306
Trump fires US attorney who told border agents to follow law on immigration raids
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2025
306 points (99.7% liked)
politics
25872 readers
3637 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What an idiotic system in which the president can just fire pretty much anyone. Gotta be a special kind of stupid to come up with this.
It's even dumber than that. He's firing people illegally, and then scotus comes in and and retroactively says it's okay.
Or sometimes they say it's definitely illegal but they'll let it stand anyway.
SCOTUS will conveniently say "oopsie, I guess those firings were illegal after all". In the meantime, those people are still fired, Trump still appointed replacements, and those replacements are now protected against being fired if somehow a Democrat accidentally wins the Presidency again....
Just as protected as they are right now. If there are no penalties for the firing, and the firing can’t be undone, then is it really illegal? The only thing keeping a Dem president from doing it is a desire to follow the law.
You're overestimating this Supreme Court's consistency. They would have no problem ruling the other way in an identical scenario.
There are no laws, we made the whole thing up
It's like watching a burglar, in midday, break into a bunch of houses and set them on fire, while the police and firefighters just stand there and say "that's illegal"
What a Supreme clownshow
He can’t. The people he is “firing” are straight up rolling over and allowing themselves to get fucked. At this point they deserve whatever they get.
This is the fringe legal theory called unitary executive becoming not so fringe at all. In fact it seems to be headed towards firmly mainstream, precedential status.
Article II, section 1:
Everyone used to think this sentence was pretty harmless. It was put in to say there's one President at the top, instead of an executive committee (which was proposed and debates at the convention).
But to the unitary executive theorists, that one sentence actually means that all of the executive Power must flow through the President, and there can be no executive Power that does not.
The previous thinking is that this power was only talking about the powers specifically listed in Article II, which is not a lot. (Veto, cabinet nominations, pardons, and a few other things). And that if Congress chose to delegate part of its Article I power to the executive branch by passing a law, it could put whatever limitations, checks, and balances it wanted to.
So what you're saying is unitary executive theory is a fancy name for a dictatorship?
It certainly seems to be going that way. If Trump can just choose not to spend money that Congress appropriated... Well, that's a lot more power than even George III had when Thomas Jefferson wrote out that listicle of 28 reasons why he sucked.
They didn't anticipate our level of stupidity
They only anticipated white land lords voting. But then again, that's exactly who voted for this.
And then the people gave this job to the "you're fired" guy from TV and didn't think he'd try to fire people. Twice.