 

[Always in His Presence]

The sitting president, for a five year term, unless removed for cause.

Which resulted in an action upheld by the court -

 

[essentialsaltes]

Which resulted in an action upheld by the court -

Not exactly 'which'. Trump fired them without cause, which has been upheld at the appellate level (by "two POLITICAL APPOINTEES" of Donald Trump) after an adverse lower court ruling.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Not exactly 'which'. Trump fired them without cause, which has been upheld at the appellate level (by "two POLITICAL APPOINTEES" of Donald Trump) after an adverse lower court ruling.

Like I said the court (appellate) upheld it.

 

[A2SG]

The President doing something lawful -

Well, that is certainly new.

-- A2SG, maybe it will start a new trend....

 

[essentialsaltes]

Trump can fire labor, employment board members without cause: Appeals court​

The Trump administration is challenging the 90-year-old precedent set by Humphrey’s, which limits the president’s ability to unilaterally remove the heads of certain independent government agencies. The Supreme Court on Monday is set to hear oral arguments in a case that could determine whether Humphrey’s is overturned.

In landmark case, Supreme Court to rule on Trump's bid to control independent agencies​

The justices are weighing whether to overturn a 90-year precedent.

For more than 100 years, independent government agencies have regulated American monetary policy and stock trades, transportation systems and election campaigns, consumer product safety and broadcast licenses all free from direct political interference and supervision by the White House.

A major case before the Supreme Court on Monday could upend that tradition and dramatically transform the federal government, eliminating a spirit of bipartisanship and policy continuity that Congress had intended to instill in key areas of American life when it created the agencies.

At issue is President Donald Trump's attempt to remove Rebecca Slaughter, a Democrat, as a member of the Federal Trade Commission on grounds that her service is "inconsistent with the administration's priorities." She was appointed to a seven-year term in 2023.

Lower courts have held that Slaughter's termination was illegal since federal lawstipulates a president may only remove a commissioner for "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office." The for-cause removal protection was intended to insulate the FTC from politics.

Trump has also tried to fire members of the National Labor Relations Board, Merit Systems Protection Board, Consumer Finance Protection Bureau and Federal Reserve -- all of whom have challenged their removals in court.

[The appellate ruling in the NLRB case came to the opposite conclusion to the FTC one now before SCOTUS.]

In September, the Supreme Court rejected Slaughter's bid to remain on the commission while the litigation is pending. The 6-3 decision, with all three liberal justices dissenting, signals that the likely outcome of her case will be in Trump’s favor, analysts said.

[So we would see more settled law become unsettled.]

 

[BCP1928]

Well, that is certainly new.

-- A2SG, maybe it will start a new trend....

His "base" would never stand for that.