The article discusses the importance of maintaining neutrality and principled analysis within the rule of law, particularly in relation to the courts. It highlights a recent Supreme Court decision that allows President Trump to dismiss members of independent boards, which the author views as a troubling abandonment of core legal principles. This act is perceived as politicization of judicial decision-making. Furthermore, it addresses the 'unitary executive' doctrine, arguing that the limits on presidential removal authority are not merely theoretical but have significant implications for governance and accountability.
One of the most vital components of the rule of law is a commitment to neutral, principled analysis in which standards are adhered to and similar cases lead to similar conclusions.
The Supreme Court's seeming abandonment of the neutrality principle is so distressing, as demonstrated in its recent decision allowing President Trump to fire board members.
The 'unitary executive' doctrine suggests that all officials exercising executive power should be answerable to the president, impacting practical governance.
#supreme-court #rule-of-law #neutrality-principle #unitary-executive-doctrine #presidential-authority
Collection
[
|
...
]