FYP
6 Likes
Eh I think itâs pretty reasonable to believe that Biden could effectively fire DeJoy. Sure, someone might issue a sternly worded statement in 2027 saying it was a âconcerning overreach of executive powerâ or something. But your statement to Riverman is very lawbro and way over the top.
So Biden says DeJoy is fired (which Biden doesnât actually have the authority to do). DeJoy says no you canât do that and continues to show up at work, issue orders - then what? Biden sends in the FBI to forcibly remove DeJoy?
I have worked for a federal agency for a couple of decades.
In my experience with lower level employess, itâs criminal trespass, handled by local authorities.
If he were fired he would lose all credentials , access, paycheck and would be locked out of federal computer system.
Title 39 Chapter 2 Paragraph 202 says that the Board of Governors is the government entity that has the power to appoint and remove the postmaster general. The law was written to insulate the USPS from politics.
Thinking that Biden can simply fire DeJoy is reasonable only if youâre ignorant about government. The president isnât some dictator who can rule by decree.
DeJoy goes to court and a judge makes the no-brainer decision that he canât be fired like that.
Yeah and this is exactly the kind of thing that if he tried to do it, would get blown massively out of proportion and have Fox News getting everybody frothing and then âmailgateâ would be the centerpiece of the dumb endless impeachments brought up by a potential GOP-led House next year. Thereâs just not enough tangible benefit to make it worth the backlash.
Biden trying to break the law would deserve much furor. The problem is that Trump breaking the law didnât get sufficient furor.
I think you guys are suffering from a failure of imagination. I remember a lot of these arguments about how Trump couldnât go around Congress to appropriate funds to build the wall etc.
Now if your point is that he could only do that because his base stood for it, or because the SCOTUS likes him, then fine. But thatâs a political argument, not a legal one.
Legal arguments are political arguements. Thereâs no such thing as law, there is what is enforced and what is not.
I can imagine some extralegal remedies.
Iâm afraid nobody has ever told you about the unitary executive theory. You should look into it sometime; itâs fucking wild and 6/9 SCOTUS justices believe in it. Itâs also why the notorious DJT was able to go around the lines of succession specified in the law that created the CFPB and appoint Mick Mulvaney and got away with it.
The whole âwe have to obey the rules because thatâs what makes us better and differentâ thing is absolutely infuriating, it just gives the worst people ever an easier path to regaining power and burning the whole thing down.
Also these assholes wonât even enforce the existing rules god damn I hate them so much
1 Like
We need to provoke Psaki to obnoxiously and smugly say âWHADDAYAWANT FOR US TO PUT ALL THE WHITE COLLAR CRIMINALS IN JAIL?â
1 Like
You must hate abiding by the Geneva Conventions when fighting a war against someone who doesnât.
Could just ask Hilary to Vince Foster Mr Dejoy.
His argument is that the unitary executive theory only applies to GOP presidents, which⌠sure. But then itâs just a political argument, and thereâs no reason to get all law bro about it.
I donât think Hillary was competent enough to Vince Foster Vince Foster.
Sure - if heâs lower level. deJoy is the head of the agency though, so I donât think the same rules are going to apply to him.
What about Seth Rich then? (Tongue firmly in cheek).