The Supreme Court decided 5 to 4. Roberts and Kavanaugh went with the executive does not have the power to interfere with the FED.
From the Court, you never know which combination will come to their senses.
1 Like
That’s not what it said at all. They said she hasn’t been given a chance to respond and that if that is done then they will reevaluate whether he has the power.
5-4 decision.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who wrote the majority opinions in both cases on Monday, rejected what he described as the administration’s “halfhearted” contention that Ms. Cook had received a fair or due process when the president posted about her removal on social media.That will not do,” wrote the chief justice, who was joined by Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh and the three liberal justices. “At minimum, Cook was entitled to some explanation of the evidence at issue, some avenue for a response.”
And Trump, claiming victory, says the vote was merely “procedural” and says he will fire her:
***Trump Renews Threat to Fire Fed Governor in Wake of Court Loss***The president promised to “take appropriate action immediately” against Lisa D. Cook, a Fed governor.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/29/us/politics/trump-fire-fed-governor-cook.html
7 Likes
@FOOLME45 You are correct. The left leaning press wants people running around as if chickens with their heads cut off.
The court made a clear distinction that the FED was independent of the executive. He could not fire at will.
Becareful with the NYT. It will torment the believers.
The precedent was Humphrey’s Executer that had been in place for over 90 years. That decision was unanimous, ruling that FDR couldn’t fire an FTC Commissioner solely because of ideological differences.
Why is it important? Congress has determined that no more than 3 of the 5 FTC Commissioners can be from the same political party. Currently, there are only two FTC Commissioners remaining, both Republicans. There’s little chance that the current executive will fulfill his responsibilities and fully staff the agency. So, why is it important to let him do this?
Checks and balances. Our government doesn’t work without them.
7 Likes
That is a separate case that does not affect the FED.
@bjurasz was referring to the other decision from today. The ruling that upheld JTT’s firing of FTC Commissioner Slaughter.
You missed one -
3. They support serial sexual assault predators.
Judging by the rise of Andrew Tate type dudes, we can’t discount #3.
5 Likes
That is not the court’s job. You know that. Put your head back on your shoulders.
The point in the prior case the executive can not be diminished in his or her power by the guardrails that were set up for firing employees. The FED is seen as separate from that. Independent from that.
This is referring to voters, not the court. Pull your head out.
5 Likes
Really, you are turning this into politics? Surprise. No wonder threads get yanked.
The riffraff keep screwing around. At least you are in good company, the NYTs has people worked up with crud.
PS I was a D. I do not miss you guys. I am not an R, won’t be. But the Ds are much more worthless than they can face.
Maybe a small fringe, I think the majority simply realized the Democratic Party is moving very far left, hence the recent results in New York. We know from history socialism and communism don’t work.
2 Likes
These are separate arguments from whether these agency appointments are ultimately overseen by the executive branch. Congress can pass a law requiring the President to fill these positions in a timely manner. We have three branches of govt, apparently now 4 with the FED, we don’t need another.
Roberts addressed why Humphrey did not apply citing the growth and expansion of the FTC and sheer scope of the economy it now oversees. I really don’t care much for the clearly political decisions of the FTC. As part of the rural broadband rollout, they could have opted to use starlink, saving the tax payer money and opted against it solely because of a democratic 3-2 majority.
Absolute much?
Most Americans like Medicare.
Medicare is socialized medicine.
Will/do you use Medicare? Your parents?
12 Likes
I always picture someone who does not work saying this.
You hit us over the head with that, but the purpose of higher taxes is to incentivize reinvestment in factories, labor productivity, and R&D.
Your low tax regime stymies reinvestment working with only a 21% corporate tax.
GDP growth since 1981 has been historically sluggish. The 1949 to 1980 period had much higher growth rates. Instead we have been investing in China, and economies of scale in China. We need economies of scale here.
Boys who are in this thread, try to tell the progressives we need smokestacks. Good luck. We are wasting our time with them.
1 Like
Funny, I always think the same thing about people wanting the benefits of other’s toil.
I work you eat, right comrade?
2 Likes
These concepts do not make us socialists or communists. It might be the laziest argument I’ve ever heard. Wealthy societies can and do provide social safety nets. But, what is being preached now is the seizure of wealth, capitalism is evil and redistribution of assets on a grand scale.
The reality is the best way to get what you want is to deserve it.
4 Likes
Yeah, let’s not be lazy. No one labeled anyone socialist or anything else. So let’s actually read what is written.
Exactly, those social nets have elements of government control of economies and markets - not exclusively, elements of.
Unanswered question:
Do/will you use Medicare, a form of socialized medicine?
Would you prefer an alternative to medicare?
If yes, let’s hear it.
4 Likes
I think we are at a point where we either need to choose a largely free market system or just go single payer. The current arrangement is untenable. It still has nothing to do with socialism or communism and a larger goal of dividing society into oppressor and oppressed. Do you deny the left in this country is becoming more and more extreme and pulling the Democratic Party in that direction?
1 Like
Sorry, not following “nothing to do.”
Is not current Medicare closer to socialist medicine than “free market system”?
Is not “single payer” even more so closer to socialist medicine than current Medicare?
It’s not really all or nothing, there are degrees of free market capitalism and more socialist policies having more government control.
Since you see single payer as one preferred path, we are now even more comrades.
4 Likes
I don’t know nor do I care much about your political views. Few people really understand the differences between the isms. As a country, we have been successful by letting individuals pursue for the most part their own decisions with their capital. We can support public initiatives like Medicare and Medicaid, which we have and do. Our ability to do so is a byproduct of wealth generated in the private sector.
It is not an endorsement of socialism or communism. If you believe as I do that most capital is better spent in private va public hands but that things like Medicare and Medicaid are worthwhile, then yes we agree.
Let’s move on, this is boring and odd to me that so much time is spent on an investing board extolling the virtues of public control of private assets.
2 Likes
The current state if affairs is proving capitalism doesn’t work either. Corruption, it ruins all economic models.
5 Likes