The Federal Reserve affirms its legal right to operate outside the favour of presidential dementia. It denies socialist Cry-Baby-trump's firing
of a Federal Board Governor and tells him to take his swollen ankles and pound sand.
26-30, M
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
Another SCOTUS case that could go any number of directions, pro, con or nowhere.
It mostly depends on how SCOTUS defines "cause". Yet the market itself may play a role.
SCOTUS is all for the markets whether the markets are pro Cook or not. That's their own money.
Trump is testing SCOTUS again on loyalty to him. SCOTUS may not go for it, just because of that given pro Cook market support. No market support for Cook? Then who knows? 🤷🏻♂
Back to how "cause" is defined, narrow or broad? Broad? Trump's wins. Anyone abstains or recuses themselves, then nowhere.
No one can say that all members of SCOTUS have NO interests in the markets. They all should recuse themselves. Not all of them will.
It mostly depends on how SCOTUS defines "cause". Yet the market itself may play a role.
SCOTUS is all for the markets whether the markets are pro Cook or not. That's their own money.
Trump is testing SCOTUS again on loyalty to him. SCOTUS may not go for it, just because of that given pro Cook market support. No market support for Cook? Then who knows? 🤷🏻♂
Back to how "cause" is defined, narrow or broad? Broad? Trump's wins. Anyone abstains or recuses themselves, then nowhere.
No one can say that all members of SCOTUS have NO interests in the markets. They all should recuse themselves. Not all of them will.
MarkPaul · 26-30, M
@DeWayfarer That makes 0.0 sense. Have investments is hardly a reason to recuse themselves. This Court has previously ruled the Federal Reserve, as a semi-private organization, is not subject to the whims of the Office of the President. The overriding question is whether they will back their own ruling or cave.
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
@MarkPaul i knew you would object. 😆