Supreme Court takes sledgehammer to federal regulatory structure

Five Constitutional amendments we need:

1. Strike pardon power;

2. First sentence of Article II changed to: “The President shall execute the laws of the United States of America”;

3. Abolish the electoral college;

4. Congress may regulate money in politics; and

5. Congress may create independent agencies with charters of up to 25 years. (President still names and Senate still confirms appointments. But they can be insulated from “the executive Power.”)

Everything else, including judicial reform, expanding the House and implementing a wealth tax (1% over $100mm, 2% over $1bn, 3% over $10bn, 4% over $100bn and 5% over $1tn), can be done through statute.

What most people miss when reading court news headlines is that most cases are decided based on federal law not on the constitution. Laws of course can easily be changed by a majority of congress. If congress abdicated its power, the court is not the problem, congress is.

Here's a reliable alternate source. [1] I try to avoid single-sourcing on important news, since most outlets have a bias one way or the other.

1: https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/06/court-allows-trump-to-fir...

EDIT: adding that it's sad that people downvote an alternate source that is from an expert outlet. I don't think I've ever heard anyone claim SCOTUSblog is biased, and NPR has surely been credibly accused.

Even if you ignore the, frankly, incredible impact of this ruling on the very idea of a modern independent civil service, it is crazy to see this opinion come alongside another that protects the Fed from the exact same thing for reasons that very few learned people (conservative and liberal) buy. Understandably, applying the unitary executive theory to the Fed is basically a recipe for disaster, but they're just blatantly trying to have it both ways in a way that deeply undercuts the credibility of the current court's opinions. Afterall, if it's a disaster for the Fed it might also be a disaster for all the other agencies...

The mental gymnastics that jurists attempt to go through to justify their rulings as "principled" in some sense is just baffling to me. The right railed against "judicial activism" for years, but it is plainly obvious that is what is happening here (overturning precedent after precedent solely based on their current feelings), especially by giving credence to the "unitary executive" theory that obviously makes separation of powers a moot point when taken to its conclusion.

The executive branch, as the one tasked with "faithful execution of the laws", is really the only branch that actually does anything substantial. I mean, yes the Congress passes laws and the SC interprets them, but the only branch that can actually carry out those laws is the executive branch. These rulings by the SC basically say that the President can do whatever he wants because (a) he can't be prosecuted for any official actions, and (b) all regulatory decisions are now solely within his control.

Starting with Citizens United, this crop of SC justices will go down in infamy as some of the worst since Dred Scott. Let's hope we don't need another actual civil war to rectify their buffoonery.

Long Marchers spent like a half century wasting their lives, it turns out. Ahhhhh well, they’re nothing if not persistent.

It is funny that these things are done by """conservatives""". To be conservative means to conserve things, keep them as they are, and to develop them further guided by traditional values. These """conservatives""" are not conserving anything, they are destroying old institutions with the motivation to build an autocracy.