Opinion: Trump turns the presidency into a dictatorship

Status
Not open for further replies.
As has mine - which is that these IGs are at-will employees who can be fired for any reason; you disagree based by some alleged statute; and when repeatedly pressed for what statute that is and what it says; you can’t or won’t give it despite the apparent simplicity of just citing (let alone quoting) this alleged statute.

The fact that some lawmakers are essentially “asking for a reason” for the firings admit that Trump basically didn’t need one at the time.

The fact that lawmakers are voicing that these IGs should have terms of a certain number of years ought to suggest to anyone that at present they are mere at will employees.

All of which supports my point that Trump is not a dictator - he has complied with the law, no more and no less.
 
You make a good point regarding forum shopping. Liberals do this all the time. Turnabout is fair play - especially considering all the conservative trial judges Trump has appointed…
 
The basis of my argument was Grassley’s letter. Which referenced a statute Grassley helped create.
There is no argument based on the statute alone. It is based upon the Senators argument about the statute in their oversight capacity.
Your " at will" opinion has no basis right now at all.
The Senators set forth in the letter what is required and why. Your BRUTUM FULMEN CONJECTURE about somehow Grassley’s letter evidencing at will, defies the content of the letter you cite. Nobody has your opinion at this time but you.
You take a position contrary to the drafting Senators. You have no idea of Trump’s position. And you didn’t read the statute and question it’s existence. Wow!
 
You imagine a different result based on what case and what appointee. I don’t assume currupt appointees.
In 3 years Trump has lost many cases with Conservative Republican appointed judges.
The FISA warrants being an obvious one. Roberts, a GOP appointee, confirmed by a GOP majority appointed the three FISA judges, all three also GOP APPOINTED.
 
How much time do you have to review evidence of Trump’s lack of empathy. There isn’t enough space to do it here. It would take weeks to amass.
The sheer volume protects him.
 
It’s interesting that you keep saying what a statute says - yet you won’t cite it.

Don’t worry, I found it. It’s the 2008 Inspector General Reform Act.

According to that, Trump has to communicate his reasons for firing an IG. He did that.

It doesn’t say he has to have good reasons. If it did, his firings could be challenged in court. It certainly doesn’t give the senators “advice and consent” power, nor does it give congress the ability to undo the firings.

In other words Trump can fire these folks unilaterally. He did that.

Some senators would like more detail. Fine, they can ask. So can you. And Trump can paper the wall with the senators’ request. By the statute itself, he need not do more than he has.

It certainly doesn’t make the IGs into more than at-will employees.
 
VonDerTann said:
Don’t worry, I found it. It’s the 2008 Inspector General Reform Act.
Click to expand...
Then you can apologize for all your earlier bullying and implying the law didn’t exist.
VonDerTann said:
He did that.

It doesn’t say he has to have good reasons.
Click to expand...
No court in the land would accept “because I was in the mood for some firing.” Obviously it assumed the reasons are prime facie “reasonable” reasons. I don’t think Trump did that. At least Obama had some documented reasons with outside support, other than his whim.
 
Nope, no apology warranted. Max wouldn’t cite it, and I can see why: it doesn’t say what he claims it says. In fact, it supports me: it says congress’ only role is the right to a letter of the reasons - which they received.

Unfortunately your post is wrong as to what courts would accept, because it is not reflective of how checks and balances operate in government. If you were correct, the president could not fire anyone because anyone fired would simply run to the courts and challenge the reason, thus making the courts a sort of “super-executive.” The president has the right and prerogative to hire and fire many people because he wants to.

Certain jobs are just outside court supervision - unless the reason for the firing is so bad as to violate public policy, i.e. Race, gender, etc.

The statute I cited doesn’t give congress any role in the firing, nor does it give them advise and consent powers like they have for some offices, i.e. Federal judges.
 
Last edited:
There are certain jobs wherein you can be fired for what might be called unreasonable reasons, provided those reasons are not discriminatory. In fact, that’s the default setting in the US. It’s called at will employment. The IGs are clearly among them.
 
Last edited:
VonDerTann said:
If you were correct, the president could not fire anyone because anyone fired would simply run to the courts and challenge the reason,
Click to expand...
If the reason was the least bit reasonable why would you think the challenge would automatically win? If there is no need for any standard of reasonableness, why have the statute?
 
LeafByNiggle said:
No court in the land would accept “because I was in the mood for some firing.”
Click to expand...
What jurisdiction does the court have?
LeafByNiggle said:
Obviously it assumed the reasons are prime facie “reasonable” reasons. I don’t think Trump did that. At least Obama had some documented reasons with outside support, other than his whim.
Click to expand...
President Barack Obama tried late last week to quietly fire an inspector general who had investigated a close political ally
Click to expand...
www.allgov.com

Obama Fires Inspector General Who Investigated a Friend

President Barack Obama tried late last week to quietly fire an inspector general who had investigated a close political ally, a move that prompted attention from several media sources anyway. Obama terminated Gerald Walpin, inspector general of th...
www.allgov.com www.allgov.com
 
It might not - but the employer would still have to defend the suit, perhaps at great cost.

As I keep saying, the default setting in the US is “at will” employment, which means you can be fired for any reason not violative of public policy, or no reason at all.

That’s one reason why employment contracts; collective bargaining agreements, etc., are important: they may change the terms of at will employment.

Lawmakers have perhaps woken up to the reality that they really have no right to anything, other than a letter of what the reasons are, when an IG is fired, but that’s beyond the scope of this debate. What no one can circumvent is this reality: trump has in fact complied with existent law for how to fire an IG. Should that law be changed? We can debate that (and the lawmakers are!). But that’s very different than “he’s a dictator!” And he does in fact have the right to fire lots of people for basically any reason.
 
Last edited:
First! Trump has to communicate reasons you say.
Incomplete!
It has to be done in writing. It hasn’t been. A writing has been requested.
And you say it doesn’t say it has to be good reasons. You interpret that idea in conflict with the stated purpose of the 2008 legislation amendment. We would have to see if a court would agree with you that they passed a piece of legislation with a specific legislative history, and it can be interpreted to defy that purpose 100%.
This becomes the problem discussing ," your opinion instead of waiting for Trump’s lawyers to set the issues and dispute, if any.
Trump’s lawyers may not argue the ," we are establishing stealth dictatorship isn’t it exciting." They actually may have real issues. You consign them to giving the bird to the express purpose of the 2008 amendment.
I told you this would be a waste of time. You ignore the PUBLIC POLICY EXPRESSLY STATED IN THE LEGISLATION. AND GRASSLEY’S LETTER OF COURSE
 
Last edited:
You ignore the purpose of the 2008 amendment. You interpret that it has no purpose.
 
It is Congress that has the central interest in the 2008 amendment being complied with.
The express purpose of the 2008 amendment is to prevent an IG from being fired for political and/ intimidation reasons. If you allow that, then you eliminate all reasons to have an IG. IF YOU ALLOW INTIMIDATION ( the natural consequence of firing as Trump has) then you eliminate all reasons for an IG.
The interpretation here is that Trump can dismantle the oversight of himself completely. A POSITION EVERYONE CAN AGREE IS MOST VALUABLE TO A CROOK.
 
You’re just making this up as you go.

I’m sorry, I don’t usually respond to posts FILLED WITH CAPS! Shouting isn’t helpful.

Neither are these blanket statements about congressional intent which you clearly don’t know. Federal enactments usually have all sorts of official enactments; commentary; etc. I’d ask you to cite or link those but you won’t (although I’ll ask anyway; consider yourself asked).

For the record, there was a writing: Trump wrote that he lacked confidence in this IG and was firing him.

Some few Senators want more, but legally they aren’t entitled to more, and they seem to know it, hence their letter and desire to now have terms of years for IGs.

I keep saying it, and you keep not answering substantively: is there anything by way of statute or other law you can point to that allows anyone other than the president to fire this particular IG? Or that makes these IGs un-fireable by the president, alone? if so…what exactly must this president do to fire them? Or who can fire them?

Unless you can answer that, I’m not going to respond to rants (and please
don’t say the grassley letter, as it’s a letter with no force of law).
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top