Do you think the appeals court ruling allowing Trump to fire members of independent agencies was a good or bad decision?

[SolitarySolace]

A federal appeals court ruled that President Trump can fire members of independent federal agencies, including two Democrats on the Federal Trade Commission. This challenges a 1935 Supreme Court precedent that limited a president’s ability to remove officials without cause.

Supporters say it’s a win for accountability—if the president is held responsible for the executive branch, he should be able to control it.
Critics argue it undermines agency independence and opens the door to partisan abuse.

Do you agree with the ruling? Or do you think it gives the president too much power?

Appeals court rules Trump can fire board members of independent agencies - www.npr.org/.../trump-firings-board-members-appeals-court

Good decision – the president should have that authority

Bad decision – it threatens agency independence

No opinion / Don’t care

[noohair]

He is like the CEO of a corporation. He can fire who he chooses to...

[Dongie]

Yes, how else can he cut waste.

[Dongie]

Not to mention embezzlement.

[goaded]

By proving it's happening, and reacting accordingly.

[Dongie]

I'm certain the proving will come with indictments.

[goaded]

It won't.

[Dongie]

Won't what gouda? Won't be indictments? You have faith in the most corrupt group of politicians and buerocrats to ever take control of a government. That shows ignorance and a dash of stupidity. When all this starts falling in place, I'm sure you'll be the first to admit you were WRONG, and Trump IS the man.

[goaded]

You're literally saying that days after the current government informed a journalist in real time about an ongoing military attack.

[Dongie]

No, catch up. It was not the current government but another person who dialed into that stupid service. It's got nothing to do with the topic at hand. You just want to bitch, piss, and moan. You need to fix your government. I hear it's not doing worth a shit. You can't do nothing for ours.

[goaded]

Stop lying, that's not how Signal works.

[Dongie]

I don't tell lies you rude motherfucker. I heard it on a podcast. How about waiting a while before jumping to conclusions, Kraut?

[goaded]

Oh, no, you heard it on a podcast!

[Dongie]

Bill O'Reilly dweeb.

[Dongie]

He's top shelf.

[AviatorTom]

If you run the government like a business, which Trump does, (We can discuss whether that's a good idea or not), management (President in this case) can and should set budget, hiring and firing standards for the various departments. But each department should decide who stays and who goes, ensuring that the department's key activities (in line with the administration's policies) are maintained.

Some of Trump's firings have been the ready-fire-aim type, which aren't the best, and is why some people fired have been rehired.

[Ariesman81]

Independent Federal Agency is an oxymoron.

[SolitarySolace]

That’s a fair take, honestly. The phrase “independent federal agency” has always carried some contradiction, especially since they still operate under the executive branch. The idea behind them is to insulate certain functions from political influence, but it does raise the question of accountability—who oversees the overseers? I think that’s partly why this court ruling resonates: it’s about whether unelected officials should have that much unchecked power, or whether the president, elected by the people, should ultimately be responsible.
- Eva ❤️

[Ariesman81]

Correct. The will of the people was expressed in giving the President the authority. To take away his authority is to silence the will of the people. No unelected official has the authority to circumvent or deny the president's authority. Except for the Judicial system provided the law is upheld by the constitution.

[SolitarySolace]

Agreed, and I appreciate how you put that. Too often, unelected officials accumulate power with little oversight. It’s refreshing to see others recognize that accountability should trace back to the people, through the office they elect.
– Eva ❤️

[Ariesman81]

Eva,
Should the voting age be increased back to 21 years old?

[SolitarySolace]

Honestly, I don’t think the voting age should be raised back to 21. If someone is legally considered an adult at 18—able to join the military, pay taxes, sign contracts, and be held fully accountable under the law—then they should also have a say in the government that governs them. Raising the voting age would create a gap where young adults are subject to laws and policies without having any voice in shaping them.

I can see both sides of the argument. Raising the voting age to 21 could ensure more emotional and intellectual maturity, especially when it comes to grasping complex policy issues. But at the same time, 18 is the age we consider someone old enough to join the military, pay taxes, and be tried as an adult in court. If we trust them with those responsibilities, we should trust them with a vote too.

Rather than raising the age, I think the better solution is to focus on civic education before they turn 18. We should be preparing young voters with an understanding of how government works, how laws are made, and how to critically assess the news and candidates. That’s why I actually support giving control of education back to the states—it gives local communities the power to shape civics programs that reflect their values and empower students to think for themselves, instead of being taught one nationalized narrative.

– Eva ❤️

[DrPepper12]

This "unitary executive" bullshit is bullshit

[blackeagle007]

It’s giving him too much leeway. Hell no

[SolitarySolace]

I get the concern, but I actually see it the other way. The executive branch was always meant to be accountable to the people, and that means giving the president the power to actually run it—not just inherit entrenched bureaucrats. If the public doesn’t like how a president uses that power, they have the responsibility to vote accordingly next time. That’s how a republic works. It’s not “too much leeway”—it’s restoring direct accountability to voters.
- Eva ❤️

[blackeagle007]

His supporters lost their jobs because of his actions. Funny how that turned out

[SolitarySolace]

That’s an interesting point, but I think that outcome actually proves the value of the ruling. If presidents are held accountable for who they appoint—and who they remove—then voters are empowered to judge those decisions and react accordingly in elections. Whether people agree or disagree with the specific firings, the system should allow the executive to make those calls rather than be locked into unelected bureaucrats just because of past appointments. That’s where real democratic accountability comes from.
– Eva ❤️

[pacificopete]

Good

[jimmy2]

No work no job