421
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 Jun 2026
421 points (100.0% liked)
politics
30239 readers
2015 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
So let me get this straight. An independent agency can now be swayed by administration? As is now they are not considered independent agency. SCOTUS is literally rewriting the dictionary.
Not quite. The court’s position is that there cannot exist an independent agency. They don’t see any provision for such a thing in the constitution. And if you take a purely literal originalist interpretation of the constitution, they’re right. Nothing in there says anything about “independent agencies”. Such independence was established ~140 years ago by precedent. So they’re not rewriting the dictionary, but they’re certainly rewriting a core legal doctrine that has been in place for >50% of the nations existence.
In my opinion, assuming there’s ever actually an opportunity to fix this mess, a key change we’ll need to make is that there needs to be a higher standard for the supreme court to overturn its own precedent. Like, maybe the vote needs to be unanimous or something. This activist court has been decades in the making, and is radically rewriting much of the foundational doctrine under which the country has operated for generations.
This is what I don't understand either. John Roberts said:
Like, what? What sense does this make? Does this not objectively make it NOT independent? Does this not objectively destroy the separation of powers? Why is an independent agency accountable to the president? Aren't they there to serve the people only and not one person in the white house? How are they exercising the "presidents power?" The president(very purposefully) is not supposed to have that power. They do. That's... kinda the point. Isn't that like the definition of an independent agency? I don't understand what he's even trying to say here.
Of course it makes no sense, it’s just a word salad to make it look like there’s some justification behind it, when in reality it’s just another step into autocracy.
Reads like totalitarian propaganda.
The idea is that the president works with these people and can't be forced to work with people who will not work with him. So the fix is for Congress to move these agencies back under the legislative branch instead of the executive branch, or you are just going to see more seesawing of people getting fired every 4-8 years even more than we currently have.
Cant happen (under this SCOTUS), there is no such thing as agencies under the legislative branch. The president executes the laws, so everything is under the executive.