This is what I don’t understand either. John Roberts said:
Subordinates who exercise the President’s power are subject to removal by him. Then, and only then, can they remain accountable to the President, and the President to the people
Like, what? What sense does this make? Does this not objectively make it NOT independent? Does this not objectively destroy the separation of powers? Why is an independent agency accountable to the president? Aren’t they there to serve the people only and not one person in the white house? How are they exercising the “presidents power?” The president(very purposefully) is not supposed to have that power. They do. That’s… kinda the point. Isn’t that like the definition of an independent agency? I don’t understand what he’s even trying to say here.
This is what I don’t understand either. John Roberts said:
Like, what? What sense does this make? Does this not objectively make it NOT independent? Does this not objectively destroy the separation of powers? Why is an independent agency accountable to the president? Aren’t they there to serve the people only and not one person in the white house? How are they exercising the “presidents power?” The president(very purposefully) is not supposed to have that power. They do. That’s… kinda the point. Isn’t that like the definition of an independent agency? I don’t understand what he’s even trying to say here.