Supreme Court ruling that threatens to paralyze the US government –

Supreme Court ruling that threatens to paralyze the US government –

NEW YORK – Today comes the verdict supreme court This case, if accepted, would cast doubt on the exercise of an essential part of American administrative activities: A government and congressional mandate under which independent federal agencies regulate various industries — Finance, energy, pollution limits, environmental protection standards, and workplace safety protection — Exercising relevant controls and punishing non-compliance.

The issue under discussion today concerns a disagreement between… George Jarexya far-right activist known for his radio talk shows and who also manages two investment funds (with assets of $24 million), and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the body that oversees financial markets, such as Consob in Italy. He was caught inflating the value of his assets in order to simultaneously inflate the commissions he charged investors, and was fined by the Securities and Exchange Commission, which also ordered him to implement lower commissions and impose limits on operations. Regular Financial Market Policing Activities Conducted by the Securities and Exchange Commission Since its inception in 1934, after the Great Crash of 1929 that caused the Great Depression of the 1930s, the need arose to supervise the stock exchange and suppress destabilizing fraud and abuses. .

Jarkeesi ignored the rulings and was barred from financial activity by the SEC. He not only appealed this decision in court, but also He said the way the SEC prosecutes financial fraud is unconstitutional. Similar reasons have long been rejected by judges, but this time the Trump financier found support from a very special judicial seat: the federal 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, in New Orleans. here A judiciary consisting of three justices appointed by three Republican presidents (Trump, Bush and Reagan) ruled the appeal founded on a two-to-one vote (Eugene Davis, appointed by Reagan, strongly dissociated himself). Not only that, but the two justices who sent the case to the Supreme Court never asserted that, beyond the question of substance, the powers exercised by the SEC through its internal judicial bodies are unconstitutional on three different views: Because they remove judicial power. The defendant’s right to a fair trial by jury was established by the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution and why The federal agency would interfere with the powers vested in Congress and the President of the United States.

See also  In the United States, Congress has attacked big names on social media for attacking Sapona

The SEC has exercised these powers with congressional authorization for 90 years and no one has ever had any objections. The Supreme Court, which has always rejected such arguments, should stay in line. Markets depend on the trust and credibility of institutions: Disarming the “policeman” and demanding that every violation found be prosecuted means opening the way for abuses.

But times have changed, and Donald Trump has reshaped the constitutional judiciary, which now has a strong conservative majority. For some time, he and the far right have attacked the so-called “administrative state,” which is close to the state deep country And the structures that guarantee security, under the pretext that they have too broad discretionary powers and, first of all, that they are not faithful to the Trumpian act. Agencies that have always performed core government functions are Under Attack: From reducing the powers of the EPA (environmental protection) to the Republican attempt to weaken the IRS (the American tax system)(responsible for combating tax evasion) by significantly reducing its funding.

Now, as the judiciary considers the attacks against two other agencies — the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and FINRA, which oversees the activity of securities brokers and dealers — with the possibility of a possible outcome in the Supreme Court. Legal and historical arguments are widespread from the right to try to convince the top justices to limit the power of the agencies. Editorial board for Wall Street Journal He sided with Jarkeesi, arguing that he had not harmed the public interest as the SEC claimed, but only the private interest of the clients he defrauded, and should therefore be tried in regular court.

See also  The body of Elisa Fletcher in yellow was found in the United States. Stop the man. Motivation is required - time

Meanwhile, key conservatives in the Federalist Society are relaunching an old theory: unitary executive power. In essence, they suggest that from the birth of the republic, the Founding Fathers wanted to grant broad powers to the president, including the powers to appoint and fire officials. Then the systems evolved in another way, but it was time to go back to the basics.

The Supreme Court risks opening a highway that leads to A Trumpian project that, once it returns to the White House, will on the one hand want to take away the independence of federal agencies whose independence constitutes an essential part of the system of checks and balances based on American democracy; On the other hand, dismissing and replacing not only 4,000 senior officials who fall within the mechanism of the spoils system, but 50,000 public employees: dismissing all senior leadership in public administrations and replacing them with officials who declare personal loyalty to the president.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *