Below is my column in the New York Post on the historic ruling in Trump v. Slaughter, reinforcing the authority of presidents in managing the executive branch. After more than 90 years, Humphrey’s Executor is dead and Trump’s legacy is established on the expansion of presidential powers. The other winner is President Franklin D. Roosevelt who was right all along: he had the right to fire William E. Humphrey (right) as a commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission in 1933.
Here is the column:
On Monday, Donald Trump sealed one of the most lasting parts of his legacy. In Trump v. Slaughter, the Court reaffirmed and reinforced the authority of presidents to determine who will carry out the functions of the Executive Branch. In so doing, the Court overruled one of the long-standing limits of presidential power in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States.
Humphrey’s Executor is hardly a household name. Yet the demise of the 1935 case represents a seismic shift in the balance of power within our constitutional system.
In this case, the court decided that President Trump had the right to fire Rebecca Slaughter, a commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission.
For decades, scholars and jurists have questioned where the Court found the authority for Congress to create a hybrid creature like the FTC — part legislative and part executive, with officials protected from removal by a president.
Various presidents have chafed at this limiting doctrine. But Trump pushed aggressively against the precedent and appointed three justices who would prove critical in ending Humphrey’s Executor after more than 90 years.
In a separate case, Trump v. Cook, the Court ruled that the president could not fire Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors.
Both the win and the loss were vintage Trump. The win because he was unrelenting in his assertion of inherent powers.
The loss in part because he is equally unrelenting in his use of social media to carry out policy.
Chief Justice Roberts wrote that more than a tweet and conclusory letter is demanded in such a removal from the Federal Reserve, which has always held a unique position in the government and prior cases.
Roberts wrote, “would in effect transform the Federal Reserve’s for-cause protection into at-will employment — an interpretive leap out of step with the statute Congress enacted and our Nation’s tradition of central banking protected from political interference.”
That does not mean that Cook cannot be replaced, but it requires due process, not a “thank you for your attention.”
It is hard to overstate the transformation of the new executive branch during the Trump terms.
The Slaughter case follows the Loper Bright decision, which ended the huge deference given to government agencies “interpreting” law to their own ends.
Past Republican presidents have criticized the ““administrative state” that was iron-plated under the prior Chevron doctrine.
The result is that our government will remain markedly different from that of many of our allies, particularly the United Kingdom. In the UK, ministries operate with a considerable degree of independence and insularity. It is difficult for a prime minister to force through major changes when opposed by ministry civil servants.
The United States has long maintained that our elections have consequences and that presidents should be able to carry out the mandates of voters.
Trump came to power with a pledge to transform our government by making it smaller and more responsive, as well as to carry out sweeping reforms in areas such as immigration enforcement. He was stymied by lower courts imposing dozens of injunctions and even federal officials who gummed up the works.
The Court has cleared much of that away for the president, and he carried out a wholesale house cleaning of agencies.
It is important to remember that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If the next president is a Gavin Newsom or a Kamala Harris, the same powers will be used to reverse these policies.
The greatest danger, however, is the pledge of Democratic leaders to make the one impulsive change that could endanger the entire enterprise.
Various Democrats have called for packing of the Court with an instant liberal majority. Such a move would destroy an institution that has served as a critical moderating element in our constitutional system for 250 years.
Of course, Democrats did not balk at the Court reversing long-standing precedent when the results aligned with their views. Now, they would pack the Court to force through an agenda currently considered unconstitutional, including reversing many of the decisions in the last 10 years.
The truth is fully on display this week. This Court has exercised considerable independence. That includes repeatedly ruling against, and being repeatedly denounced by, this president.
The great philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville described this country as “a land of wonders, in which everything is in constant motion and every change seems an improvement.”
We will remain an impatient people, but the only thing that should not change is the constitutional framework for change, including the institutional integrity of the Court itself.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.“
I like both decisions, it doesn’t get more non-partisan than this, and it is reassuring that at least as it is currently constituted, SCOTUS is still functional. There is no appeasing insane, radicalized, spoiled children (of any age) and we shouldn’t bother trying. It’s clear that the modern left can’t win or excel in quite literally anything anything based on its merits. Funny how that trickles down huh?
It is partisan if you look at the three liberal justices who voted to keep the administrative state protected.
It’s as partisan as it gets. Plus it’s hypocritical. The court violated its own philosophy to “exempt” the Fed for the same reasons they did not exempt all the other agencies.
The Fed is ridiculously unconstitutional, and that complicates things. The correct decision is to get rid of the Fed.
The Federal Reserve is completely constitutional under Article I, which grants Congress full authority to create independent bodies without needing an amendment. Even James Madison shared your strict views until the War of 1812 proved him wrong, forcing him to grudgingly sign the Second National Bank into law in 1816. Modern “originalists” profess a strict interpretation of the text right up until it becomes an inconvenience—then they instantly abandon it for political expediency and pragmatism.
“The Federal Reserve is completely constitutional under Article I, which grants Congress full authority to create independent bodies without needing an amendment. ”
Then you would be able to cite ANYWHERE in the constitution where congress has that authority.
Congress has the power to peform very specific tasks listed in the constitution.
It also has the power to do those things that are essential to perform those tasks.
But everything that congress does is within the legislative, executive or judicial branch.
Congress can not create anything that is not within the executive judicial or legislative branchs.
It can nopt create within the executive anything not answerable to the president, withing the judiciary not answerable to the supreme court, and within the legislative not answerable to the congress.
Aside from the constitution – your entire concept is absurd. The constitution is not a suicide pact.
Congress can not itself undo the constitution by legislation,
nor can it create an agency to do so.
You have been channeling X’s nonsense history.
There was no central bank in the US prior to the Federal Reserve.
The First and 2nd Banks of the US were NOT central banks.
They were fully private banks that were allowed to have branches accross the country.
Today nearly all banks have branches accross state lines – but that was NOT allowed until very recently.
Most banks are chartered by states. All the First and 2nd Bank of the US were was federally chartered banks.
With respect to madison and X’s ludicrous argument.
The US had a brief and mild recession in 1812 – lasting only 6 months far milder than anything in the past 75 years.
The War of 1812 ended in 1814.
The 2nd Bank of the US was chartered in 1816 – while Madison’s views might have been influenced by the War – or just because presidents always want more power and always assume they will use it wisely, The FACT are the 2nd Bank of the US was never of any consequence.
It was formed long after the War of 1812, it only lasted 20 years, and Lincoln fought the entire civil war without a central bank.
The entirety of X’s claims regarding the end bank of the US is faux history.
The constitution grants congress the power to borrow.
It also grants congress the power to print money.
The latter is likely a huge mistake – regardless it is constitutional.
I would further note that the vast majority of “money” today is entirely outside of government.
Stocks and similar financial papers have all the attributes of money – they ARE MONEY.
Total US money supply today according to the Fed is 23T
The total stock of the top 10 US companies is 21T of the top 500 is 58T of all US companies is 236T
Government money is a tiny fraction of all money.
Sepoarately total Global Crypto is 2.1T – it may take a bit – but ultimately Cyrpto will displace the US dollar.
Next – ALL recessions and depressions have monetary causes.
Most of those in the 19th century were because the US had a bi-metal standard and congress CONSTANTLY misvalued gold and silver relative to each other, which ALWAYS creates a license for arbitragers to print money.
The creation of the FED eliminated the bimetal standard and was supposed to stabalize money supply, but the worst recessions and depressions in US history are POST Fed.
The Federal Reserve has accomplished nothing – it has not reduced the severity of the frequency of depressions and recessions.
Why in gods name would you trust X to get ANY facts right ?
Aside from X’s numerous historical errors, the core to his argument that Madison changed his mind about the constitutionality of a central bank, is entirely irrelevant.
The meaning of the constitution is NOT determined by what its authors thought 40 years later.
But what those who ratified it thought at the time of ratification.
You do not game statutory interpretation by the later views of the statutes authors.
Rep. Barr was instrumental in passing the most draconian drug laws in US history.
Later as a libertarian candidate he disowned and opposed the very laws he had been responsible for.
Those laws do not change because he changed his mind.
Rep Sensenbrenner was the lead author of the patriot act and later one of its most vociferous opponents
Yet the patriot act is still law despite Sensenbrenners later opposition
The constitution does not change because Madison changed.
It changes because it gets amended.
The U.S Supreme Court just created a “Deep State on Steroids”.
Deep States tend to target perfectly legal First Amendment activity and operate covertly (bypassing judges altogether).
To the contrary. The SCOTUS just reversed the Humpherys decision that protected the Deep State and created an environment in which the Deep State thrived. This Deep State operates as a fourth branch of government with no elected officials. It’s actually a complete abomination to the Constitution and the SCOTUS just dealt a blow.
This decision has little to do with the deep state – except it gives the president more power to fire those in government that are undermining policies or even actively targetting him.
That is approprioate – we elected the president and Vice President – no one else in the executive was elected by us.
Congress and the president can jockey for power arbitrated by the courts. Civil Servants can not.
We don’t even elect the president and vice president; the Electoral College does.
The Supreme Court’s exemption of the Federal Reserve exposes a blatant double standard. If the conservative majority truly believed that all executive agencies must be subject to the president’s sole power, that rule should have applied to the Fed. Instead, Chief Justice Roberts clearly did not trust the president with total control over the economy. This hypocritical carve-out completely contradicts the court’s own legal reasoning for stripping independence from all the other agencies.
“We don’t even elect the president and vice president; the Electoral College does.”
We do not make our laws – congress does – we still elect them to make our laws, just as we elect electors to choose the president.
The fact that we are not the worst possible form of govenrment – direct democracy, does not mean that the people are not in chanrge.
“The Supreme Court’s exemption of the Federal Reserve exposes a blatant double standard. If the conservative majority truly believed that all executive agencies must be subject to the president’s sole power, that rule should have applied to the Fed. Instead, Chief Justice Roberts clearly did not trust the president with total control over the economy. This hypocritical carve-out completely contradicts the court’s own legal reasoning for stripping independence from all the other agencies.”
Yes, SCOTUS is wrong about the Fed. Bujt the core issue is that the fed is unconstitutional – but SCOTUS is never going to find that.
Given that they are ALWAYS going to have to engage in some form of hypocracy
We don’t even elect the president and vice president; the Electoral College does.
Dumbest statement ever
ATS – broad and vague assertions with no support or detail are meaningless.
Yes, Government tends to seek to increase its own power – nothing new there.
There is however no evidence this administration is engaged in even a fraction of the infringement on free speech of Biden or Obama.
If you are a MAGA supporter that was loud, ugly and sadistic on social media since 2016.
Social media companies retain your past internet comments and emails for a minimum of 8 years or longer. There is even technology that retains entire telephone conversations from as far back as 2018 or earlier.
When we have a different president, he or she could direct the FBI and DOJ to investigate any “constitutionally-subversive” Americans that may have supported attacking the U.S. Capitol, supported subverting the 14th Amendment or supported subverting the 22nd Amendment.
Since federal employees at the FBI and DOJ could be fired at will, they will no choice but to comply with a future president investigating your legal First Amendment activity. You may want to study the “Cointelpro” tactics used by J. Edgar Hoover, you won’t be arrested they will destroy you covertly.
“If you are a MAGA supporter that was loud, ugly and sadistic on social media since 2016.”
Then you are engaged in free speech – just like those on the left.
“Social media companies retain your past internet comments and emails for a minimum of 8 years or longer.”
So ? If you say something in public – you may be judged on what you have said for eternity.
” There is even technology that retains entire telephone conversations from as far back as 2018 or earlier.”
Government may not ask for or require phone conversations without a warrant – that would violate the 4th amendment.
“When we have a different president, he or she could direct the FBI and DOJ to investigate any “constitutionally-subversive” Americans that may have supported attacking the U.S. Capitol, supported subverting the 14th Amendment or supported subverting the 22nd Amendment.”
A future president can order anything he wishes – but the actions you list are unconstitutional.
Government may investigate you when there is reasonable suspicion that you have engaged in illegal conduct.
Your expressed opinion – pro or con on the actions of others – including government is NOT conduct. It MIGH get you fired.
But a government investigation based on speech not conduct is unconstitutional.
“Since federal employees at the FBI and DOJ could be fired at will, they will no choice but to comply with a future president investigating your legal First Amendment activity.”
In correct, in nearly the entire country you can be fired for anything or nothing at all. Bujt you ALWAYS have a choice. You have the right to free speech -you do not have the right to a job. You may lose your job for your free speech – but you do not lose your choice to act or not.
You wish, there will be no more dumbocrat presidents in your lifetime.
Commie says what.
This is a massive pile of bull shit meant to cover up what the Constitution actually says. The Constitution is one of enumerated powers, not implied read-between-the lines powers.
Congress alone has the powers to make the laws for the Government.
A1S9: “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
Other Executive Branch Officers exist and have duties, thus no “unitary executive”.
A2S2: “he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices,”
The President is bound by federal law.
A2S3: “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”
There is zero mention of the President being able to fire EB officers. The line “The executive Power shall be vested in a President” can not be read to invalidate what I quoted. The founders did not hide a vast presidential power in those 8 words.
The independent agencies are accountable to Congress (and thus the people) and managed by the President. Not complicated.
@Sally
You really need to read your history, particularly given that those of your mindset are always harping on about a ‘living Constitution’ when it benefits you. Give us a break.
Or she could read the actual constitution. When the constitution says something plainly – it is NOT “hiding it”
Also important is what the Constitution omits. Notice “sole” is used when describing the Impeachment Power and not the Art II Vesting Clause.
For a textualist, these cases are hogwash.
The constitution did not vest executive power elsewhere.
vested
Settled, fixed, or absolute; being without contingency.
Having full ownership rights, especially after certain conditions such as a period of service, have been met
vested and sole have very similar meanings. – if you were a texturalist – you would know that and know that your “sole” argument is schiff.
“Vested” and “sole” are not the same. They are not even similar.
If the Framers meant “sole,” they would have written “sole.” In fact, they did use the word “sole” elsewhere in the Constitution when they wanted to convey exclusive authority. Article I states that the House “shall have the sole Power of Impeachment” and the Senate “shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachment.”
Article II, Section 1 simply states: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” The omission of the word “sole” here is glaring. Under strict textualist principles, courts assume that when the Framers include a specific word in one section but leave it out of another, that choice is deliberate.
These are the kinds of word games originalists like to play when the outcomes do not align with their beliefs.
Pathetic.
Wow, a progressive has discovered enumerated powers!
“managed by the President”. most managers have firing power.
that’s not zero but you are.
“The line “The executive Power shall be vested in a President” can not be read to invalidate what I quoted.”
but it did. screech harder
“Congress alone has the powers to make the laws for the Government.”
Congress has the power to make laws FOR THE PEOPLE – consistent with enumerated federal powers, and without infringing on constitutional rights.
The same is true regarding the executive. Congress can not make a law that unconstitutionally constrains the executive.
Directives regarding the way that members of the executive should take executive action are Executive Orders and they can not come from congress.
Congress does NOT have executive powers.
“Other Executive Branch Officers exist and have duties, thus no “unitary executive”.”
False – the constitution literally says the executive powers of the united states are vested in the president.
Congress has no Executive power. It can not hire or fire members of the executive branch. The senate has a limited power to vet and approve of “officers of the united states”.
There is a unitary executive because that is what the constitution says.
Not only that – it is that way because no other scheme works.
Congress makes LAWS – it does not enforce them or execute them – that is executive power, and it belongs to the president.
“The President is bound by federal law.”
Where that law is constitutional. The decision regarding the FTC member Trump fired is simple – Did the constitution permit congress to create executive agencies that are not under the direction of the cheif executive – and the answer is no.
“he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” – Correct – the Presidents job is to execute the laws. Not Congress.
“There is zero mention of the President being able to fire EB officers. The line “The executive Power shall be vested in a President” can not be read to invalidate what I quoted.”
Of course it can. The most fundimental executive power is that of hiring and firing. I would further note that the appointments clause in the CONSTITUTION.
Provides limits to the presidents power of hiring for SPECIFIC positions. That is the ONLY power congress has over executive hiring and it has NONE over executive firing.
” The founders did not hide a vast presidential power in those 8 words.” They did not. They explicitly in plain sight gave all executive power to the president and all legislative power to congress.
These are NOT the same powers.
The president can not change the law or constitution by executive order.
Congress can not hire or fire members of the executive EXCEPT as directed by the appointments and impeachments clauses of the constitution.
“:The independent agencies” can not constitutionally exist.
” are accountable to Congress (and thus the people) ”
The entire govenrment is accountable to congress – it is called oversight – it is not knew and does not empower congress to create independent agencies within the executive.
“and managed by the President.”
Managers hire and fire.
” Not complicated.” and yet you complicate it, and read into the constitution things that are not there and out of it things that are.
Everything you wrote is about how you want the Constitution to say, not what it actually says.
The root of the original problem was Congress deferring too much decision-making to the Executive Branch agencies.
Instead of doing the hard work writing legislation, Congress kicked the can to the agencies. So the Executive Branch agencies legislated instead of the Legislative Branch.
Seems that should have been the real solution here. Congress stop deferring legislation to the agencies. It’s tedious boring work but it’s Congress’ job.
Absolutely spot on. Afraid of not being reelected, Congress refers to “experts” to make rules we all must live by. This political cowardice infringes upon our freedom and wrecks lives. I dont like too much power in the hands of any president, but something needed to be done to rein in these agencies.
SCOTUS IS doing something about it!
You are losely correct – though it si more complicated – hiring and firing within the executive and delegating legislation are independent.
The issue with the Fed is by far the messiest – there is no constitutional basis for the Fed which is an executive govenrment agency, a legislative body and a private bank.
Absent a constitutional amendment the Fed can not exist.
Trying to decide what the presidents power over an unconstitutional agency is a fools errand.
As to the other so called independent agencies – there is no such thing as independent. They are either part of the executive or part of the legislature.
Congress could have created the FTC as a legislative advisory body to congress. That would have put it fully within the legislative branch.
Or it could have created it as an agency to implement and enforce the laws passed by congress – that would have made it fully an executive agency under the direction of the president.
Instead it is an unconstitutional hybrid that can not legitimately exist.
One of the problems with the left is that they see the constitution as a speed bump begging to be circumvented, not as a limit to govenrment.
“ Absent a constitutional amendment the Fed can not exist.
Trying to decide what the presidents power over an unconstitutional agency is a fools errand.”
A constitutional amendment is legally unnecessary to validate independent agencies. Congress possesses the clear Article I authority to create these institutions, and the president is constitutionally bound to execute the laws and rules Congress writes.
History repeatedly backs this up. James Madison originally fought the national bank using strict-constructionist arguments, but after he let its charter expire, the U.S. economy collapsed during the War of 1812. He was forced to learn the hard way that a central bank is an absolute necessity, ultimately signing the Second Bank of the United States into law without a single constitutional amendment. Andrew Jackson repeated Madison’s mistake in 1836 by killing the second bank, immediately triggering the devastating Panic of 1837 and a seven-year depression. History provides two undeniable examples of why dismantling central monetary authority is a catastrophic mistake—and why the independence of the Fed remains vital to our survival.
“A constitutional amendment is legally unnecessary to validate independent agencies. Congress possesses the clear Article I authority to create these institutions”
They do ? Where ? Where in the constitution does it say that Congress can create something inside the executive branch but outside the executive powers of the president. It does not anywhere.
Again you keep trying to read the constitution deliberately to circumvent its restrictions.
“the president is constitutionally bound to execute the laws”
Sol long as they are constitutional laws.
Just as presidents can act unconstitutiuonally -0 and while the majority in the Birthright citizenship case are wrong – Trump did act unconstitutionally in trying to change the conditions of citizenship – that is a power of congress – not the president.
But just as the president can not infringe on the powers of congress, congress can not infringe on the powers of the president.
“rules Congress writes.”
Congress can only write rules for itself.
“History repeatedly backs this up. James Madison”
Not this stupid argument again.
The first and 2nd bank of the US were NOT central banks. They were barely different from any modern bank that can operate in more than one state.
Regardless, Presuming that Madison changed his mind 40 years later – that is IRRELEVANT.
The meaning of the law and constitution is set at the time of its passage, not byu subsequence changes of heart by its proponents.
Rep. Barr was instrumental in the most draconian federal drug law ever – he later worked to get it repealed – his change of heart does not make the law change.
Rep Sensenbrenner wrote much of the partriot act. He later vigorously opposed it – we are still stuck with it.
You use the terms originalism and textualism. My argument – one that is centuries old is that the rule of law requires that the law only changes when people do the work to actually change it. If you can come up with a different scheme of statutory and constitutional interpretation that leaves the meaning of tghe law and constitution set unchanging UNTIL we choose to afirmatively change it – through repeal or amendment – I will be happy to listen.
Absolutely people change their minds about things all the time. Including legislators.
Nothing in the rule of law assures us that all laws are perfect. Only that WE have the power to change them – just not easily, through the same process we created them in the first place.
” the U.S. economy collapsed during the War of 1812.”
False there was a brief 6 month recession in 1812 – the 2nd bank of the US was not chartered until 1816 – 4 years later, it lasted 209 years and disappeared.
No Federal Bank existed again until the Fed was created.
The US forught the mexican american war, the civil war the spanish american war – all without a central bank.
A central bank is NOT a necescity – if your going to make such a claim you are obligated to prove it.
Were there fewer recessions and depressions under the Fed than before ? No. We had a several depression 5 years after the Fed formed – Harding/Coolege cut taxes and spending and 12 months later the economy was booming – the “roaring 20’s. The worst depression in US history – under the FED. The longest and deepest recession in US history – the great recession – under the fed.
The 1836 recession was caused like all recessions by bad monetary policy – the 2nd bank of the US had no involvement in monetary policy. That was between congress and the Treasury through the 19th century. While they did abysmally badly – they did no worse than the FED has in the 20th.
“History provides two undeniable examples of why dismantling central monetary authority is a catastrophic mistake”
False and irrelevant. History shows us absolutely no meaningful difference between the economic failures caused by bad central bank monetary policy and bad monetray polciy caused by Congress and the US treasury.
There were slightly more frequent recessions during the 19th century but they were nearly all short – typically 6 months to a year. maybe a bit more.
The longest was the “long depression” – which was no deeper than the more recent great recession and far shorter.
Normally recovery was rapid. There were no equivalents to the great depression, or the more recent great recession.
The Fed era is characterized by slightly less frequent recessions with longer duration’s.
Ultimately it is 6 of one a half dozen of the other – but proving the Fed has done better is not possible – it has not.
Further the overall economic growth rate for the 19th century was 7%+ for the 20th 3.5%, for the 21st – 2%
The fed has mad recessions slightly less frequently longer and often much worse at the expense of dramatic decline in growth.
Of course whether the FED is a good idea or a bad idea is independent of whether it is constitutional or not.
The fact is it is a bad idea, and it is not constitutional.
Further the performance failure of the Fed and ALL such top down nonsense is perfectly predictable.
Top down govenrment fails because it is inefficient – getting what you want by force is always more costly. and because it has massive moral hazard.
Those who run the Fed are NOT accountable – that is litterally what this case is about. Once appointed they can not be fired.
Do I trust Trump or Obama or Biden or Bush or Clinton to fire Fed members for good reason ? Absolutely not. But it is actually WORSE when they can not be fired.
Humans are not equal. We do not make identical decisions, and we do not make decisions of identical quality.
With near perfection – those of us who make better decisions prosper and are happy in proportion to the quality of the decisions we make.
With near perfection – ALL of us make worse decisions when there are no consequences for those decisions.
This is absolutely the MASSIVE moral hazard of “independent agencies” – if there are no consequences to bad choices – you WILL make bad choices – no matter how capable you are.
This is called moral hazard and though those of you on the left may not grasp it it is extremely well understood.
Or to put is as Nasseeem Talib does – never trust anyone who does not have skin in the game.
“—and why the independence of the Fed remains vital to our survival.”
Nope it is the seeds of ALL the monetary failures we have ever had.
Independence in this context is just another word for unaccountability – and that ALWAYS fails.
If The “independent” Federal Reserve can not perform better than 19th century politicians – and in more than 100 years they have NOT, that is really really really bad.
Does anyone doubt that the people that we have put on the Fed are far more capable with respect to Monetary policy than AOC or Trump or Pelosi or name any politician. Yet they have performed no better than the politicians of the 19th century who were unarguably worse than today.
Here is a concise, better-flowing version with a sharper, more combative tone:History itself proves that the Federal Reserve and independent agencies are entirely constitutional—and it exposes modern “originalists” as utter hypocrites. When circumstances become politically or economically inconvenient, their precious legal philosophies are instantly abandoned for pure pragmatism. Even James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” was forced to learn this lesson the hard way.
In 1791, Madison spearheaded the opposition to Alexander Hamilton’s First Bank of the United States. He parroted the exact strict-constructionist arguments that libertarians repeat today, claiming that because a central bank wasn’t explicitly spelled out in Article I, it was unconstitutional. His opposition was so dogmatic that his congressional allies successfully killed the bank’s charter in 1811.
The consequences were immediate and catastrophic. When the War of 1812 erupted, the unmanaged free market failed spectacularly. Private, unregulated state banks flooded the economy with unbacked paper currency, triggering hyperinflation. The federal government could barely borrow money, move funds, or pay its troops. By 1814, a deeply chastened President Madison reluctantly admitted that a national bank was an absolute necessity to prevent total economic ruin. Without a single constitutional amendment, Madison completely reversed his position and signed the Second Bank of the United States into law.
This historic pivot proves that rigid textualism inevitably shatters against the harsh realities of governing. Modern conservative judges only cling to strict originalism when it helps them dismantle consumer protection agencies, but they instantly discard it—just as Madison did—to shield the Federal Reserve from presidential whims. Originalism isn’t a sacred constitutional principle; it’s a convenient political mask slipped on and off whenever it suits their preferred outcomes.
And certain current Supreme Court justices don’t just vacillate between Constitutional originalism and dynamism only on matters of executive power, but also on literally everything else when it suits their needs. See Trump vs. United States on immunity. The immunity the Roberts court (so many of which claim to be staunch originalists) has granted Trump would rot the socks off the Founders…
It’s not vacillation. It’s associative intelligence, borne of an expanding pool of case precedence and factual variables as applied to the current set of facts. Weighing and weighting these factoids make for good decisions, like Plessey and Dobbs.
Strict originalism and textualism are supposed to be rigid, leaving zero room for subjective loopholes based on preferred outcomes.
Justice Roberts knew a strict ruling would wreck global markets, so he abandoned his own judicial philosophy and invented a “special” exception for the Fed. It proves the point perfectly, originalism isn’t a sacred constitutional principle; it’s just a convenient political mask that is slipped off the second it becomes a liability.
Respectfully, Ca-Ca. Tell me exactly what specific “textual” originalism should have controlled this case and warranted a different outcome. Because then you are going to have to explain all the years of Court decisions that took into consideration things like major questions doctrine, unitary executive theory, etc.
You further gloss over the fact that Roberts/the Court said that Trump’s reasoning to Cook could be done by an “exchange” in papers/correspondence, i.e., without a “full-blown trial,” or meeting, but simply an assertion of “the right to support his allegations by argument however brief, and, if need be, by proof, however informal.” However informal. Robert’s/Majority’s words, not mine.
No cigar. Try again, thanks.
Lin, The “textual originalism” that should have controlled Cook is the exact same strict, unforgiving standard the conservative majority used in Slaughter on the exact same day. You cannot claim to be a textual originalist while endorsing a giant double standard.
The majority did not say a trial could be bypassed with a simple piece of paper. Chief Justice Roberts explicitly ruled that “for-cause” protection means the president must prove a severe breakdown in performance or legality. The language you quoted regarding an “informal exchange of papers” is actually a citation from a 1926 case (Goldsmith) regarding standard administrative due process. In Cook, Roberts applied a much higher threshold, the government must prove actual, substantive “cause” to survive a preliminary injunction. If a simple, brief assertion were enough, the Supreme Court would have lifted the injunction and let Trump fire Cook immediately. Instead, they blocked him.
I will add, the Major Questions Doctrine states that if Congress wants to delegate an issue of vast economic and political significance to an agency, it must do so with crystal-clear statutory language. In the Federal Reserve Act, Congress explicitly wrote that Governors can only be removed “for cause.” By inventing a loophole to weaken that text, the Court is violating its own rule that statutory language regarding major economic bodies must be strictly adhered to.
wrong, wrong, and wrong again. I looked it up. “Lin” accurately quoted Roberts, and IN CONTEXT.
The phrase about an “informal exchange of papers” is a direct quote from a 1926 tax court case (Goldsmith v. Board of Tax Appeals). Chief Justice Roberts only brought it up to summarize historical due process arguments. He did not rule that Donald Trump could bypass the law and fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook with a brief piece of paper.
That is in its proper context.
Lin took a snippet of a sentence discussing a 100-year-old administrative standard and tried to present it as the Supreme Court’s final ruling on how a president can fire a Federal Reserve Governor.
The majority explicitly held that “for-cause” protections require a high evidentiary burden of actual, proven malfeasance or neglect.
but she never said that. You made that up. Entirely. Neither Lin nor Roberts said that.
hey nonny, here is the Goldsmith case. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/270/117/
YOu say, “The phrase about an ‘informal exchange of papers’ is a DIRECT QUOTE from a 1926 tax court case (Goldsmith v. Board of Tax Appeals).”
Can’t find it. could you point it out please?
Please don’t throw more AI at me. Your hand-picked excerpts actually step on each other. I have to go now, so come back and hit me with YOUR best shot, because I can shoot quite a few holes in your summary, e.g., the Court distinguished organizational existence, purpose, function between FTC and FRB, not arbitrarily applying textualism to one and not the other. BTW, go back and read pp. 18-19 in the opinion.
I correctly quoted Roberts- but you did not, inserting– in quotes, a reference to “informal exchange of papers.” That is quoted from where, may I ask????? Maybe Mr. Friendly? Certainly not Goldsmith or Londoner or CJ Roberts.
Here is what Roberts said, verbatim: “We see no reason why that opportunity ‘may not be had on written materials only,’ with no oral presentation.”
My reason for mentioning major questions doctrine apparently went over your head. Sorry, I’ll be more explicit in the future.
ATS – just because you make an argument does not make it valid.
Absolutely the president should be able to fire any member of the Fed on the mere appearance of impropriaty – and Cooke has that in spades.
That is not originalism – that is just common sense. The people should not be forced to trust someone who may have lied on her resume and may have lied on her mortgage when thousands of people equally qualified who did not l;ie are available.
There is no right to a fed seat. There is no right to any job.
Next you keep spinning – spewing adjectives – as if they change the argument. The question before the court is does the president have the power to fire,
not is it a good idea, not is he doing so for good reason.
“The majority did not say a trial could be bypassed with a simple piece of paper.”
No it just said a trial was not required.
“Chief Justice Roberts ”
Is at best an originalist in name only. Roberts is infamous for decisions exactly like this one that make a hash out of the law and constitution and leave no real precedent of guidance.
“explicitly ruled that “for-cause” protection means the president must prove a severe breakdown in performance or legality.”
No he did not. Further that is not the law.
“The language you quoted regarding an “informal exchange of papers” is actually a citation from a 1926 case (Goldsmith) regarding standard administrative due process.”
As Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch CORRECTLY note in dissent and the majority gfet WRONG – there is no right involved here there is no property interest in a federal apointment and there is no due process requirement where there is no right being infringed.
It is interesting, because Roberts while overturning Humphries executor in Slaughter is returning to much the same nonsense in Humpries executor.
Having read most of the majority, concurances, and disents – While Thomas’s opinion is likely the most accurate constitutionally – and historically.
When responding to X and others above Parroting the faux history from Roberts claiming a tradition dating back to before the declaration Thomas correctly and better than I SHREDS that claim – the very authors of the Federal reserve act REJECTED All the claims Roberts made – The federal Reserve was EXPLICITLY CREATED outside that prior tradition – which is also why it is unconstitutional. Though arguably the first and 2nd banks of the US were also unconstitutional. Regardless the Federal reserve was NOT modeled after any of that history and tradition – it was EXPLICITLY modeled after the Deutche Bank formed a decade or so earlier.
Thomas also – as did I trashes Robert faux history – where Roberts malfunctions a deep and lasting recession from a 6 month blip that was gone before the legislation hit congress. There is little more repugnantg a supreme court justice can do than LIE about history in a decision. But Roberts has always been a disastrous mess.
But the best opinion is that of Alito with Gorsuch concurring – which CORRECTLY states that the Supreme court has screwed this up from DAY ONE. That this case should not be before them. That it should not have been before them for more than a few days.
That Trumps stay on the lower court temporary injuction should have been granted for several reasons – Cooke Failed to state a claim that is entitled to relief – again there is no right to a federal job – this is a LONG STANDING matter of law – and logic, and Roberts efforts to evade it not withstanding – and where there is no right – there is no due process requirement.
Alito and Goresuch would NOT have dismissed cookes case – only the Preliminary injunction, and allowed the lower court to proceede with the case.
Cooke would have been correctly removed – as happened in Humphries executor, and the lower courts would have had to decide if Cooke was entitled to any monetary damages. While Thomas, Gorsuch and Alito CORRECTLY note that on the record they have – Cooke would not be entitled to any relief, and that is not likely to change, Regardless, Alito most CORRECTLY notes that a case that has had virtuially no legal development in the lower courts is NOT entitled to supreme court review.
While Alito argues that the majority should have denied the stay, even if they had permitted the stay to remain in place the CORRECT move was to send the case BACK to the lower courts a year ago.
“I will add, the Major Questions Doctrine states that if Congress wants to delegate an issue of vast economic and political significance to an agency, ”
This is not a major questions doctrine case . Contra those of you on the left this is a MINOR case.
Further the whole independence crap is nonsense. It is outside the power of congress to create an entity independent of the federal govenrment excercising federal powers.
And as I have noted before – the whole idiocy of indepence – aside from being unconstitutional is also the road to h311.
The claimed independence That Roberts and you want is precisely why The Fed has FAILED over its history.
If there is no skin in the game, decisions suck.
While Trump =- like myriads of presidents has sought to control Fed decisions – and I do not think political control of monetary decisions is a good idea – but neither is this idiotic independence nonsense. Atleast if presidents control the Fed – we have someone to blame and vote out of office. Presidents will make a hash of monetary policy – but the Fed has not managed in its 111 year history to do better than Congress and the treasury did in the prior century plus.
The correct answer for monetary policy is to remove it ENTIRELY from govenrment. To a SMALL extent we had that prior to the Fed -= but the constitution unfortunately gave congress the power to issue money – which it should not have done.
The result was for over a century – Congress and the Treasury F#$Ked up – arguably for political reasons, and the captains of industry bailed the country out. The Fed came about because – “the captains of industry” wanted the same power to profit from bailing out the country – with the federal government taking on the risk.
The CORRECT answer to monetary policy is to completely remove it from government.
Why is that rarely done with consequential sovereign nations ? Because it imposes on the government fiscal discipline that it can not evade by printing more money.
There is BTW no reason to EVER “print more money” – if you do not do so, what occurs over time is MILD deflation. Which is exactly what you want. Money supply is fixed, production increases and the value of everything decreases.
I would note that in REAL DOLLARS that happens no matter what. But most of us do not sit back and say – what is the cost of Eggs in the amount of labor I must perform to afford them. We price things in Dollars that the Fed constantly inflates.
I want to repeat that – The entirety of what the Fed does is normally meaningless. There is a real negative impact of inflation – which worsens dramatically as it rises. in that it destroys the value of savings and discourages investment.
I am not personally a “gold crank” – Gold does NOT have a use value of 3200/oz or whatever the value is today. Gold is just as fiat as paper money. There is no such thing as money that rests on ANYTHING except belief – Adam Smith figured that our 250 years ago.
ALL MONEY IS A MATTER OF BELEIF.
But there is excellent economic reasons for the the supply of money to be FIXED or to grow very slowly and predictably – as it does when Gold is mined. But again – we should not be confised about the difference between Money and Wealth. Money is not Wealth.
it is merely a means of storing wealth, moving wealth, making use of wealth.
Changing money supply does NOT change the amount of real wealth. The central bank has the power to destroy your savings.
It does not create wealth when it creates money. Govenrment can not create wealth – that is one of the HUGE flaws in keynesian economics. Wealth can not be created by government or by the FED.
There is no loophole.
Interestingly though Roberts writes a very long and muddy opinion – to a very large extent he is mirroring the Alito/Gorsuch dissent.
All Roberts has said (incorrectly) is that the Preliminary injunction is not stayed.
That is the ONLY consequential difference between his decision and Alito/Gorsuch.
Roberts wastes alot of energy on fake historty and on not answering questions like how much if any due process Cooke is entitled to and what is the actual standard for Cause.
This is a classic Roberts oppinion that does not actually answer the questions in front of the court.
But Alito and Gorsuch actually got it right.
The CORRECT decision – that should have occurred a year ago, is to kick this back to lower courts and have them do the proper inquiry. It is NOT to turn the Supreme court into a trial court – and worse one that does NOT actually come to a final decision.
You claim Roberts has answered questions – but Has he ? Roberts seems pretty clear – DOJ need not try and convict Cooke to remove her. The core of this opinion appears to be Cooke is entitled to more notice than a twitter post, and some minimal ability to present her challenge to her termination – all of which should have been handled by lower courts.
While Thomas -= and Alito and Gorsuch are correct – there is no due process required when there is no property interest involved.
There is no right to a federal job. There is no right to be in the US if you are not a citizen or do not have a visa.
Due process exists to protect ACTUAL RIGHTS. Not made up left wing nut nonsense.
I have not read the decision and frankly I care little about it – the Fed is not constitutional, and worse they are a bad idea.
I expected that even as SCOTUS was likely to put the nail in the coffin of Humphrey’s executor, that they were not going to go that far with the FED.
But your Roberts quote suggests that the core of the opinion is little more than – Sorry President, there are a few more speed-bumps to firing someone at the fed. not big ones and here is a blueprint for getting past those speed bumps.
I have little problem with firing cooke – further the standard to do so is LOW not high. Absolutely the most critical trait of people in banking – particularly the pinacle of banking is trust.
Cooke lied about her resume and lied in her mortgage app. It is irrelevant whether ordinary people would get fired or prosecuted for those.
People in extremely high positions of trust MUST live up to a much higher standard of trust.
An d the more independence the Fed has the HIGHER that standard must be.
Is Cooke a world class liar ? Nope.
Is she as bad as any randomly selected congressmen ? Nope.
But she is on the fed – and the standard is higher.
No one elected her. But we did giver her a job that MUST be done near perfrectly – and that means we MUST be able to have near perfect trust.
The originalsit answer is to abolish the Fed.
But even ignoring original-ism – it is NOT the role of SCOTUS calm global markets – those roles belong to congress and the president.
Original ism is not a constitutional principle – it is the foundation of the rule of law.
Are originalists hypocrites – absolutely – just as you are.
That is irrelevant. What matters is accepting the world is imperfect what actually produces the best net results.
The better a chance that we have law that means what is says – not what someone blinded by ideology wishes it was said – the more likely we ALL know what we are free to do and what we are not – and the greater our freedom – the better off we will be in the future.
Newton could not even come up with perfect laws for physics. But Newtons laws do work in 99.999% of the world humans are likely to encounter.
They tell us how to build bridges than stand up and why those that fell collapsed. They are useful.
Law that shifts at the whim of the courts is not useful. The less certainty we have about law the less free we are the less risk we will take and the less prosperous we will be. The left loves to talk about how their laws save lives – which is complete nonsense. But less freedom means less prosperity and that actually does mean shorter and worse lives.
The purpose of the rule of law – of law that strives to be certain is that our freedom is greater and we have less risk when we try to make our lives and those of others better.
Our thrid president – Jefferson sent US forces to murder foreign citizens of the cost of north africa – no trials, no bill of rights,
And no one impeached Jefferson
You tell them X! You point out how wrong Turley is, the SC, everyone here! You just know so much about everything! The law and the constitution! Rent! Being a landlord! Construction! Airplanes! Unions! Election law! Teaching! Algae! And now all about the Fed! You are the smarts person you know!
Having read most of the opinions – SCOTUS screwed up.
This is a typical Roberts mess. Take a case and try really really hard to reach a decision that answers almost nothing.
And manages that badly.
I was not aware that X was paraphrasing Roberts in is faux economic history – but person knowledge of 19th century economics, verified by reviewing Wikipedia – which no matter how far left it leans can not anticipate the stupid rewrites of historyu that left wing nuts will concoct, so often it actually has something close to real history on things it did not know were left wing controversies – and weren’t until some left wing nut made up past history.
Regardless Thomas dispatches Roberts Faux history far better than I did regarding X – he explicitly cites the people who created the Fed and their unequivocal insistance that they were NOT following the past tradition – the Fed is modeled after European Central Banks – particularly Germany in the early 20th century NOT the prior US history of federal banks – which were NOT central banks.
Whatever claim Roberts makes – much of which he gets wrong regarding Pre 1913 federal banks – the claim that the Fed is within their history and tradition is garbage that those who created the fed explicitly disowned.
Back to Roberts messy decision.
While Roberts leaves in place the stay – after a long opinion – rife with errors and misrepresentations – many of which Thomas and Alito point out he does nto really resolve anything.
Roberts CLEARLY stated that Trump can fire Cooke, and he CLEARLY said – not by Tweet. He also CLEARLY said Cooke is entitled to notice – but never truly defined what that is – except that a Tweet is not enough. Roberts and the majority CLEARLY want SOME due process – despite the fact that Alito, Gorcuch and Thomas point out that there is no due process where there is no right and SCOTUS long ago decided there is no right to a federral job. Roberts Correctly noted that courts in equity can hear claims like this – but those claims are for equitable relief – you can not get your job bak, at the very best you get back pay if you prove you were fired improperly.
While Roberts CLEARLY said alot of things – he did not ACTUALLY answer anything beyond that Cooke can not be fired by Tweet, is entitled to some unspecified notice and erroneously untitled to due process of some unspecified amount – more than a gnat and less than a mountain.
Anyway this is precisely the type of opinion SC OTUS should NEVER issue.
The only question this decision answers is Trump can not fire cooke for cause by Tweet.
What is self evident from this decision is that Neither Roberts nor the other 5 justices wanted to actually decide this issue EITHER WAY.
But they did want to stall the decision as long as possible.
Please….he copy and pasted every word from AI. Watch, he wont deny it.
or so you’d have us believe
“History itself proves that the Federal Reserve and independent agencies are entirely constitutional”
ROFL
” it exposes modern “originalists” as utter hypocrites. When circumstances become politically or economically inconvenient, their precious legal philosophies are instantly abandoned for pure pragmatism. Even James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” was forced to learn this lesson the hard way.”
L:ots of words no substance
“In 1791, Madison spearheaded the opposition to Alexander Hamilton’s First Bank of the United States. He parroted the exact strict-constructionist arguments that libertarians repeat today, claiming that because a central bank wasn’t explicitly spelled out in Article I, it was unconstitutional. His opposition was so dogmatic that his congressional allies successfully killed the bank’s charter in 1811.”
And your point ?
“The consequences were immediate and catastrophic. When the War of 1812 erupted, the unmanaged free market failed spectacularly. Private, unregulated state banks flooded the economy with unbacked paper currency, triggering hyperinflation. The federal government could barely borrow money, move funds, or pay its troops. ”
And yet in 1776 with far less power and no central bank the continental congress managed to conduct a protracted revolutionary war.
The above is irrelevant nonsense.
The constitution empowers congress to
“To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;”
There are good argument why the creation of money should NOT be a government function – and contra your nonsense, private money not only has existed in the past but does so in the present and Dwarfs govenrment money.
While Crypto currencies are an excellent modern example of Better money than govenrment money, before there was crypto there is stocks and myriads of other financial instruments.
The attributes of money are Acceptability, Durability. Divisibility,Portability,Homogeneity,Relative scarcity,Non-counterfeit ability
Ordinary stocks meet this as well or better than government issued fiat money.
Regardless, the constitution empowers the federal govenrment to create money – and even the states are allowed to
The constitution denies the states the power to create money – though they can mint silver or gold coins.
“By 1814, a deeply chastened President Madison reluctantly admitted that a national bank was an absolute necessity to prevent total economic ruin. Without a single constitutional amendment, Madison completely reversed his position and signed the Second Bank of the United States into law.”
So based on YOUR lunatic claim that govenrment had no power to make money – which the constitution clearly delegated to congress,
and this nonsense that there was this massive economic disturbance – which was TINY compared to say the 1921 depression the 1929 depression, the great recession, and myriads of other fiscal disasters post Fed.
“This historic pivot proves that rigid textualism inevitably shatters against the harsh realities of governing. ”
No it just proves that history can be spun.
There is no constitutional authority for the federal reserve. The First Bank of the United states came and went with little note.
The 2nd bank of the United States was no more notable. For all practical purposes both were private banks with national charters with some money invested in them by the federal govenrment.
The war of 1812 was inconsequential – in comparison to the Civil war – which was fought and paid for ENTIRELY without a Central Bank.
Strange that the economy did not collapse as you claim it did in 1812. So a central bank – that was not a central bank was necessary for Madison to fight the war of 1812 that ended in 1814, while the 2nd bank of the United states did not come into existence until 1816 – 4 years AFTER all the bad things you claimed.
How on earth did Madison fight the war of 1812 and the country recover from all this economic woe that you describe absent a central bank – that wasn’t a central bank.
Real History actually matters – while the US played around with various banking through the 19th century – none of it created a central bank.
Mostly it just allowed for the creation of banks that could operate across state lines.
Today there are few if any banks that can not operate across state lines.
Absolutely NONE of your warped and onesided version of history – which ignores the text of the constitution, the reality of the first and 2nd bank of the US and national banking in the 19th century addresses the constitutionality of the Fed in anyway.
And with specific respect to Madison – Though I do not see a particular problem with the 2nd Bank of the United States – which was not a central bank, lets suppose their actually WAS a problem – then Madison should have asked to have the constitution amended.
The problem with the Fed is that it is both legislative, executive and private – nothing the constitution permits is any two much less all three of those.
If you actually believe that is necessary – AMEND THE CONSTITUTION.
Your entire response is built on a mountain of easily verifiable historical and economic falsehoods. If you want to argue “real history,” you should probably learn it first.
Your claim the Civil War was paid for entirely without a central bank, proving the War of 1812 collapse was a myth. Is false.
The Union only survived the Civil War by abandoning the decentralized “free banking” era and heavily centralizing the financial system. In 1863 and 1864, Abraham Lincoln signed the National Banking Acts, which created a federal currency (Greenbacks), heavily taxed private state banknotes out of existence, and forced private banks to hold federal bonds. Lincoln literally weaponized the federal government’s authority over the banking sector to fund the war—the exact opposite of a hands-off, unmanaged free market.
You say the war ended in 1814, and the country recovered without a bank, so the 1816 bank was irrelevant. That’s wrong.
The War of 1812 ended in February 1815 (with the ratification of the Treaty of Ghent). By 1814, the federal government was literally bankrupt. It defaulted on its national debt payments in October 1814 because private banks refused to lend it money. Madison didn’t “recover” on his own; he was bailed out by private loans from wealthy titans like Stephen Girard and John Jacob Astor just to keep the government afloat. Madison spent 1815 begging Congress for a central bank to fix the ruined economy, leading directly to the 1816 charter.
You claim the Continental Congress conducted the Revolutionary War with no central bank and less power. True, but that’s only half the truth.
The Revolutionary War funding mechanism is the ultimate historical example of hyperinflation and failure. Without a central monetary authority, the Continental Congress printed floods of unbacked paper money. It triggered such severe hyperinflation that the currency became completely worthless, giving birth to the famous phrase “not worth a Continental.” The economy collapsed so spectacularly that George Washington wrote that hyperinflation was a greater threat to the army than the British military.
You say ordinary stocks meet the attributes of money better than government fiat currency? That’s absurd. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
Money requires three properties: a medium of exchange, a unit of account, and a store of value. Stocks fail the first two completely. You cannot walk into a grocery store, buy a gallon of milk, and pay with 0.003 shares of Apple stock. Stocks fluctuate in value second-by-second; they cannot act as a stable unit of account to price everyday goods.
You assert there is no constitutional authority for a national bank, and Madison should have amended the Constitution. Not true.
This was settled over two centuries ago. In the landmark 1819 case McCulloch v. Maryland, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Congress does have the constitutional power to create a national bank under the Article I Necessary and Proper Clause. Chief Justice John Marshall explicitly ruled that Congress is not limited only to powers word-for-word in the text, but has the implied authority to create the financial infrastructure needed to manage the nation’s coined money and debt.
The Federal Reserve is not a “fourth branch” of government. It is an independent agency created by an act of Congress (the Federal Reserve Act of 1913) using the exact same Article I powers the Supreme Court validated in 1819. Telling people to “amend the Constitution” for something the Supreme Court legally settled 200 years ago is nonsense.
The recession of 1812 was over in 6 months. The war was over in 1814. The 2nd bank of the US was NOT a central bank – it was just a nationally chartered bank – many banks operate across state lines today – but that is a recent development. The 2nd Bank of the US was not chartered until 1816, and it persisted for 20 years.
There was a depression and 4 recessions during its tenure – clearly it had ZERO control of the economy.
Your arguments are as usual full of schiff – shallow and oblivious to reality.
The entire 8 year long american revolution, Lincoln fought the Civil War and we later fought the Spanish american war and near continuous indian wars through the 19th century without a central bank – your a central bank is needed for war argument is nonsense.
The federal govenrment CAN constitutionally borrow, it can constitutionally print money. It can constitutionally back that with the full faith and credit of the united states.
It can not delegate that power to a quasi independent quasi private entity.
You are wrong regarding reality. You are wrong regarding the value of central banks. You are wrong regarding war.
But it is worse than that – myriads of countries have no central bank or have central banks that officially or unofficially peg their currency to the dollar. Universally it is countries that have a central bank and that try to use that central bank to create fake prosperity – which you can do briefly, that have the real problems.
We are USED to money as a government function – but there is no compelling need for that.
Today the US has 10 times as much “private money” as it does public money.
If you have a 401K – that is MONEY – it is denominated – measured in dollars, but that is just the ruler. That “money” is the stocks that are in your 401K.
They are NOT backed by the full faith and credit of the united states.
The global market Cap of Crypto is $2T today. That is 1/10the the size of the US money supply – and growing.
Increasingly we have no cash in our “wallet” – we have credit cards and debit cards. These allow us to collect, store and spend money that is not paper or shells or gold it is not even real – often it has no government guarantee.
But lets look at what the “full faith and credit” of the US govenrment means. At the very most it means that the US govenrment will use force to confiscate the greatly devalued wealth of citizens to repay whoever it has borrowed from in the event the economy goes to h311 and we live in some science fiction dystopia.
The reality is that the “full faith and credit” of the US govenrment means that the people who loan the US money beleive our govenrment – as F$%KED up as it is, is less likely to default than any other govenrment in the world. That is ALL that it means.
The govenrment will NEVER have to back up US dollars – and if it ever did – it would fail.
The vast majority of federal employees are good people with rent, mortgages, college tuition and expenses like all of us.
The U.S. Supreme Court has sent the strong message to federal employees that if you are honest, trustworthy, non-partisan and loyal to your oath of office – you will be punished and lose your livelihood, lose your house, lose your assets. If on the other hand, you are a dishonest political hack with no integrity – you will be rewarded.
Yes, the bureaucratic “systems” they are forced to work in are many times genuinely evil harming innocent Americans. But the federal employees have little power to reform those systems.
This ruling is terrible. Now a federal employee sworn to uphold our constitutional rights (including gun rights, pro-choice rights and property rights) will be forced to be politically partisan depending on the party in charge. It will be impossible for non-partisan federal employees to do their jobs and be loyal to their oath of office.
If a non-partisan federal employee then appeases the Democrat or Republican president and breaks the law or violates someone’s constitutional rights – the plaintiffs can sue the lowly federal employee.
Republicans will regret this ruling when the tables turn. Those agencies will be much more aggressive in going after rights you value. Federal employees won’t have a choice but to comply with a partisan Democrat president.
And that’s the real kicker. The game NOW is to make sure Democrats can never win again. Gerrymander, send ICE to voting sites, replace voting officials with Trump lackeys. All of these expansions of executive power work in the GOP’s favor if the GOP never loses again.
“The U.S. Supreme Court has sent the strong message to federal employees”:
Learn to code.
Today that should be Learn to use AI.
“The vast majority of federal employees are good people with rent, mortgages, college tuition and expenses like all of us.”
That is true of all of us.
Stephen Crane answered this far batter than SCOTUS a century ago
A man said to the universe:
“Sir, I exist!”
“However,” replied the universe,
“The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation.”
Do not confuse being good, having rent of a mortgage college tuition, expenses with some entitlement.
Your actual rights are protected by govenrment – that is its job,
Not your feelings of entitlement.
Isn’t this only the beginning of the story? These agencies have been delegated far more power than they or even they president should be allowed to wield. The true victory will be when that quasi-legislative power is wrested back from the executive branch and returned to the representatives of the people.
The Dems always knew the path to Socialist Paradise was paved through the courts – starting from the bottom up! Years ago the Dems ensured they packed all the District level (especially the DC Circuit) with true blue devoted Black Robe Illuminati and then set about to top off the Appeals courts as well. The plan fell apart at the SCOTUS level simply because of timing (deaths and retirements during GOP Admins) but it takes forever typically to get a case to SCOTUS so the Lefties get some nice interim wins that help build ‘resistance’ to unfavorable SCOTUS rulings later. Packing will solve the problem and low IQ younger voters bent on FREE STUFF (Oxymoron believed by the Young and Dumb) will probably facilitate their own demise for generations.
Americans: “We could really use help on affordability.”
Trump: “Affordability is a hoax.”
Americans; “Could you guys please drain the swamp?”
Trump: “Actually, I’m going to make a giant one in front of the Lincoln Memorial and charge you $14 million for it…..TWICE.”
Americans: “How about more access to affordable housing? Both Republicans and Democrats worked together to make that happen.”
Trump: “Access to housing is a big yawn.”
Americans: “How about we stay out of the Middle East for a bit?”
Trump: “How about we bomb Iran cause my BFF Bibi said I should.”
Turley: “If any Democrat ever gets in the White House again, we’re all dooooooomed!!!!”
yap yap yap, that’s a youse does
The TDS is strong with this one.
Do you think the bipartisan housing bill is a “big yawn”?
Does big spending by government, ever work well?
“housing bill” just listen to yourself. fvcking idiot
OT Sorry
Reading a write up on Robert’s positive move on getting rid of the Humphrey precedent and saw another article (CFP) about some ME professor at UT getting $1.9 million after getting fired for posting a besmirching comment on the murder of Charlie Kirk. Any Lawyers out there want to comment on a libel or slandering lawsuit against her et al by Erica Kirk or TPUSA for their gleeful behavior as to his murder? These idiots should never be allowed to profit off applauding a murder.
It’s protected speech.
It’s slanderous and printed it is libelous.
I have no problem with the split decision.
I agree with the Federal Reserve being independent.
Giving any President the power to regulate interest rates and other aspect of the Federal Reserve constitutes the concentration of too much fiscal power in one individual.
As far as the rest of executive branch is concerned, they still serve at the pleasure of the president and he should be able to remove any. The fact the Senate gives their stamp of approval to appointees and would have to approve replacements can and will stay the presidents hand to some extent.
I fully expect it will slow and possibly reverse government bloat. Especially if Congress is also inclined to legislate appropriately.
Other presidents may work differently but that’s our system and we have to pay attention to elections.
Turley couldn’t have said it better. In fact he did in the above opinion. Good work GEB.
Turley was avoiding the hypocrisy of the supreme court’s double standard. Because according to to Roberts the executive branch has FULL authority over independent agencies. Making a “special carve-out” for the Fed Reserve’s independence can come back to bite the Supreme Court in the future. It shows a cherry-picking style rather than adhere to the constitution.
Or maybe, the SCOTUS majority analyzed the language used in the enabling statute that created the Federal Reserve and decided they could not overturn it.
The Federal Reserve is, of course, an abomination. It’s been called the “The Creature from Jekyll Island” for a reason. (It was effectively created on a duck hunting trip to Jekyll Island, Georgia by a Congressman and a few bank titans. The idea was that by controlling “monetary policy”, the Federal Reserve could smooth out the natural cyclical fluctuations in economic activity that result in bank failures. The irony is that several years after its creation, we had the Great Depression and the most bank failures in history. So it’s been a monumental failure when measured against the rationale justifying its creation.)
It should be ended. It looks like it will take an act of Congress and a Presidential signature for it to go the way that both the First and Second Banks of the United States went – into the trash heap of history.
In Slaughter, Chief Justice John Roberts ruled that this language was flatly unconstitutional because the Constitution vests all executive power in the president. Yet, in Cook, the majority ruled that this exact same “for-cause” protection was perfectly constitutional. The text did not dictate this outcome; the Court chose to honor the text for one agency and strike it down for the other.
Roberts noted that the Fed has a “unique historical status and role” and is a “special arrangement sanctioned by history”.This is a massive double standard. The Federal Trade Commission had its own 91-year history of independence sanctioned by the landmark 1935 precedent Humphrey’s Executor. The Court chose to smash nearly a century of legal tradition for the FTC while inventing a fictitious historical exception to protect the Fed.
Under the conservative majority’s own “Unitary Executive Theory,” any agency that executes federal law must be answerable to the president. The Court struck down the FTC’s independence because it conducts investigations, issues rules, and enforces laws.
The Federal Reserve does the exact same thing, but on a trillion-dollar scale. It regulates commercial banking, dictates monetary policy, enforces financial stability laws, and holds unilateral control over the U.S. economy. Denying that the Fed exercises executive power is a legal fiction. By shielding Fed Governor Lisa Cook, the Court violated its own core constitutional rule that all executive branch actors must be accountable to the president.
This is accurate. No text-based way to differentiate the two cases. Purely outcome-driven.
This is inaccurate because it fails to identify the question presented to the Court.
In Cook v. Trump the question was could Trump remove cook DURING the lawsuit (her due process). The District Court put on an injunction that she can remain at work while things wind through the Court. Therefor the question before the SC is only that of the injunction – i.e., the burden the government must show is that they are very likely to prevail.
The SC held the government didn’t reach this burden. We’ll find out now that this is going back to the district court for a trial on the merits. Everything else written by Roberts is dicta and is pointing out potential issues and pitfalls. Essentially, projecting the issues that will need to be fleshed out during trial and likely appeal.
So, no, these are not contradictory as the questions presented and the standard of review for each was different. Courts regularly leave injunctions in place simply to maintain the status quo, even when it sometimes seems dumb.
To rule on a preliminary injunction, a court is legally required to evaluate whether the plaintiff has a “likelihood of success on the merits.” To determine that Lisa Cook was likely to win, Chief Justice Roberts had to evaluate the law itself. The majority explicitly rejected the administration’s core arguments. Roberts directly ruled that the President’s ability to fire a Fed Governor is judicially reviewable and that “for-cause” protections are entirely valid. This was a direct decision on substantive law, not a procedural technicality.
There is a clear contradiction. The contradiction lies in the constitutional theory applied on the exact same day. In Slaughter, a 6-3 majority ruled that “for-cause” removal protections for independent agencies (like the FTC) are flatly unconstitutional under the Unitary Executive Theory. Yet, in Cook, a 5-4 majority upheld identical “for-cause” restrictions for the Fed, explicitly validating them as constitutional. The contradiction is not about the standard of review; it is that the Court struck down independent agency protections in one room while declaring them constitutional and sacred in the next.
The federal reserve should not exist. There is nothing in the constitution that allows the creation of something that is neither legislative, or executive or judicial.
Nor has the FED performed very well. There have been more recessions and depressions during the Fed’s tenure than before.
And before was pretty bad.
If we actually want a entral bank not answerable to the president or legislature or judiciary – we can amend the constitution to do so.
The Federal Reserve is a direct creation of Congress, operating under explicit Article I powers. Under the Necessary and Proper Clause, Congress possesses full constitutional authority to pass laws to manage the national debt, coin money, and regulate its value.
Even the Founders recognized this economic necessity. Alexander Hamilton spearheaded the First Bank of the United States in 1791 specifically to stabilize the currency and secure the nation’s financial architecture.
The claim that the Fed has performed poorly is statistically backwards. Data from the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) proves that the pre-Fed American economy was vastly more volatile, with deeper and more frequent crises.
In the 112 years before the Fed’s 1913 creation (1800–1912), the U.S. suffered 24 recessions lasting over a year. In the century since, there have been only 9. Pre-Fed downturns were unmanaged and devastating; the Panic of 1873 triggered a horrific 65-month depression. By contrast, the post-WWII average for a modern recession is just 10 to 11 months. Without a “lender of last resort” to inject emergency liquidity, a single failing bank in the 19th century could spark a cascade of panic that wiped out everyday citizens’ life savings overnight. The Fed was built precisely to end those catastrophic bank runs.
Therefore, a constitutional amendment is legally unnecessary. Article I gives Congress the authority to establish a central bank, and Congress retains the democratic power to alter, reform, or abolish the Fed through standard legislation. Ironically, this structure highlights the Supreme Court’s hypocritical double standard in Slaughter. The conservative majority stripped independence from ordinary regulatory agencies under the guise of presidential accountability, yet left the Federal Reserve insulated. Defending Slaughter’s reasoning while treating the Fed as a “special” exception exposes a glaring legal contradiction that is impossible to justify.
“Even the Founders recognized this economic necessity. Alexander Hamilton spearheaded the First Bank of the United States in 1791 specifically to stabilize the currency and secure the nation’s financial architecture.”
You completely butchered that story.
*Some* Founders supported FB. Others, e.g., Jefferson and Madison, vehemently rejected it.
It did not “stabilize the currency.” As opposed to the Fed leviathan, FB did *not* set monetary policy. It did *not* control private banks. And it was *not* the lender of last resort. But it did expire 20 years after its (mistaken) inception.
The rest of your comment is equally accurate.
Madison rejected a national bank—until the War of 1812 proved him dead wrong. After dogmatically letting the first bank’s charter expire, he watched the unmanaged economy completely collapse during the war. Having learned the hard way that a central bank was an absolute necessity, a deeply chastened Madison completely reversed course and signed the Second Bank of the United States into law in 1816.
Why do you keep lying?
The SB did *not* manage the economy. Like the FB, it had no control over private financial markets. It, too, was abolished. (And it was on the gold standard.)
It didn’t operate exactly like the modern Federal Reserve, it absolutely managed the economy and controlled private financial markets.
Private state-chartered banks issued their own paper banknotes. The Second Bank of the United States would collect these private notes. It then demanded that the private banks redeem them for actual gold or silver (specie). If a private bank was lending too recklessly or printing too much paper money, the Second BUS could force them to rein it in or risk bankruptcy. This was a powerful, direct mechanism for controlling private financial markets and checking inflation.
Because it held all federal tax revenues, the Second Bank of the United States was the largest monied corporation in the world. By adjusting its own lending practices and interest rates across its 25 national branches, it directly dictated the availability of credit nationwide. It chose to expand or restrict the money supply depending on economic conditions. This is the exact definition of managing an economy.
The Second Bank was not abolished. President Andrew Jackson vetoed its recharter in 1832 because he viewed it as a “monster” monopoly that concentrated too much economic power over the nation. He made the exact same mistake Madison did.
You know what happened after?
The U.S. economy suffered the worst financial collapse in its history up to that point, culminating in the devastating Panic of 1837.
Without the Second Bank of the. United States to collect state banknotes and demand they be redeemed for gold or silver, the primary check on private lending vanished. Jackson moved federal funds into state-chartered institutions dubbed “pet banks”. Stripped of central oversight, these banks began recklessly printing paper money and extending exorbitant loans. This fueled rampant, out-of-control real estate speculation, creating a massive economic bubble.
The resulting economic devastation lasted nearly seven years, stretching deep into the 1840s.
You can certify all this is true online.
Over 40% of all financial institutions in the United States closed their doors entirely.
Property values, agricultural goods, and cotton prices plummeted.
Businesses shuttered across the country, leaving a massive portion of the American workforce completely jobless.
Jackson, believed like Madison and now John Say about same thing, justifying removing agencies like the Fed because they were either unconstitutional or too powerful. Both attempts to get rid of a powerful national financial regulator failed disastrously.
you copied almost every word you have posted on this topic from an AI engine.
GEB, why should a group of unelected persons be in charge of interest rates? Do we need a federal reserve? Can that function not be exercised by the Treasury Department, and as well? Are you sure the federal reserve is truly independent, or are they aligned with the interest of Big Finance?
If the Dems pack the court with justices that have the deep intellect and understanding of the law like Ketanji Bobanji Jackson exhibits, we have nothing to worry about. . .
So, in other words, black women are stupid, is that what you’re saying?
Always fun to read the ignorant and racist ramblings of MAGA_ots here. BTW, Billy G uses a cat as its personal avatar.
He said absolutely nothing about race or gender. You did.
That means YOU have a subconscious belief that Jackson is stupid because she is a black woman. You projected that belief onto someone else.
No, that particular woman is stupid. Oh, as are you,
KBJ is stupid. and a lousy example for any truly smart people hoping to make a difference in our troubled world because a DEI hire is taking the spot.
Why bother becoming a better person if you’re not the desired identity by the racist left.
‘Why bother trying?’ should become the socialist slogan. Anything to take the human spirit down a notch into serfdom.
You are the one who brought race into the discussion, Anonymous, dear. It appears you, like most elite liberals, think black women are not qualified. Very telling.
Nice try. He was talking about a women, who has shown. She is not up degree of other Supreme judges.
” in other words, black women are stupid, is that what you’re saying?”
*some* black women are, just like some discernible fraction of any other demographic group you care to examine would be. But since Democrats insist on nominating candidates from the stupid fraction of any and every group, which invites faulty generalizations like the one you made, it is clear who is to blame….
I am reminded of the immortal words of Dennis McIntyre…
“Trump doesnt like it because Fani Willis is the first intelligent black woman he has seen in a court room”
Exact quote. Sems you agree with him.
It is sad that a major political party has, for the past decade, held a proverbial gun to the head of the American system of government, threatening to destroy it in order to save it. Democrats are, like Fascists always are, greedy for power, and view the Supreme Court as a limiting factor in their quest for absolute control. They are correct, but that is what it’s supposed to be. How long can a nation survive when Democrats demand complete obsequiousness by the Supreme Court to their whims, else it will be destroyed?
Reps. have used the same tactics as dems to control the state and fed. govs.
You have a bad case of tunnel vision to state that only dems are greedy for power and view SCTOUS as a factor in their quest for control. MAGA has the same quest. Really, it does.
“Reps. have used the same tactics as dems to control the state and fed. govs.”
Meh. As a libertarian, my observation is that, while both parties have indulged in this kind of unfortunate behavior, over my adult lifetime Republicans have widely acted with more restraint. That has, at times, arguably cost them elections. The tide has finally turned. Republicans have taken the gloves off and are less reticent to make moves that are blatantly designed to increase their power at the expense of Democrats, and SCOTUS is rightfully reining in some of the unconstitutional tactics that the Democrats have been using for a long time. Will a reasonable balance ultimately be reached, and hold? That would be nice, but it is very doubtful. This is the way the real world ebb and flow of partisan politics works.
So restraint is the key? Hogwash! Just because they’re restrained, their efforts to dominate are then, more acceptable? Meh, you sure know how to BS dude.
Trump has successfully reformed the Republican party and now the federal government is the closest it’s ever been to libertarian standards.
Not even close. More like authoritarian standards.
Turley completely ignores the blatant double standard Chief Justice Roberts created. Roberts ruled that the president has absolute authority to fire independent commissioners at will—except at the Federal Reserve, which is somehow deemed “special.” By blocking the removal of Fed Governor Lisa Cook, Roberts violated his own core principle that all executive power must be accountable to the president, offering no logical reason why the Fed is exempt.
This proves once again that self-proclaimed originalists love originalism—and textualism—only when it serves their preferred outcomes. The court hypocritically invoked “history and tradition” to protect a central banking system that did not even exist at the founding, abandoning its own legal philosophy for pure political pragmatism. This shameless double standard is precisely why Democrats are rightly calling for court reform to neutralize the influence of these partisan hypocrites.
Completely? No reason? Dbl standard? Geez george you off to the races this morning. Someone put coke in your morning tea? Carful, that stuff scrambles minds; what little you have of it.
The problem is, X/Geo/svelaz never read the opinion. He searched for this on AI, then pieced together his “piece” and his single “upvote” is either his own or someone who constantly gives him a single vote just to get back at us who can see through all this.
“Turley completely ignores the blatant double standard Chief Justice Roberts created.”
For once, I substantially agree with you. There is absolutely no valid Constitutional basis to exempt the Fed, or its governors, from direct executive authority.
“absolutely no valid Constitutional basis”. Okay…. based on what?
‘based on what?’
Based on the Constitution. Show me the clause in the Constitution that establishes the fourth coequal independent branch of government called the “Federal Reserve” and I will change my mind.
uh oh, Trump’s 4D chess exposed!
He’s gonna ‘end the fed!’
I notice you did not include your views on Presidential powers. Do you disagree with FDR or not?
Just more lies from you. Trump wanted to fire for cause a fed employee that tried to defraud the government. How does that end the fed?
Any government employee that tries to defraud the government or defrauds the government should be immediately fired, they would be in private enterprise. And don’t give me well that was a different department. If a stock room employee shoplift in the retail store, they still get fired.
Defraud how? Allegations are not proof.
Democrats don’t want court reform. Democrats want to pack the courts with subservient judges and justices. Are you that blind?
Yes constitutional original intent serves the purposes or the Constitution. I have no problem with that. I have a problem with make believe living document decisions that have no basis in the Constitution, Bill of Rights or established law.
There are no bigger partisan hypocrites than the Democrats saying they will save ‘democracy’ by turning us into a socialist dictatorship.
There is one problem with your brilliant theory, Rain Man…Roberts is not an originalist. As if your credibility could get any worse.
On my first day of Con Law at Simon Greenleaf University (later Trinity Law School) my professor argued that Everson v Board of Education (1947) was the most consequential of bad SCOTUS decisions because it elevated Jefferson’s “separation of church and state” metaphor to the status of binding constitutional law, shifting America off the bedrock of it biblical foundation onto the shifting sand of Secular Humanism. That truth is brought to mind by your “goose/gander” observation. Biblically, per John 10:34-36 and Psalm 82, judges are “gods’ in the sense of being agents of God in the fulfilment of His justice which is the origin of stare decisis in that once “God” had ruled through his agent, the matter was settled for all similar situations. In the Secular Humanist (rule of man) alternative we have inherited since Everson, “law” is what the strongman says it is, and packing the court is just a means to that end. Reversing Humphreys will not matter in the long run if we do not reverse Everson.
So, with all that knowledge, what did you do with it?
Jefferson’s famous 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists was a reflection of the Establishment Clause, not a replacement for it. Furthermore, James Madison—the primary architect of the Constitution and the First Amendment—explicitly argued for a “perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters” long before 1947. It was not a ‘metaphor’ he clarified exactly what it means.
In Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court actually upheld a New Jersey law that allowed public funds to bus children to Catholic schools. If Everson was a plot to establish “Secular Humanism,” it failed spectacularly by allowing public tax dollars to benefit religious education.
In Hebrew, the word Elohim (gods/mighty ones) is used sarcastically or as a title of rebuke for corrupt human rulers. Psalm 82 is not a praise of judges; it is a damning indictment of them. God stands in the heavenly court and asks human judges, “How long will you defend the unjust and show partiality to the wicked?” (Psalm 82:2).
Also, Stare decisis is a product of the English Common Law system, which developed centuries after the Bible was written. It was created for a purely practical, secular reason: consistency and predictability in human commerce and governance. If stare decisis were a divine, unchangeable law reflecting God’s final judgment, then the Supreme Court could never overturn its own past mistakes.
Um… going full AI again George? AI has been proven to create irrelevant and nonsensical responses to queries. You hit the jackpot this morning.
Another AI post from the idiot George
The Democrats don’t want an independent Supreme Court. They want, and will get, a subservient rubber stamp. Get used to it.
They are already subservient to the Republican Party. That’s the problem. The irony is they are giving the Democrats the tools to do exactly what the Republicans want now. Until Democrats regain power.
Already? Didn’t mail in votes just disprove that George? The firing of appointed fed coms. too? Irony? If you say so buddy.
No. It only proved that the ‘originalists’ and ‘textualist’ Alito and Thomas live to cherry-pick their history to justify their arguments. Amy Coney Barrett just showed Alito what a hypocrite he is.
I don’t think you even understand what “originalism” and “textualist” means, X. It’s all stuff you learned off the Internet, so your ability to invoke these big-boy words is limited to what you read.
I already know what you are going to say in defense, “oh, but you didn’t show me where what I said is wrong.”
No, George, it is YOU who carries the burden of your AI assumptions. YOU made the declaration.
YOU tell US with examples how “the ‘originalists’ and ‘textualist’ Alito and Thomas live to cherry-pick their history to justify their arguments.
BTW, also noticed that you have recently learned by example how to use single quotation marks (nested marks) for a quote inside a quote. Pat on the head, good boy, georgie.
In his dissent, Alito insisted that when Congress passed the original election-day statutes in 1845, voting and ballot collection were entirely simultaneous. He argued that historically, an election was legally complete only when ballots were physically in the hands of officials on Election Day.
Barrett explicitly caught Alito cherry-picking what she termed “short-lived outliers” in 19th-century election law. She showed the broader history of the Founding era, pointing out that multi-day voting windows, early voting, and absentee voting practices have existed since the birth of the nation. She argued that Alito was fixating on a very specific, narrow pocket of 19th-century mail logistics to invent a rigid rule.
Alito was caught by his conservative colleague trying to ‘cheat’ by invoking a cherry-picked outlier.
https://texaslawreview.org/selective-originalism-and-judicial-role-morality/
What a joke. I guess that’s why Fallon was nominated for SCOTUS, eh X? In addition to what was said before, I add to it that you also falsely characterized Barrett as calling out Alito as “cheating.” Poor America, we don’t have X on SCOTUS, what a loss.
so KBJ has the correct view on Constitutional application of law?
She’s pre-Constitution? no ‘feelings’?
We have a republican majority because no left leaning jurist can make any sense of the Constitution.
The just don’t make a sufficient jurist.
KBJ uses the conservatives’s own philosophy against them to show their hypocrisy and she does it well. That’s why so many MAGA’s get irate about her dissents.
Not just the GOP laughs at her. Her own libs judges have called her out.
Republicans already have that.
Well, this should be a fun day
So, how’s it going so far?
“The greatest danger, however, is the pledge of Democratic leaders to make the one impulsive change that could endanger the entire enterprise.”
Justice Sotomayor and Jonathan Turley exposed this blatant shortsightedness: a Democratic president and Congress can weaponize the conservative court’s own expanded executive powers to shred Republican policies and pack the bench within a single administration. Predictably, conservative sycophants will suddenly discover the virtues of “narrow” executive restraint the second a Democrat takes the Oval Office.
Chief Justice Roberts further exposed the court’s rank partisanship by cowardly shielding the Federal Reserve while throwing every other agency to the wolves of executive whim. This hypocritical double standard is utterly indefensible under the Constitution. It proves that even Roberts is terrified of what a rogue or an idiot like Trump would do with unfettered control over the nation’s economy.
This whole ‘Unitary Executive Theory’ BS is going to blow up in the faces of Republicans when they least expect it. It’s obvious Chief Justice Roberts is a big fan of the theory. But for the time being the Heritage Foundation’s dream has come true. Until a Democrat is elected. Then it would be a fight to limit the president’s powers, again.
LOL… keep crying george.
It’s what you do best.
At least he has in sight dustoff. You, you’re a certified idiot and have never posted a comment over 10 words.
Insight you say? More like TDS. Typical X.
Right. I can makes an argument using a few words. george/X spits all other this blog with noting but chatter.
Someone who spells it “in sight” might think George has “insight”. You know, the way Rain Man has “insight”.
Idiot.
“pledge of Democratic leaders”, meaning threats.
As I read your comment a banner popped up saying SCOTUS preserved birthright citizenship in opposition to the position of the Trump administration. The conservatives on the court once again put the lie to your claim that they serve the presidents preferences. I disagree with them, but I won’t be rioting to express my feelings.
This was a given. Even Turley knew Trump’s attempt to upend birthright citizenship would not succeed. One case does not prove the Conservative court is subservient to Republican wishes.
They couldn’t go Trump’s way even of they tried. Which is why they ended up shooting down Trump’s claims. When they can’t make up or cherry-pick from history to justify Trump’s argument they HAVE to rule against him.
Rain Man wisdom
Long live Communism! Destroy MAGA! Death to the infidels!
MAGA almost certainly appreciates your honesty.
Honesty? What honesty?
Esq.? Stands for Equally Stupid Quack.
Nope, but it sure shows what little gray matter you have.
LOL! Gray matter, in dustoff’s case, its snot.
WOW.. That retort really hurt.
Did you get the insult from X.
Very true. Dem/libs are never honest.
Ole steve is an accomplished author folks, a whopping 10 pages of inane dribble.
It’s drivel not dribble. Dribble is what is running down the chin of an open mouth drooling fool.
Look at history: DJT said “America will never become a communist country”. Also now, Trump was right about everything, what makes you think he’s suddenly wrong about something?
The Constitution is the commie destroyer, we just sit back and let it work. Communists hate this ONE trick (also Trump!).
I’m sorry to inform you Trump! has already made America quite great again and now the America First movement is unstoppable.