In the first appeal of its second term to reach the Supreme Court, the Trump administration argues that the judiciary is trying to “seize the executive authority” because the courts prevented the president from launching some federal employees.
Experts say the Supreme Court is likely to be sympathetic to this argument and refers to the fierce opposition from the minimum judge, and he appoints Trump Greg Katas, who said he laid the foundation to achieve Trump’s potential victory.
Hans von Spacovsky, a senior legal colleague at the Heritage Corporation, said, ”
the Ministry of Justice Appeal to the Supreme Court in the case that included the shooting of Hampton Delleger, head of the Special Adviser Office. Delinger was expelled from his role this month and shortly after that, filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, on the pretext that his termination was illegal and was “in a direct conflict with nearly a century of precedents” that determines the proper removal of independent agency officials.
The Trump official aims to kill a blow to the independence of the “deep state” agencies
Experts say that the Trump administration argues that the courts are trying to “seize the executive authority” as the president seeks to launch federal employees, a probability that the court is likely to stand. (Getty Images | Emma Woodhead)
The minimum judge of the court initially issued an administrative residence that Delinger returned to his post, which was appointed by former President Joe Biden. The US Court of Appeal of the Colombia County Department refused to prevent this decision.
Then the lower court issued a temporary restriction that re -Delinger for 14 days. He appealed to the Ministry of Justice Court of Appeal of the Capital DepartmentWhich refused to raise the request on Sunday.
The committee, which voted 2-1, was divided into party lines, with Katasas opposition.
The judge appointed from Trump wrote that the matter “calls for an immediate appeal review” because the issue raised “the president went to recognize and work with a president who has already removed him.”
“It is claimed that the minimum court affects the president’s second powers, the immediate appeal review must be generally available,” Katasas wrote.
“Control of how [the president] The performance of his official duties “is” almost no one. “
In its appeal to the Supreme Court, the Ministry of Justice said that the case “involves an unprecedented attack on the separation of authorities that call for immediate relief.”
The Trump official is seeking permission to shoot at the Special Adviser’s Office
“Until now, as much as we realize, there was no court in American history to force the president to keep the president of the agency that the president believes that he should not be entrusted with Executive Authority The president is prevented from relying on his favorite replacement, “reads the appeal.
The Trump administration pointed to the opposition of Katasas several times in its appeal, on the pretext that the court cannot allow the courts “to seize the executive authority by dictating the president to the period in which he must continue to employ an agency president against his will.”
Trump’s Ministry of Justice submitted its appeal to the Supreme Court in the case that involves shooting at Hampton delinger, head of the Special Advisor Office. (The Office of the US Special Counselor/Special Bulletin via Reuters)
Von Spacovsky described the decision of the Court of Appeal to refuse to raise the matter, “really obscene and an unprecedented abuse of their judicial authority.”
“The Supreme Court itself has said that the president has an unrestricted authority to remove the individual president of the executive agency, as Katasas notes, yet these courts outperform their noses in the Supreme Court and violate those precedents,” Von Spacovsky said.
Likewise, the lawyer for the constitutional law and a shareholder in Fox News Jonathan Torry said that he expected the judges to “hesitate” with the arguments in opposition to Katasas.
In its appeal to the Supreme Court, the Ministry of Justice said that the case “involves an unprecedented attack on the separation of authorities that call for immediate relief.” (Alex Wong/Getty Emose)
“While the committee sentenced a technical barrier to review a temporary restriction, the opposition correctly indicates that this is an unusual demand for the authority of the provincial court,” Torley said.
Click here to get the Fox News app
Von Spacovsky described the decision of the Court of Appeal as “one of the worst examples of the judicial activity that we saw” and said, “The Supreme Court must stop immediately and resolve.”
He continued to advise that the court “must abandon its usual literature and colleagues and criticize the provincial court judge because of its crowded behavior, as well as the judges of the Court of Appeal for not stopping it.”
