5 ms·

Trump Fires Fed Governor Lisa Cook

55 points by ahurmazda 1y ago

treetalker 1y ago
> " … The executive power of the United States is vested to me as President and, as President, I have a solemn duty that the laws of the United States are faithfully enacted,” the president wrote in the letter to Cook. Be. Executed. Be faithfully executed. That's why the president is the chief executive, not the chief enactor. Not exactly the constitutional scholar Obama was. But, in light of the recent "executive order to make flag-burning a criminal offense", perhaps this is a pertinent and revealing Freudian slip.
jleyank 1y ago
Tries to fire. Up to the courts to rule on the legality of this so the Supreme Court can give trump what he wants.
- soganess 1y ago
  That's not true, at least not really. The Supreme Court has been ducking the question of the legality of the recent firings by reversing, on the shadow docket, any lower court injunctions that stay the firings. When the cases eventually percolate again on the merits, Roberts and Co. may well find that it is illegal for the president to fire so-and-so... right as the administration changes parties. Sure, it's nakedly transparent. And yes, it amounts to setting the rule-of-law on fire while plugging your ears and repeating “I know you are but what am I.” But dang if it isn't brazenly effective politicking.
  - jacquesm 1y ago
    It's only effective if your country doesn't go down in flames while you do it.
EugeneG 1y ago
Tries to fire, but he doesn’t have the legal authority to fire
- bwestergard 1y ago
  You are very much right. But Trump tried to fire Gwynne Wilcox of the National Labor Relations Board and the Supreme Court killed her case in the shadow docket. https://www.steptoe.com/en/news-publications/the-fed-can-stay-but-the-rest-of-you-have-to-go-why-a-temporary-supreme-court-decision-might-signal-the-end-is-near-for-independent-agencies.html https://www.steptoe.com/en/news-publications/the-fed-can-sta...
  - softwaredoug 1y ago
    Notably in a lot of these cases they’re just canceling injunctions, not deciding the merits. But effectively it decides the case because nobody is going to stick around through a long trial after the injunction is canceled. Which basically makes The Supreme Courts shadow docket a fairly arbitrary justice system that doesn’t generate precedent and many courts ignore past the immediate case.
- cosmicgadget 1y ago
  As I understand it, he has the authority to fire for cause. There's just very dubious cause here -- like how he tested the waters with firing Powell over the cost of hq renovations after SCOTUS told him the Fed is different.
andrewinardeer 1y ago
Trump has what, 3 and a bit years as POTUS? All this power grabbing is setting himself up for what? In 3.5 years he is out the door and an election will be held with presumably Vance as the POTUS nom. If you play the tape out and, as expected, the GOP is massacred at mid-terms, and Dems get in their pick in at the next election I would expect all this to be undone. What is the point? And I reject any argument that Trump will take the POTUS position for a third term. It won't happen.
- Forgeties79 1y ago
  At this point they are probably banking on the Supreme Court reining in all this executive power right before his term ends to hobble a possible Democrat successor.
- dragonwriter 1y ago
  > In 3.5 years he is out the door and an election will be held with presumably Vance as the POTUS nom. I wouldn't presume that very strongly; the last two sitting VPs to be nominated to succeed the President they served under were Nixon and George H. W. Bush. > If you play the tape out and, as expected, the GOP is massacred at mid-terms, and Dems get in their pick in at the next election I would expect all this to be undone. I think you haven't thought through the manners in which a military occupation targeted on a partisan basis can, alone or in coordination with other chicanery, selectively impact the operation if elections, and how any uncertainty produced is resolved by the fact that the existing House is the ultimate judge of elections to the next House. IOW, your mistake is asssumign business as usual despite all the flashing red lights and klaxons going off about how the business of government is not operating as usual.
  - twoodfin 1y ago
    You forgot about Al Gore.
- TheAlchemist 1y ago
  Are you sure about that ? Because if history is any indication, he's on a straight path every single dictator and strongman walked before becoming one. He has set on fire every single US institution and the rule of law. He is the law now. It doesn't end well. Maybe it won't be him, but his son, who knows. But there is no good outcome out of it. Zero. He's not loosing another election.
tempera 1y ago
[dead]

55 points by ahurmazda 1y ago

> " … The executive power of the United States is vested to me as President and, as President, I have a solemn duty that the laws of the United States are faithfully enacted,” the president wrote in the letter to Cook. Be. Executed. Be faithfully executed. That's why the president is the chief executive, not the chief enactor. Not exactly the constitutional scholar Obama was. But, in light of the recent "executive order to make flag-burning a criminal offense", perhaps this is a pertinent and revealing Freudian slip.

jleyank 1y ago

Tries to fire. Up to the courts to rule on the legality of this so the Supreme Court can give trump what he wants.

soganess 1y ago
That's not true, at least not really. The Supreme Court has been ducking the question of the legality of the recent firings by reversing, on the shadow docket, any lower court injunctions that stay the firings. When the cases eventually percolate again on the merits, Roberts and Co. may well find that it is illegal for the president to fire so-and-so... right as the administration changes parties. Sure, it's nakedly transparent. And yes, it amounts to setting the rule-of-law on fire while plugging your ears and repeating “I know you are but what am I.” But dang if it isn't brazenly effective politicking.
- jacquesm 1y ago
  It's only effective if your country doesn't go down in flames while you do it.

EugeneG 1y ago

Tries to fire, but he doesn’t have the legal authority to fire

bwestergard 1y ago
You are very much right. But Trump tried to fire Gwynne Wilcox of the National Labor Relations Board and the Supreme Court killed her case in the shadow docket. https://www.steptoe.com/en/news-publications/the-fed-can-stay-but-the-rest-of-you-have-to-go-why-a-temporary-supreme-court-decision-might-signal-the-end-is-near-for-independent-agencies.html https://www.steptoe.com/en/news-publications/the-fed-can-sta...
- softwaredoug 1y ago
  Notably in a lot of these cases they’re just canceling injunctions, not deciding the merits. But effectively it decides the case because nobody is going to stick around through a long trial after the injunction is canceled. Which basically makes The Supreme Courts shadow docket a fairly arbitrary justice system that doesn’t generate precedent and many courts ignore past the immediate case.
cosmicgadget 1y ago
As I understand it, he has the authority to fire for cause. There's just very dubious cause here -- like how he tested the waters with firing Powell over the cost of hq renovations after SCOTUS told him the Fed is different.

andrewinardeer 1y ago

Trump has what, 3 and a bit years as POTUS? All this power grabbing is setting himself up for what? In 3.5 years he is out the door and an election will be held with presumably Vance as the POTUS nom. If you play the tape out and, as expected, the GOP is massacred at mid-terms, and Dems get in their pick in at the next election I would expect all this to be undone. What is the point? And I reject any argument that Trump will take the POTUS position for a third term. It won't happen.

Forgeties79 1y ago
At this point they are probably banking on the Supreme Court reining in all this executive power right before his term ends to hobble a possible Democrat successor.
dragonwriter 1y ago
> In 3.5 years he is out the door and an election will be held with presumably Vance as the POTUS nom. I wouldn't presume that very strongly; the last two sitting VPs to be nominated to succeed the President they served under were Nixon and George H. W. Bush. > If you play the tape out and, as expected, the GOP is massacred at mid-terms, and Dems get in their pick in at the next election I would expect all this to be undone. I think you haven't thought through the manners in which a military occupation targeted on a partisan basis can, alone or in coordination with other chicanery, selectively impact the operation if elections, and how any uncertainty produced is resolved by the fact that the existing House is the ultimate judge of elections to the next House. IOW, your mistake is asssumign business as usual despite all the flashing red lights and klaxons going off about how the business of government is not operating as usual.
- twoodfin 1y ago
  You forgot about Al Gore.
TheAlchemist 1y ago
Are you sure about that ? Because if history is any indication, he's on a straight path every single dictator and strongman walked before becoming one. He has set on fire every single US institution and the rule of law. He is the law now. It doesn't end well. Maybe it won't be him, but his son, who knows. But there is no good outcome out of it. Zero. He's not loosing another election.

tempera 1y ago

[dead]