When a BoD fires a CEO, the CEO gets a lawyer and threatens litigation against the company and the directors. So, the rationale for firing the CEO is put “on trial”, if the matter is not settled prior to the lawsuit being filed or adjudicated.
Even if the matter is settled, the back and forth between the company’s lawyers and the ex-CEO’s lawyers resembles a trial with claims and counter-claims flying every which way.
Donald Trumps’ “You’re Fired!” is total fantasy in our litigious society.
I like Will’s plan because it allows the conservatives to say that they are NOT impeaching BHO, just clarifying some of his executive actions, similar to the way Democrat claims of Executive Privilege have been settled by the Courts.
1. That's because the CEO who is fired by the company now has legal standing to file a lawsuit on the basis of some kind of financial loss that he can demonstrate.
2. The CEO usually has no recourse in a court of law in a case like this because the CEOs terms of employment are spelled out in a contract with the company. Courts will rarely issue a ruling on the law that overrides the terms of a legally binding contract signed between two parties. Yes, you heard that right ... the terms of a legal, enforceable contract will almost always override the law in a court case.
Go back and see what happened to former U.S. Senator and New Jersey governor Jon Corzine when he was the CEO of Goldman Sachs and got involved in a dispute with the leadership of the company. One day he showed up at the office in his limousine and he simply wasn't allowed into the building. The told him to 'eff off ... and 'eff off he did.