In a landmark 7-2 ruling, the United States Supreme Court has decided that the administrative law “judges” (ALJs) who serve within the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and other federal agencies aren’t actually constitutional because they’re appointed by staff members rather than the president or department heads.
As clearly laid out in the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution, there are certain protocols that must take place in the appointment of “Officers of the United States,” a class of government officials that Justice Elena Kagan stated are “distinct from mere employees.”
In the case of ALJs at the SEC, such persons must be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate in order for them to actually qualify as such “Officers.” Only lower-ranking officers can be appointed by the president without the Senate, by department heads, or by the courts – which isn’t the case with ALJs.
“The SEC has statutory authority to enforce the nation’s securities laws. One way it can do so is by instituting an administrative proceeding against an alleged wrongdoer,” Kagan stated, adding that, “By law, the Commission may itself preside over such a proceeding. But the Commission also may, and typically does, delegate that task to an ALJ.”
“An ALJ assigned to hear an SEC enforcement action has extensive powers” that include gathering evidence, issuing subpoenas, examining witnesses, and imposing sanctions, she added. “As that list suggests, an SEC ALJ exercises authority comparable to that of a federal district judge conducting a bench trial.”
Since decisions made by ALJs are binding even when the Commission chooses not to review them, this unilateral action qualifies ALJs as officers of the United States, as defined by the Constitution. And as such, they must be appointed and confirmed through proper legal means, which is currently not the case.”
But wait –how, then, do the kangaroo vaccine “courts” operate within constitutional bounds? Vaccine court “judges” are similarly appointed to make critical rulings about vaccine injuries, though none of them are appointed in accordance with these guidelines. Does this mean that it’s time for their legitimacy to face a review by the Supreme Court?
This would seem to be the logical next-step, seeing as how vaccine “courts” have long functioned as a bail-out system for vaccine corporations – which represent the only industry in the world that’s never held liable for injury and death caused by its products, by the way.
Vaccine “courts” were established as part of the infamous National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, which came to be back in 1986 following a stream of lawsuits from parents of vaccine-injured children against vaccine companies. Passed by then-President Ronald Reagan, the new rules would shield the vaccine industry from such lawsuits, instead sending them to newly-established vaccine “courts.”
“It was supposed to be a friendly, fast alternative program that didn’t require the protections plaintiffs would have in civil litigation,” wrote Jenna Greene in an article originally published for The National Law Journal (which has since been archived).
“It’s the complete opposite,” she added.
Since tens of thousands of children are now being harmed by vaccines without consequence, this issue is far more pressing. The Supreme Court needs to take a very close look at the concept behind vaccine “courts” and why they were established in the first place. It surely has nothing to do with promoting childhood safety, and everything to do with vaccine companies protecting their profit cow.
For more news about corruption in the vaccine industry, including its routine abuse of vaccine “court” to cover up its crimes, explore RuleBySecrecy.com.
Sources for this article include:Submit a correction >>