Originally published at: SCOTUS Forced To Decide Whether It Will Keep Fed Independent of Trump - TPM – Talking Points Memo
The Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments this morning on whether President Donald Trump can lawfully remove Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook while a criminal investigation against Cook, brought by Trump’s retribution-seeking Department of Justice, is pending in court. The case is about whether the administration provided Cook with adequate due process before attempting…
Mr. Powell, sitting there, reminding the Supreme Six that they too can have a backbone.
9 Likes
Bold of you to presume that all, or even a majority, of those you refer to want to stand up to this administration. Perhaps this instance will prove a step too far, but even a decision which preserves Fed independence would be a fig leaf over the lengthy history of regressive decisions built one a foundation of perceived grievance.
Given the current majority’s history of decisions, this may prove to be the first time that their only standards being double-standards proves to be of any benefit.
5 Likes
My bet is, special carve out for independence of the Fed because those positions are largely held by folks friendly to Big Money, thus Federalist Society would want those folks in there and not easily fired by any future populist Democratic president. (Other independent agencies left controlled by the executive)
Probably 7-2 (Alito and Thomas will always vote wrong)
Maybe 6-3 and Gorsuch writes his own dissent differing from the crazy in Thomas/Alito’s dissent.
5 Likes
“Could they do it consistent with their own apparent understanding of the scope of executive power and how the Constitution should be understood? No,” Peter Shane, a leading scholar in U.S. constitutional and administrative law, told TPM last winter. “But if the Court is willing to make up stuff about immunity, what else could it make it up? That’s what’s so destabilizing about the Roberts court — it just makes shit up.”
Oh boy, our question for the moment is what shit will the citizens receive from SCOTUS. The foul shit of a Fed governed by a whimsical, partly insane executive or the crazy shit of total nonsensical legal reasoning without underpinnings except what is in the minds of the increasingly crazy fascist 6.
The thing about crazy, it can go anywhere.
2 Likes
It won’t matter until 30 June, when they make this the second to last decision announcement, followed by the tariff decision.
Neither of these will go the way of settled law.
5 Likes
Justice Brown-Jackson is nailing John Sauer to the wall.
5 Likes
Sauer is talking so fast it is hard to follow him.
1 Like
Justice Jackson facetiously asks if Cook’s opportunity to post on social media was her chance to be heard in the public about the allegations against her.
Sauer says yes.
So, everyone has to have an X account in order to defend themselves against crazed, unwarranted accusations?
2 Likes
Certainly a viable option. Given the Court’s willingness to find “narrow” ways to decide matters but result in the ultimate question remaining unanswered it also wouldn’t surprise me to see them determine that the record isn’t fully developed so Cook can stay pending the results of the investigation, but avoid actually determining what “for cause” means in the context of the Fed.
Though Thomas would still likely dissents because he simply wants to see the world burn and/or needs a new RV.
2 Likes
I guess no Afternoon Memo today.
<<Alito asks, where does it end? If for cause implies in-office conduct, is Cook’s legal argument that there’s truly no private conduct that would constitute for cause removal? The line of questioning was based on lower courts findings in this case.
What about previous on-the-job sexual misconduct? What about the resurfacing of old evidence that the official in question loved Hitler and the KKK? Alito asked.
Clement’s response was the official would be impeached, and therefore would likely resign, but he said that those causes would likely not be grounds for presidential removal.>>
The hypocrisy is staggering. But par for the course.
Not when you have a trail of corruption and perversion like the Fascist 6.
1 Like
Here it is. It was posted at 10:09 a.m.
2 Likes
Guardian reporting that the conservative SC justices appear skeptical about the First Felon’s push to fire Cook.
2 Likes
I think Mr. Powell is reminding them that “the money” wants an independent Fed.
Cook’s attorney also reminded them what the “the money” wants toward the end, smart move:
Clement, Cook’s attorney, emphasized the unique importance of the Fed and its role in setting data-led monetary policy. He highlighted the Fed’s distinction even from other independent executive branch agencies and said it’s paramount that financial markets and the public believe the Fed is free from presidential coercion.
Clement’s arguments here uplift the justice’s past flirtations with building a case to preserve Federal Reserve independence, despite the Court’s decisions allowing Trump to remove other independent agency officials at-will.