They are part of the executive branch, but the law governs and constrains the behavior of the executive in managing them.
You can’t even say that Congress is solely the source of those constraints since the laws creating and governing these agencies were signed by… the president!
Most of these agencies have already been challenged in court and the Constitutionality of their structure and governance affirmed.
I agree. Taking trump to court for not carrying out existing law is a winning case. Saying he can’t replace X person because they are in an independent branch is not going to hold up. And I suspect they know that and want the court to rule on it.
Unless someone can make an argument that they actually report to congress.
Part of the executive power in the US is that the president influences the judicial branch, and ultimately the judicial branch is going to determine who gets to do what. They do this in many ways, a big one being they can prioritize any case they want, and simply decline to even hear certain ones. So if the president wants to do something, congress pushes back and challenges it and it goes to court, the president can effectively “get away with it” as long as the judiciary is fine with it
The president influences the judicial branch by appointing its members. There are now lots of federal judges, and several Supreme Court justices, appointed by Trump during his first term, who seem happy to allow Trump to do whatever he wants to do.
Certainly that's not universal. Some Trump appointees will likely balk when Trump goes too far in their estimation. But this is what happens when the GOP politicizes their judicial appointments.
Sure, in an ideal world. These folks all attend the same parties, and by many accounts seemingly think the same thoughts, which is pretty wild!
All three branches are now run by ideologues. There is no independent thought. There may be independence on paper, and on that we would agree. But the situation here in reality isn’t really related to what’s on paper. In fact these folks mean to ignore all the current laws and just do whatever the fuck they want and I’m not making that up. I’m reporting what I see.
They don't have to be part of any branch. The usual branches are descriptive concepts. (Or they can be part of the executive branch yet still not be part of the "unitary executive" part. The law allows for any kind of exemptions and special-casing.)
They're not "accountable to nobody". Assuming they have the votes, congress can revoke any law, at any time, for any reason. And typically laws specifying the appointment of specific people also have provisions for removing that person.
The reason for this is stability. Congress, businesses, international allies, and most US citizens typically don't want things to dramatically change every new presidential administration. And the primary way to ensure that stability is to make it so the same people are working in various government offices from administration to administration. And I think people are quickly learning why that stability is desirable, as the current administration attempts to dismantle it with no consideration for the consequences.
Friend, I think I see your concern, and I may have an answer. Most of the bureaucracy is apolitical. However, the heads and higher-ups of each agency are appointed by the currently in-office politicians.
So the upper management is composed of political appointments. And like any other organization, the upper management has considerable discretion in setting priorities.
re: "politically selective law enforcement" is not a good thing, because laws are one of the things that are supposed to constrain politicians.
If it’s that clear will it be easy to take this to the Supreme Court?