in a ruling approving the firing of board heads, the panel ruled that the decision was overturned to stop from disenfranchising the voters. no legal basis for the decision, just it is what the voters want because they elected him. no discussion of precedent, laws or any of that.. think about that, this judge just set precedent that anything disenfranchises voters by hampering the President’s ability to govern is not legal Am I missing something here? and if he breaks it bad enough, nobody can make him fix it so he gets to do whatever the heck he wants independent of the constitution? so trump gives nuclear codes to russia, they explode them all in their silos and subs, no treason trial because the damage is done and can't be undone? wth kind of logic is that So if voters elect a guy that says he is dictator he gets to be dictator so the voters aren't disenfranchised? 'The president's removal power is the rule, not the exception': DOJ says Trump can fire Biden-appointed civil service board chair, and appellate court agrees — again A federal appeals court will leave in place an earlier ruling allowing the president to terminate the head of a board that reviews firings of federal employees after the Justice Department argued that staying its order would effectively disenfranchise those who voted for President Donald Trump. A three-judge panel on the U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Columbia had previously rejected a request to stay its decision allowing President Trump to fire Cathy A. Harris from the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). Mirroring the appellate panel’s Friday tally, the judges voted 2-1 in rejecting a request to stay its Friday decision, which granted a stay of a lower court’s order that required Harris be returned to her role on the board. U.S. Circuit Judge Justin Walker, a Trump appointee, and U.S. Circuit Judge Karen L. Henderson, an appointee of George H.W. Bush, on Friday both voted in favor of staying the district court’s ruling, while U.S. Circuit Judge Patricia Millett, a Barack Obama appointee, dissented. Harris immediately requested a stay of the appeals court’s order pending her request that the case be presented to the court “en banc,” meaning all of the judges on the circuit. “As a panel of this Court explained in Dellinger v. Bessent — when staying an order reinstating another principal executive officer whom the President removed — and as Judge Henderson reiterated in this case, ‘it is impossible to unwind the days during which a President is directed to recognize and work with an agency head whom he has already removed,'” the DOJ’s 12-page filing opposing both Harris’ second stay request and her request for a rehearing en banc states. “Judge Walker similarly recognized that ‘[t]he forcible reinstatement of a presidentially removed principal officer disenfranchises voters by hampering the President’s ability to govern.'”
