It says that judges can't force an official who would be removed to stay in office while their court proceeding is taking place.
In other words, it used to be that Trump wanted to remove someone, that person stays in office until they lose the court case (or remain in office if win).
Now with the court's decision, the person gets taken out of office while their court case is being heard.
It's good news but not really the good news as stated by the above tweet.
“Because the Constitution vests the executive power in the President, see Art. II, §1, cl. 1, he may remove without cause executive officers who exercise that power on his behalf, subject to narrow exceptions recognized by our precedents, see Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U. S.197, 215−218 (2020),” the Supreme Court’s decision said.
“The stay also reflects our judgment that the Government faces greater risk of harm from an order allowing are moved officer to continue exercising the executive power than a wrongfully removed officer faces from being unable to perform her statutory duty,” the Supreme Court said.
Not really ...
It says that judges can't force an official who would be removed to stay in office while their court proceeding is taking place.
In other words, it used to be that Trump wanted to remove someone, that person stays in office until they lose the court case (or remain in office if win).
Now with the court's decision, the person gets taken out of office while their court case is being heard.
It's good news but not really the good news as stated by the above tweet.
Hopefully if they're always rejected that the lawsuits will stop, yes.
Are they always rejected?
Supreme Court just said :
“Because the Constitution vests the executive power in the President, see Art. II, §1, cl. 1, he may remove without cause executive officers who exercise that power on his behalf, subject to narrow exceptions recognized by our precedents, see Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U. S.197, 215−218 (2020),” the Supreme Court’s decision said.
“The stay also reflects our judgment that the Government faces greater risk of harm from an order allowing are moved officer to continue exercising the executive power than a wrongfully removed officer faces from being unable to perform her statutory duty,” the Supreme Court said.
So they are going to argue he can't ?
Why is the removed official assumed to be female??