> The NLRB is governed by a five-person board and a general counsel, all of whom are appointed by the president with the consent of the Senate. Board members are appointed for five-year terms and the general counsel is appointed for a four-year term. The general counsel acts as a prosecutor and the board acts as an appellate quasi-judicial body from decisions of 36 administrative law judges, as of November 2023.[4] The NLRB is headquartered at 1015 Half St. SE, Washington, D.C., and it has over 30 regional, sub-regional, and residential offices throughout the United States.
> Why would real Russian hackers not do anything to obscure their ip?
Why would the fox bother hiding the hole someone dug for it under the henhouse?
Its also worth noting that the NLRB has a proposed budget of $320M for the the 2025 fiscal year and a total of around 1,300 employees [1].
I'm a strong proponent of small government and don't know enough about the NLRB to say if I would find them useful, but that is well within the range of a small federal department today.
NLRB is a very important agency that I have known others to personally utilize because abuses of labor laws in the private sector, particularly poorly paid labor, is fairly common. These workers may face unfair treatment or wage theft, and the reason companies do it is because workers have very few genuine avenues of recourse. The NLRB is one of those few avenues of recourse.
Yes. And the current precedent is very clear that these independent agencies are constitutional.
The current court has not, yet, overturned that precedent. There is lots of reason to believe they will, in an extremely contentious ruling. But for now they haven’t.
We are going to find out one way or another though because this admin is pushing hard up against the question.
Of course it’s also pushing hard up on the question of if the courts can constrain it at all so the grade school understanding of separation of powers is real.
> Yes. They are either in the legislative, executive, or judicial branch.
That’s not what independent means here.
Most independent agencies are part of the executive branch (some are part of the legislative and judiciary but they are the exception).
They are independent because congress gave the president limited power in their ability to dismiss the agency head and its members. These agencies have some regulatory authority which Congress has vested them on purpose.
You might argue under the unitary executive theory of law that these agencies are actually under the control of the president and the current Supreme Court (for what it’s worth) might even agree with you.
I might argue that it’s a complete travestissement of the constitution spirit and intent pushed forward by people who wish to dismantle the American republic and replace it by an authoritarian regime. But that’s on me.
Indeed the meaning of independent is more limited. But what wants to be implied by the media and posters here - the reason why the article leads with this, is to suggest these are groups that cannot be commanded by the president and his staff.
Well, according to what congress wanted when they were founded, this is neither false nor misleading and judicial precedents until now have agree with that.
The idea they are under the control of the president and his staff is a novelty (and a disgrace in my humble opinion) but given the sorry state of the Supreme Court anything is possible.
The NLRB is one of many independent agencies of the executive branch created by Congrees, and they don't report to anyone except for their own boards. The president and Congress have influence over the boards but no direct control over the agency. The idea that the president can just ignore these laws because of a "unitary executive" theory is authoritarian bullshit.
And the concern probably isn't Russian hackers, it's American hackers spoofing their IP address. Also you are ignoring that DOGE made the server public when it wasn't supposed to be.
> The idea that the president can just ignore these laws because of a "unitary executive" theory is authoritarian bullshit.
The question of whether the president is violating congresses power by downsizing or neutering an agency they have created is something democrats should pursue.
But no - there are no people outside the org chart. That’s just dysfunctional, no man can serve two masters, etc.
If it were true than congress can create agencies for themselves with more power than is granted them in the constitution.
This is still authoritarian bullshit. Your argument is that you think independent agencies are a bad idea, and therefore it's a-okay for Trump to simply ignore 80 years of law and Supreme Court rulings.
More generally, nobody in the executive branch serves any master. They serve the law and are legally obligated to refuse and report illegal orders. The idea that they serve Master Donald Trump (or Vizier Elon Musk), and that illegal orders must be enforced because it is Trump's will, is precisely why Kilmar Abrego Garcia was illegally deported and why Trump is musing about doing the same thing to US citizens.
I think a lot of Supreme Court cases will come out of this administration, I just don’t think the sovereignty of independent federal agencies is going to be one of them.
> > The small, independent federal agency
> I still don’t think this notion holds up.
What notion doesn't hold up? That a federal agency can be small & independent?
> Which branch are they under, who do they report to?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Labor_Relations_Board
> The NLRB is governed by a five-person board and a general counsel, all of whom are appointed by the president with the consent of the Senate. Board members are appointed for five-year terms and the general counsel is appointed for a four-year term. The general counsel acts as a prosecutor and the board acts as an appellate quasi-judicial body from decisions of 36 administrative law judges, as of November 2023.[4] The NLRB is headquartered at 1015 Half St. SE, Washington, D.C., and it has over 30 regional, sub-regional, and residential offices throughout the United States.
> Why would real Russian hackers not do anything to obscure their ip?
Why would the fox bother hiding the hole someone dug for it under the henhouse?
Its also worth noting that the NLRB has a proposed budget of $320M for the the 2025 fiscal year and a total of around 1,300 employees [1].
I'm a strong proponent of small government and don't know enough about the NLRB to say if I would find them useful, but that is well within the range of a small federal department today.
[1] https://www.nlrb.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/pages/n...
NLRB is a very important agency that I have known others to personally utilize because abuses of labor laws in the private sector, particularly poorly paid labor, is fairly common. These workers may face unfair treatment or wage theft, and the reason companies do it is because workers have very few genuine avenues of recourse. The NLRB is one of those few avenues of recourse.
> That a federal agency can be small & independent?
Yes. They are either in the legislative, executive, or judicial branch.
And before you send more Wikipedia links, be aware there is a long history and chain of Supreme Court cases about this question.
> Why would the fox bother hiding the hole someone dug for it under the henhouse?
Still spreading the Russian asset conspiracy theory? Why wouldn’t they want to hide their crimes from future enemies?
Yes. And the current precedent is very clear that these independent agencies are constitutional.
The current court has not, yet, overturned that precedent. There is lots of reason to believe they will, in an extremely contentious ruling. But for now they haven’t.
We are going to find out one way or another though because this admin is pushing hard up against the question.
Of course it’s also pushing hard up on the question of if the courts can constrain it at all so the grade school understanding of separation of powers is real.
> Yes. They are either in the legislative, executive, or judicial branch.
That’s not what independent means here.
Most independent agencies are part of the executive branch (some are part of the legislative and judiciary but they are the exception).
They are independent because congress gave the president limited power in their ability to dismiss the agency head and its members. These agencies have some regulatory authority which Congress has vested them on purpose.
You might argue under the unitary executive theory of law that these agencies are actually under the control of the president and the current Supreme Court (for what it’s worth) might even agree with you.
I might argue that it’s a complete travestissement of the constitution spirit and intent pushed forward by people who wish to dismantle the American republic and replace it by an authoritarian regime. But that’s on me.
Indeed the meaning of independent is more limited. But what wants to be implied by the media and posters here - the reason why the article leads with this, is to suggest these are groups that cannot be commanded by the president and his staff.
My only claim is that is false and misleading.
> My only claim is that is false and misleading.
Well, according to what congress wanted when they were founded, this is neither false nor misleading and judicial precedents until now have agree with that.
The idea they are under the control of the president and his staff is a novelty (and a disgrace in my humble opinion) but given the sorry state of the Supreme Court anything is possible.
> The idea they are under the control of the president and his staff is a novelty
Not true. Do you know about how these agencies came to be? And the presidency under FDR?
The executive Power shall be vested in a President
Find a single phrase in the constitution about independent agencies.
> Still spreading the Russian asset conspiracy theory?
If something smells like shit everywhere you go, it's not a conspiracy to suggest checking the bottom of your shoe.
The NLRB is one of many independent agencies of the executive branch created by Congrees, and they don't report to anyone except for their own boards. The president and Congress have influence over the boards but no direct control over the agency. The idea that the president can just ignore these laws because of a "unitary executive" theory is authoritarian bullshit.
And the concern probably isn't Russian hackers, it's American hackers spoofing their IP address. Also you are ignoring that DOGE made the server public when it wasn't supposed to be.
> The idea that the president can just ignore these laws because of a "unitary executive" theory is authoritarian bullshit.
The question of whether the president is violating congresses power by downsizing or neutering an agency they have created is something democrats should pursue.
But no - there are no people outside the org chart. That’s just dysfunctional, no man can serve two masters, etc.
If it were true than congress can create agencies for themselves with more power than is granted them in the constitution.
The Congress can make laws. That's like ... their whole thing.
This is still authoritarian bullshit. Your argument is that you think independent agencies are a bad idea, and therefore it's a-okay for Trump to simply ignore 80 years of law and Supreme Court rulings.
More generally, nobody in the executive branch serves any master. They serve the law and are legally obligated to refuse and report illegal orders. The idea that they serve Master Donald Trump (or Vizier Elon Musk), and that illegal orders must be enforced because it is Trump's will, is precisely why Kilmar Abrego Garcia was illegally deported and why Trump is musing about doing the same thing to US citizens.
I think a lot of Supreme Court cases will come out of this administration, I just don’t think the sovereignty of independent federal agencies is going to be one of them.
I guess we will wait and see.