#seila

#seila

Desenho bobo que fiz a noite.
#desenho #art #dark #seila

desenho que eu fiz pra tentar me dar animo de desenhar denovo #seila

HERE WE ARE IN THE FUTURE AND ITS BRIIIIGHT

#cebonica #ceveco #xavonica #ceboxavonica #seila

Quero um nerdiznho para mim 🫦🔥

#seila

__**Twitter** _**Facebook**_ __**LinkedIn** _**Email**_ __**Print** __ President Trump’s removal of agency heads without cause threatens the rule of law. __Tweet __Share __Post __Email __Print __Link The judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit who recently stayed a lower court injunction that temporarily blocked the removal of members of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) are living in a dream world. In this world, the President uses his executive power to faithfully execute the law. According to at least Judge Justin R. Walker, one of the judges who voted to stay the injunction, any judicial order even temporarily restraining the President constitutes an emergency justifying an immediate stay. Even though the order issued by the lower court simply enforced statutes that demanded that members of independent agencies keep their positions unless there is some good cause justifying removal. Thankfully, the D.C. Circuit as a whole reinstated the lower court injunction. It remains to be seen whether Trump’s assault on the rule of law will awaken the U.S. Supreme Court or whether the Court will continue to issue emergency orders hindering the lower courts’ efforts to preserve the rule of law as they sort through the issues Trump’s assault on the U.S. Constitution raises. It is quite apparent that President Donald J. Trump is firing agency heads to disable the many laws he disapproves of. This fact is especially obvious with respect to the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), for the firing of NLRB member Gwynn Wilcox deprives the NLRB of the quorum needed to do business. It is also apparent from the reason President Trump gave for removing Wilcox. He claimed that Wilcox was “unduly disfavoring the interests of employers.” But the U.S. Congress enacted the NLRA precisely to strengthen labor’s ability to form unions and collectively bargain. Congress did not enact the NLRA to protect the interests of big business. President Trump is also trying to undermine civil services laws. President Trump gave no reason for removing Cathy Harris from the MSPB, which hears cases challenging the removal of agency employees under the civil service laws. But other actions make it obvious that President Trump is trying to dismantle the legal protections that Congress and previous Presidents created for civil servants. The aim here is to substitute incompetent yes-men—and women—for a competent administration aimed at carrying out the laws’ purposes. This goal is obvious from the mass firing of civil servants and the nomination of inexperienced loyalists to head government agencies. Indeed, anyone who reads the newspapers should understand that President Trump is attacking the U.S. Constitution as a whole and the rule of law it supports. He usurps the power of Congress over the purse by unilaterally defunding programs he does not like, thereby turning whole statutes into dead—or weakened—letters. When the President refuses to spend the money Congress appropriated to support programs and fires the people who are faithfully administering statutes, the President defeats faithful law execution and substitutes presidential control over policy for legislative control. He becomes a dictator. In fairness to Judge Walker and Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, who also voted to stay the order temporarily reinstating Harris and Wilcox, they did not invent this dream world. The Supreme Court did. In _Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau_, the Supreme Court conceived of power to effectuate arbitrary removal as somehow serving the rule of law. None of the Justices have even considered the possibility that a President can abuse wholly unlimited removal authority to prevent faithful execution of the law and to attack liberty. The D.C. Circuit’s views of the likelihood of success on the merits rightly takes into account the Supreme Court’s dream world, which may soon come in to play if the case reaches the Court But an emergency stay order also requires an assessment of the public interest and the balance of equities. It is odd to have the court say, in effect, that the public interest demands immediately firing officials who have not been accused of misapplying the law but instead of not being aligned with the President’s desire to dictate policy unilaterally. Judge Walker’s reasoning treats any temporary setback for any presidential desire as an irreparable harm requiring an emergency remedy. It identifies no presidential policy being served here, and it ignores the Constitution’s vesting of policymaking authority in Congress. It also claims that a stay serves the public interest by preventing the disenfranchisement of voters who supported President Trump. But that reasoning would suggest that equities always favor the President even as he establishes a dictatorship and inflicts permanent harm on others. The judges point to no evidence that President Trump’s supporters voted to dismantle labor protections or the civil service. But even if his supporters voted for that, President Trump has no constitutional power to dismantle laws. He can only legitimately ask Congress to do that. The power to remove officials arbitrarily creates a powerful weapon to dismantle the rule of law. If a President can unreasonably remove officials, he can remove them for resisting an order to disobey the law or infringe upon constitutional rights. He can repeal a statute unilaterally by simply firing all those who would obey their oaths of office. If the case proceeds further, the Supreme Court needs to take the potential of the unitary executive theory to undermine or even destroy constitutional democracy into account. It may help explain why there is no evidence that the drafters of the Constitution ever endorsed a power to remove officials arbitrarily and that arbitrary removal, although rare, has often been used to prevent—not carry out—faithful law execution. President Andrew Jackson used it to undermine the national bank, incurring a censure. President Andrew Johnson removed numerous officials to prevent implementation of newly passed civil rights laws, suffering impeachment as a result. President Richard M. Nixon removed officials to cover up Watergate and faced almost certain impeachment before he resigned. And President Trump’s numerous removals in his first term facilitated massive legal violations, causing him to lose some 90 percent of his immigration cases. For-cause removal allows a President to get rid of officials who do not properly implement law. Unlimited removal authority makes removal a potential tool to defeat the rule of law. We can only hope that if the Supreme Court eventually takes up the case, they wake up and leave the dream world. _David M. Driesen_ _is a university professor atSyracuse University College of Law._ Tagged: NLRA, NLRB, Seila Law v. CFPB

The Judges’ Dream World President Trump’s removal of agency heads without cause threatens the...

www.theregreview.org/2025/04/09/driesen-the-j...

#Homepage #Feature #Opinion #Process #NLRA #NLRB #Seila #Law #v. #CFPB

Event Attributes

__**Twitter** _**Facebook**_ __**LinkedIn** _**Email**_ __**Print** __ Removal of commissioners runs counter to a 90-year-old precedent, teeing up a potential Supreme Court case. __Tweet __Share __Post __Email __Print __Link President Donald J. Trump, just two months after retaking office, fired two Democratic commissioners of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) without cause. The question, potentially bound for the U.S. Supreme Court, is whether President Trump had the power to do so. Alvaro Bedoya and Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, the two fired commissioners, claim that the President did not have that power. They plan to challenge what they characterize as their “illegal” removals in court. The Trump Administration, however, through a letter from Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris to a congressional committee, stated that the statutory protection in the Federal Trade Commission Act is unconstitutional and that the U.S. Department of Justice will “no longer defend” it—or similar protections for other independent agency heads—in court. The Act prevents removal of commissioners appointed to seven-year terms except for cause—defined in the FTC Act as “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” The FTC is an independent agency that was established in 1914 by the FTC Act to protect consumers from “deceptive or unfair business practices” and promote competition. Among the FTC’s delegated powers is the ability to sue businesses and individuals for violating the antitrust laws and engaging in unfair competition, fraud, and deception. The FTC has also asserted the power to issue rules, both on unfair or deceptive acts and practices as well as on unfair methods of competition. A judge in August 2024, however, ruled that “the FTC lacks substantive rulemaking authority with respect to unfair methods of competition.” The FTC has appealed the decision. According to the FTC Act, the FTC is headed by five commissioners confirmed by the U.S. Senate, no more than three of whom may be members of the same political party. The agency is led by a chair chosen by the President from among the sitting commissioners. The chair is normally affiliated with the President’s political party. Shortly after the second Trump Administration began, Lina Khan—then the FTC chair who served as a Democrat on the commission during the Biden Administration—resigned from the FTC, allowing President Trump to nominate another commissioner and designate a new chair. As is common, the two remaining Democratic commissioners stayed on, leaving the FTC with four total commissioners, two of them Republicans appointed by President Joseph R. Biden. President Trump followed Khan’s resignation by nominating a new Republican member and designating Andrew Ferguson, an existing Republican member, to serve as chair. In an unusual move, however, President Trump also fired the remaining Democrats, opening the seats for him to nominate commissioners of his choosing. Their removals, if challenged in court, could lay the groundwork for the Supreme Court to revisit its 1935 decision in _Humphrey’s Executor v. United States_. In that case, the Court addressed a President’s authority to remove an FTC member without cause after President Franklin D. Roosevelt removed a Republican commissioner for opposing New Deal policies. President Roosevelt sought to replace the commissioner with a person he chose. The Supreme Court unanimously held that a President could only dismiss an FTC commissioner for cause. The case established the constitutional principle that the U.S. Congress may limit the President’s power to remove the heads of independent agencies that perform what the court called “quasi-legislative” and “quasi-judicial” functions, as opposed to executive functions, which are “vested by the Constitution in the President.” As the Court noted, the FTC acted legislatively by “making investigations and reports for the information of Congress,” and judicially by acting as “a master in chancery.” Although the Court in _Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau_ struck down as unconstitutional for-cause removal protections for a single-headed agency, the Court did not overrule _Humphrey’s Executor_. Instead, the Court emphasized that _Humphrey’s Executor_ established an “exception” to the general rule that the President may freely remove executive agency heads even if a statute limits the President’s authority to remove them for-cause. _Humphrey’s Executor_ , the Court explained, only “permitted Congress to give for-cause removal protections to a multimember body of experts, balanced along partisan lines, that performed legislative and judicial functions and was said not to exercise any executive power.” A footnote in _Seila Law_ may have foreshadowed a potential challenge to the precedent. Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, stated that the Court’s conclusion in _Humphrey’s Executor_ “that the FTC did not exercise executive power has not withstood the test of time.” Acting Solicitor General Harris honed in on Chief Justice Roberts’s characterization of the FTC in her letter to Congress, stating that the FTC—and other agencies, such as the U.S. National Labor Relations Board and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission—“exercise substantial executive power,” including by issuing regulations. The recently fired commissioner’s threatened lawsuit could provide an opportunity for the Supreme Court to revisit _Humphrey’s Executor_ and determine that the FTC falls outside of the _Humphrey’s Executor_ exception—or overrule the case entirely. The firings of Bedoya and Slaughter fit into a larger pattern of President Trump’s firings of independent agency heads, indicating a broader effort by the Trump Administration to reshape the legal framework governing them. Shortly after taking office, President Trump fired the chair of the U.S. National Labor Relations Board, Gwynne Wilcox, and two commissioners of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Jocelyn Samuels and Charlotte Burrows. A few weeks later, he fired Cathy A. Harris, a member of the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. Federal district court judges have ruled recently that Wilcox’s and Harris’s firings violated statutory for-cause removal protections that the courts held are constitutional under _Humphrey’s Executor_ and _Seila Law_. In the case brought by Wilcox, the judge ruled that Wilcox’s removal was a “blatant violation” of the National Labor Relations Act, which states that the President can only remove a member “upon notice and hearing” for “neglect of duty or malfeasance.” The court explained that President Trump only identified political motivations for the removal. The Justice Department has appealed the decisions in both Wilcox’s and Harris’s cases. In an executive order issued less than a month after taking office, President Trump laid out his goal to “ensure accountability in government” by implementing presidential oversight over “independent regulatory agencies.” As one scholar expresses, President Trump’s judicial success in asserting control over independent regulatory agencies would result in a “significant shift in power to the White House.” Tagged: FTC, Seila Law v. CFPB, Trump Administration

President Trump’s Power to Remove FTC Commissioners Removal of commissioners runs counter to a ...

www.theregreview.org/2025/03/27/bredbenner-pr...

#Featured #News #Process #FTC #Humphrey's #Executor #v. #U.S. #Seila #Law #v.

Event Attributes

__**Twitter** _**Facebook**_ __**LinkedIn** _**Email**_ __**Print** __ Removal of commissioners runs counter to a 90-year-old precedent, teeing up a potential Supreme Court case. __Tweet __Share __Post __Email __Print __Link President Donald J. Trump, just two months after retaking office, fired two Democratic commissioners of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) without cause. The question, potentially bound for the U.S. Supreme Court, is whether President Trump had the power to do so. Alvaro Bedoya and Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, the two fired commissioners, claim that the President did not have that power. They plan to challenge what they characterize as their “illegal” removals in court. The Trump Administration, however, through a letter from Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris to a congressional committee, stated that the statutory protection in the Federal Trade Commission Act is unconstitutional and that the U.S. Department of Justice will “no longer defend” it—or similar protections for other independent agency heads—in court. The Act prevents removal of commissioners appointed to seven-year terms except for cause—defined in the FTC Act as “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” The FTC is an independent agency that was established in 1914 by the FTC Act to protect consumers from “deceptive or unfair business practices” and promote competition. Among the FTC’s delegated powers is the ability to sue businesses and individuals for violating the antitrust laws and engaging in unfair competition, fraud, and deception. The FTC has also asserted the power to issue rules, both on unfair or deceptive acts and practices as well as on unfair methods of competition. A judge in August 2024, however, ruled that “the FTC lacks substantive rulemaking authority with respect to unfair methods of competition.” The FTC has appealed the decision. According to the FTC Act, the FTC is headed by five commissioners confirmed by the U.S. Senate, no more than three of whom may be members of the same political party. The agency is led by a chair chosen by the President from among the sitting commissioners. The chair is normally affiliated with the President’s political party. Shortly after the second Trump Administration began, Lina Khan—then the FTC chair who served as a Democrat on the commission during the Biden Administration—resigned from the FTC, allowing President Trump to nominate another commissioner and designate a new chair. As is common, the two remaining Democratic commissioners stayed on, leaving the FTC with four total commissioners, two of them Republicans appointed by President Joseph R. Biden. President Trump followed Khan’s resignation by nominating a new Republican member and designating Andrew Ferguson, an existing Republican member, to serve as chair. In an unusual move, however, President Trump also fired the remaining Democrats, opening the seats for him to nominate commissioners of his choosing. Their removals, if challenged in court, could lay the groundwork for the Supreme Court to revisit its 1935 decision in _Humphrey’s Executor v. United States_. In that case, the Court addressed a President’s authority to remove an FTC member without cause after President Franklin D. Roosevelt removed a Republican commissioner for opposing New Deal policies. President Roosevelt sought to replace the commissioner with a person he chose. The Supreme Court unanimously held that a President could only dismiss an FTC commissioner for cause. The case established the constitutional principle that the U.S. Congress may limit the President’s power to remove the heads of independent agencies that perform what the court called “quasi-legislative” and “quasi-judicial” functions, as opposed to executive functions, which are “vested by the Constitution in the President.” As the Court noted, the FTC acted legislatively by “making investigations and reports for the information of Congress,” and judicially by acting as “a master in chancery.” Although the Court in _Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau_ struck down as unconstitutional for-cause removal protections for a single-headed agency, the Court did not overrule _Humphrey’s Executor_. Instead, the Court emphasized that _Humphrey’s Executor_ established an “exception” to the general rule that the President may freely remove executive agency heads even if a statute limits the President’s authority to remove them for-cause. _Humphrey’s Executor_ , the Court explained, only “permitted Congress to give for-cause removal protections to a multimember body of experts, balanced along partisan lines, that performed legislative and judicial functions and was said not to exercise any executive power.” A footnote in _Seila Law_ may have foreshadowed a potential challenge to the precedent. Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, stated that the Court’s conclusion in _Humphrey’s Executor_ “that the FTC did not exercise executive power has not withstood the test of time.” Acting Solicitor General Harris honed in on Chief Justice Roberts’s characterization of the FTC in her letter to Congress, stating that the FTC—and other agencies, such as the U.S. National Labor Relations Board and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission—“exercise substantial executive power,” including by issuing regulations. The recently fired commissioner’s threatened lawsuit could provide an opportunity for the Supreme Court to revisit _Humphrey’s Executor_ and determine that the FTC falls outside of the _Humphrey’s Executor_ exception—or overrule the case entirely. The firings of Bedoya and Slaughter fit into a larger pattern of President Trump’s firings of independent agency heads, indicating a broader effort by the Trump Administration to reshape the legal framework governing them. Shortly after taking office, President Trump fired the chair of the U.S. National Labor Relations Board, Gwynne Wilcox, and two commissioners of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Jocelyn Samuels and Charlotte Burrows. A few weeks later, he fired Cathy A. Harris, a member of the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. Federal district court judges have ruled recently that Wilcox’s and Harris’s firings violated statutory for-cause removal protections that the courts held are constitutional under _Humphrey’s Executor_ and _Seila Law_. In the case brought by Wilcox, the judge ruled that Wilcox’s removal was a “blatant violation” of the National Labor Relations Act, which states that the President can only remove a member “upon notice and hearing” for “neglect of duty or malfeasance.” The court explained that President Trump only identified political motivations for the removal. The Justice Department has appealed the decisions in both Wilcox’s and Harris’s cases. In an executive order issued less than a month after taking office, President Trump laid out his goal to “ensure accountability in government” by implementing presidential oversight over “independent regulatory agencies.” As one scholar expresses, President Trump’s judicial success in asserting control over independent regulatory agencies would result in a “significant shift in power to the White House.” Tagged: FTC, Seila Law v. CFPB, Trump Administration

President Trump’s Power to Remove FTC Commissioners Removal of commissioners runs counter to a ...

www.theregreview.org/2025/03/27/bredbenner-pr...

#Featured #News #Process #FTC #Seila #Law #v. #CFPB #Trump #Administration

Event Attributes

Tô confuso sobre minha sexualidade e gênero, socorro, alguém me ajuda 🆘🆘🆘🆘🆘
#eu #cu #seila

Desenho aleatório que eu fiz ontem! :)
#desenho #draw #seila #memata #memama #suamae #cu #buceta #sdv

Desculpa por abandonar essa conta galera ☝
#meucu #seila #memata #sdv
Conta que eu tô mais usando:
@umaestranhaai.bsky.social

Pessoas que não são do tipo de pedir "para por mim, por favor" e sim que beijaria todas as minhas cicatrizes e iria cuidar delas>>>>>>>>>
#sh #love #fy #eu #seila

#comunidadesdedesenho #ilustração essa galera aparece coisa assim #zine #arte #seila

Principais etiquetas comentadas nos últimos 15 minutos 🧭:

1. #bbb25
2. #BigDay
3. #BBB
4. #voltaporcima
5. #seila
6. #GeneralHospital
7. #GH
8. #Tieta
9. #MoonlightMystique
10. #booksky

Anúncio: @terraprotege.bsky.social.

Uma menina sorrindo com duas maria chiquinhas, uma franga e uma rouoa que parece um uniforme, com uma casaco com duas filas de botões mangas fofas, e uma saia com um cinto com fivela de estrela, varios ditalhes de estrela estão espalhados na perssonagem, como no cabelo e dobras da manga

A mesma personagem so que de frentw, e um pouco mais rascunhada

A menina de novo, só que agora está com uma boina cobrindo a parte longa do cabelo (as marinhas chiquinhas) e mostra um pouco da franga e pedacinhos do cabelo picotados, e esta com uma expressão mais séria, parecendo estar escondendo o rosto, sem estar sorrindo, tem uma jaqueta com bolsos onde esta uma das suas mãos e a outra esta caida

Dessa vez são os mesmo personagens mostrados de longe, podendo ser vista que a primeira tem saia longa e botas com pompoms, e meias, e a ultima foto usa calça mais larga e sapato qualquer.

Fazendo alguns rascunhos, tenho certeza que ela ficou parecida com alguma perssonagem de algo que estava vendo, mas esqueci o nome kkkkk #rascunho #desenhonopapel #desenhotradicional #seila #desenhorápido #desenhododia

Opa galerinha do mal 😈😈
#seila #sdv #cu #suavo #meuirmao #miku
(Tags total aleatórias)

Qual cês achar que mim ser?
#seila #cu #suavo #mingau #buceta #sdv

Aff, muito burra ela, amo ela demais
#seila #fy

FINALMENTE DESENHEI MÃO NESSA PORRA AAIWUSHSNSHSHSUISHSNH

#art #brazilianart #seila

Oiii sigam a @luk3aa.bsky.social !!! Ela tem desenhos bem foda alguns exemplo aq #lukamegurine #hatsunemiku #pfvsegue #seila #arte CQRA EU NAO SEI SO SWGUE ELA

Rabiscos da aula (dessa vez fiz na de matemática)

#art #brazilianart #seila

Fiz durante a aula (de novo), usei o tradutor pra algumas coisas e tal, treinar o japonês né🤙

#art #mangá #seila

Acabei de fazer uma nova conta no ttk e fui seguir minhas outras contas... descobri que meu ex amigo ainda tá vivo no ttk e ele só me bloqueou msm...mas se ele me seguir na minha nova conta eu vou falar uns ngc pra ele

Se vcs quiserem seguir: yippi_e3

Tags: #tiktok #amigos #seila #yippie

#flop #oc #BRart #fyyyyyyyy #art #seila #amei

Recadinhos que deixei na geladeira da minha tia antes de ir pra escola

#seila #recadosdegeladeira

Alguém ajudar ai(só quero ajudar o Latrel)
#seila #ajuda #naosei #cu