Supreme Court seems poised to start dismantling the bureaucracy and return power to the people

By Gary Abernathy

Sotomayor: ‘You’re asking us to destroy the structure of government.’ Yes! That is exactly what we need to happen.

Monday’s hint of things to come from the U.S. Supreme Court may be a case of wishful thinking, more cautiously filed under the heading of “Too Good to Be True.” But if the tea leaves are being correctly read, one of the biggest steps could soon be taken in dismantling our unelected entrenched bureaucracy — where the real power lies in the U.S.

Media outlets — especially those of the far-left (formerly mainstream) variety — could not restrain their sense of alarm when they reported Monday that the Supreme Court “appeared poised to make it easier for President Trump to fire independent government officials despite laws meant to insulate them from political pressure in what would be a major expansion of presidential power,” as the New York Times put it.

What the Times considers “insulation” from political pressure is in fact unaccountability to the public and our elected representatives. Throughout the decades, Congress has expanded the “protections” for federal workers, including those in charge of or serving on the boards and commissions of key agencies even if they were appointed by the president.

As the Times reminded us later in the same story, Congress “intentionally created such bipartisan commissions (like the FTC) — made up of experts who could not be fired by the president without cause — to ensure that policy decisions would be made free of politics.”

“Free of politics?”

Why should any decision-making in government be “free of politics?”

“Politics” is, in fact, the greatest tool of the public in wielding power and making sure the government is “of, by and for” the people.

It is through politics that the general public makes its wishes known, particularly at the ballot box, but also through vocal and monetary support of candidates, through door-to-door campaigning on behalf of a favorite political hopeful, through throwing people out of office who aren’t living up to expectations.

Why should any decision-making body in our democracy be “free of politics?”

On Monday, Chief Justice John Roberts called the court’s original 1935 decision, long considered precedent, “a dried husk” — in other words, something that has lost its intended purpose or relevance.

A different philosophy was expressed by liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor on Monday when she told a lawyer for the administration, “You’re asking us to destroy the structure of government,” and, as the Times paraphrased her comment, “to take away from Congress its ability to insulate independent agencies from political pressures.”

Yes! Yes, that’s exactly what the administration is asking for — to destroy the current structure of government, which allows unelected bureaucrats to make and enforce rules and regulations, all while operating under nearly unassailable job protections. Of course the president of the United States — who was elected by and is accountable to the public — should have the power to fire such people!

As D. John Sauer, the administration’s solicitor general, responded to Sotomayor, “In fact, our entire government will move toward accountability to the people.”

According to the Associated Press, another liberal justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson, said that if the administration won the case, the president could “fire all the scientists and the doctors and the economists and the PhDs and replace them with loyalists and people who don’t know anything.”

Again — yes! Firing people he (or, someday, she) does not think is performing up to standards is precisely what the president should be able to do. As for “people who don’t know anything,” it’s unclear why Jackson thinks that the bureaucracy is not already heavily populated by people fitting that description.

While the current court case focuses primarily on the members of boards and commissions, it can be hoped that a decision affirming the president’s (or, by extension, a governor’s) power to fire such people would be taken as a clear sign that the days of near-complete job security for unelected bureaucrats in any capacity are nearing an end.

At the federal and state levels, bloated, unelected bureaucracies are the true powers behind the levers of government, what is conspiratorially called “the deep state.” It’s why populist movements favoring “term limits” for elected officials are so baffling — limiting the terms of officeholders elected by the people while unelected bureaucrats serve without interruption for decades is counterintuitive to good government.

And we already have term limits — they’re called “elections.” Yes, incumbents have an advantage at election time. But, as we witness with every election, they also get defeated. They are not invulnerable.

But we don’t need more laws designed to protect us from ourselves. People should be able to vote for someone for the same office for a lifetime, if they choose — as long as that choice must be reaffirmed at regular intervals (every two, four or six years, for example).

If the court rules as expected, the far-left (formerly mainstream) media will be aghast that a president — particularly the current president — can fire people serving under the executive branch who were previously considered “independent.”

But as anyone paying attention knows, there is no such thing as “non-partisan” or “apolitical” or “independent.” Everyone has an opinion, everyone has an agenda — some more benign than others, but no less real.

If predictions of the high court’s intentions turn out to be correct, it will be cause for celebration for anyone outside of Big Government devotees who think the bureaucracy should be unencumbered by those pesky elected officials. Better late than never. Bring it on.