4 ms·

Telling that the Supreme Court will let Trump fire the FTC head (despite precedent against the exact same situation) but not the Fed governor. You can see the c

Telling that the Supreme Court will let Trump fire the FTC head (despite precedent against the exact same situation) but not the Fed governor. You can see the court just outright ruling based on the preferences and not law.

CamperBob2 1y ago
The Fed is notionally independent, while the FTC is part of the executive branch. Yes, it's bullshit either way, but it's not hard to see the court's reasoning here.
- redserk 1y ago
  Incorrect. The FTC is not simply under the executive branch, it’s defined to be an independent agency. The handling of the Federal Reserve and the FTC cases are creating a very interesting situation for how agencies can be defined by Congress.
  - lockedinsuburb 1y ago
    Notionally, under a law created by Congress. But the Constitution defines the Executive Branch as being under control of the Chief Executive. But again, Congress has been able to cede their rights and privileges under law to other people/groups. Ends up the USSC will have to decide.
    - lokar 1y ago
      Right, both the FTC and the Fed (and others) are independent agencies created by congress with leaders selected by the president and approved by the senate. The argument is all of this violates the constitution. There has not yet been a clear principle articulated by the court for treating them differently.
    - cosmicgadget 1y ago
      Not notionally, their independence is codified. The idea of a unitary executive is obviously being relitigated but there's no question that independent executive agencies have existed for a century.
    - redserk 1y ago
      I’m not disputing that Congress can cede power to the Executive Branch. Rulemaking and regulatory agencies like the FTC and FCC are great examples of this. I will argue that the inconsistency in the Supreme Court’s rulings are creating an environment where some independent agencies will receive special consideration based on their function. This sets up an environment where Congress loses out on the collaborative benefits and safeguards of independent agencies in favor of the courts further empowering the Executive.
      - rayiner 1y ago
        The problem with the Supreme Court’s rulings isn’t “inconsistency.” It’s that it completely fucked up the precedent in the 1930s and allowed an unconstitutional fourth branch of government to be created.
        redserk 1y ago
        “Unconstitutional” is a loaded term that fails to convey any meaningful insight if you consider the Supreme Court only has power because they declared it so. That said, there isn’t a fourth branch of government and the strict boundaries of branches is a rather… elementary understanding how our government works. If an independent agency is “unconstitutional” and a fourth branch, how would you define our Armed Forces in practice?
        dragonwriter 1y ago
        > the Supreme Court only has power because they declared it so. The Supreme Court has power because the express grant of power in Article III; the idea that they could somehow fulfill their role in adjudicating cases and controversies arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States without both deciding what those writings mean and deciding whether something purporting to be a law of the United States was, in fact, an act authorized by the Constitution when that is precisely the source of the controversy before them is patently absurd.
cm2187 1y ago
not sure what that tells you exactly. Preference for what, monetary policy as opposed to commerce?
- psunavy03 1y ago
  When the Court does what people like, they're ruling according to the law. When they do what people don't like, they're judicial activists ruling by preference. When the Court does what people like, they're a legitimate and vital check on government power. When it does what people don't like, they're unelected politicans in robes.
  - popalchemist 1y ago
    [flagged]
- hackyhacky 1y ago
  > not sure what that tells you exactly. Preference for what, monetary policy as opposed to commerce? SCOTUS does not care about regulatory or labor protections, because the Justices are friends with and receive payments from the billionaire class (Leonard Leo, Charles Koch, Erik Prince) who benefit from weaker protections. On the other hand, a corrupt Fed could lead to rampant inflation, which would devalue their 401k. In other words, SCOTUS is motivated by self interest, not rule of law or justice.
mikece 1y ago
THe FTC is part of the Federal Gov't whereas the Federal Reserve is not.
- hackyhacky 1y ago
  > THe FTC is part of the Federal Gov't whereas the Federal Reserve is not. I think you know that blanket statements of this type are at best inaccurate and not helpful to the discussion. The Fed is an entity created by federal statute and staffed by presidential appointees, so it's at least a little misleading to say that it's not part of the federal government.
- jonny_eh 1y ago
  What does that have to do with the law?
  - jfengel 1y ago
    What does the law have to do with anything here? The Court will have a bunch of briefs from both sides giving them legal justification for any decision. They will choose which briefs they like.
    - jonny_eh 1y ago
      Well, that's the point of the post at the top of this thread, isn't it?
- dragonwriter 1y ago
  The Federal Reserve Board of Governors is absolutely part of the federal government, and under statute is the same kind of part of the federal government as the FTC is. The Federal Reserve System is a bit more complicated than the Board of Governors (but is also effectively part of the federal government, but a sui generis, highly corporatist part of the federal government, with direct involvement in an unusual manner by powerful private entities.)
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
dragonwriter 1y ago
The kind of ruling at issue (on what preliminary measures to take to while a case is being adjudicated) are, under the law, based on a wide variety of considerations beyond the merits of the underlying case (though a judegement of likelihood of success on the merits is one of the factors, it is not the only one.) The concrete impact of the act to be allowed or constrained is, very much, a part of that analysis, so situations which are otherwise legally similar in terms of the underlying issues but where the potential impacts in the interim of adjudication are different can very easily have very different outcomes at this level without judicial favoritism or misconduct. Which isn't to say that there aren't problems with recent Supreme Court decisions in this area, just than you need more than “cases with similar underlying legal questions have different outcomes on preliminary orders governing what is allowed before the case is resolved” to make that case.
- rayiner 1y ago
  > Which isn't to say that there aren't problems with recent Supreme Court decisions in this area The problems aren’t with the recent decisions, but the 1930s ones. I don’t think there’s a decision on the books today that was more clearly wrongly decided than Humphrey’s Executor. I mean: > The commission is to be nonpartisan, and it must, from the very nature of its duties, act with entire impartiality. It is charged with the enforcement of no policy except the policy of the law. Its duties are neither political nor executive, but predominantly quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative. The concession in italics should have made this a slam dunk case in the other direction. Enforcement of the law is the quintessential executive power. An English peasant in the 1600s could have gotten this one right. And where does the constitution say anything about Congress being able to create “quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative” bodies? The founders spilled all this ink to make three branches of government, but they really meant “j/k mix them all up into one unelected body if you want!”
  - vlovich123 1y ago
    That may be the case but it’s hard to look at recent rulings by the Supreme Court and direction of things happening within the executive as anything other than “anything for my friends, for everyone else the law”, whether that’s overturning Roe v Wade (and probably Griswald too sooner rather than later) or overturning the meaning of the words “well organized militia” in usurping the legislation’s ability to regulate private firearms. Having different playbooks for players to follow depending on whether one team is for you or against is an interesting approach but one that’s been tried many times before and not one that will leave this country unified or in a better shape than it was found.
georgemcbay 1y ago
The Supreme Court is playing "Calvinball" now, and that's not me saying it but (a member of) the Supreme Court saying it. https://www.dailycartoonist.com/index.php/2025/08/21/calvinball-enshrined-in-jurisprudence-speak/ https://www.dailycartoonist.com/index.php/2025/08/21/calvinb...
- apparent 1y ago
  This comment doesn't make sense in the context of a decision that went against the administration. Justice Jackson said: > This is Calvinball jurisprudence with a twist. Calvinball has only one rule: There are no fixed rules.6 We seem to have two: that one, and this Administration always wins.
  - georgemcbay 1y ago
    > This comment doesn't make sense in the context of a decision that went against the administration. I'm really not sure what you're talking about here because the decision didn't go against the administration. Justice Jackson's comment was part of a dissenting opinion.
    - apparent 1y ago
      Justice Jackson's quip was part of a different dissenting opinion. It doesn't make sense here because the decision regarding Cook, which went against the administration. It's like claiming a game is rigged when your team won.
      - georgemcbay 1y ago
        I was directly replying to this parent reply: > You can see the court just outright ruling based on the preferences and not law. And my reply was: > The Supreme Court is playing "Calvinball" now, and that's not me saying it but (a member of) the Supreme Court saying it. Who the Court decided for in the OP linked article is completely irrelevant to my reply. It was merely reinforcing the idea that the Court appears to many to be making up the rules as they go along to suit their preferences, which is quite analogous to the rules for Calvinball. My reply was not worded as, nor meant to be, an indication that I disagree with their ruling in the OP article. How they ruled on any single specific matter is irrelevant to the case that they've made a lot of rulings lately which are at odds with precedents including some of their own.
hackyhacky 1y ago
The fig lead that they will use to justify this distinction was hinted at in Seila Law, another case when they allowed the firing of members of independent agencies: they will say that the Federal Reserve has a "long tradition of independence" that distinguishes it from newer agencies, even though they are all operated under the same law. If that distinction sounds preposterous to you, then congratulations, you reached the same conclusion that Justice Jackson reached when she complained that the conservative majority is playing "Calvinball" to reach results-based decisions regardless of statute, precedent, and the Constitution. For those who didn't grow up in the 90s, Calvinball is a reference to a fictional sport from the comic strip Calvin and Hobbes, in which the sport's rules are made up and change constantly. [1] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Calvinball https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Calvinball
Workaccount2 1y ago
The FTC is a government agency whereas the Fed is not. Part of the question being adjudicated here is how much control the president has over the Fed, since it's a quasi government body at most, and a 99% independent body at least.
- dragonwriter 1y ago
  > The FTC is a government agency whereas the Fed is not Someone should tell the Federal Reserve Board of Governors that they aren’t a government agency: https://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/fedexplained/who-we-are.htm https://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/fedexplained/who-... “The Federal Reserve System includes · The Board of Governors, a federal agency located in Washington, D.C."
  - Workaccount2 1y ago
    Sure, the board is a board of federally appointed individuals. But the board is a subsection of the federal reserve systems. And even the board is kind of odd in it's structure, because the governors have staggered appointments and serve a term. The whole federal reserve is also privately funded, and doesn't get money from congress. From the outside it may appear like a regular federal agency, but it is very different from the FTC, DEA, FDA, DOE, etc.
    - dragonwriter 1y ago
      > Sure, the board is a board of federally appointed individuals. No, its a federal agency. Explicitly. > But the board is a subsection of the federal reserve systems. Yes, the Federal Reserve System is a different thing from the Board with a sui generis relation to the government, which would maybe be relevant if the personnel action involved some part of the system which was not the Board, but we are talking about a personnel action pertaining to the Board. > And even the board is kind of odd in it's structure, because the governors have staggered appointments and serve a term. That’s not at all special (particularly when comparing to the FTC), but typical of “independent” federal agencies (including the FTC), which tend to have fixed terms that are longer than a Presidential term (7 years for the FTC, 14 for the Fed Board), staggered terms, and an explicit statutory limits on the number of members of the body that can be from one political party.

CamperBob2 1y ago

The Fed is notionally independent, while the FTC is part of the executive branch. Yes, it's bullshit either way, but it's not hard to see the court's reasoning here.

redserk 1y ago
Incorrect. The FTC is not simply under the executive branch, it’s defined to be an independent agency. The handling of the Federal Reserve and the FTC cases are creating a very interesting situation for how agencies can be defined by Congress.
- lockedinsuburb 1y ago
  Notionally, under a law created by Congress. But the Constitution defines the Executive Branch as being under control of the Chief Executive. But again, Congress has been able to cede their rights and privileges under law to other people/groups. Ends up the USSC will have to decide.
  - lokar 1y ago
    Right, both the FTC and the Fed (and others) are independent agencies created by congress with leaders selected by the president and approved by the senate. The argument is all of this violates the constitution. There has not yet been a clear principle articulated by the court for treating them differently.
  - cosmicgadget 1y ago
    Not notionally, their independence is codified. The idea of a unitary executive is obviously being relitigated but there's no question that independent executive agencies have existed for a century.
  - redserk 1y ago
    I’m not disputing that Congress can cede power to the Executive Branch. Rulemaking and regulatory agencies like the FTC and FCC are great examples of this. I will argue that the inconsistency in the Supreme Court’s rulings are creating an environment where some independent agencies will receive special consideration based on their function. This sets up an environment where Congress loses out on the collaborative benefits and safeguards of independent agencies in favor of the courts further empowering the Executive.
    - rayiner 1y ago
      The problem with the Supreme Court’s rulings isn’t “inconsistency.” It’s that it completely fucked up the precedent in the 1930s and allowed an unconstitutional fourth branch of government to be created.
      - redserk 1y ago
        “Unconstitutional” is a loaded term that fails to convey any meaningful insight if you consider the Supreme Court only has power because they declared it so. That said, there isn’t a fourth branch of government and the strict boundaries of branches is a rather… elementary understanding how our government works. If an independent agency is “unconstitutional” and a fourth branch, how would you define our Armed Forces in practice?
        dragonwriter 1y ago
        > the Supreme Court only has power because they declared it so. The Supreme Court has power because the express grant of power in Article III; the idea that they could somehow fulfill their role in adjudicating cases and controversies arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States without both deciding what those writings mean and deciding whether something purporting to be a law of the United States was, in fact, an act authorized by the Constitution when that is precisely the source of the controversy before them is patently absurd.

cm2187 1y ago

not sure what that tells you exactly. Preference for what, monetary policy as opposed to commerce?

psunavy03 1y ago
When the Court does what people like, they're ruling according to the law. When they do what people don't like, they're judicial activists ruling by preference. When the Court does what people like, they're a legitimate and vital check on government power. When it does what people don't like, they're unelected politicans in robes.
- popalchemist 1y ago
  [flagged]
hackyhacky 1y ago
> not sure what that tells you exactly. Preference for what, monetary policy as opposed to commerce? SCOTUS does not care about regulatory or labor protections, because the Justices are friends with and receive payments from the billionaire class (Leonard Leo, Charles Koch, Erik Prince) who benefit from weaker protections. On the other hand, a corrupt Fed could lead to rampant inflation, which would devalue their 401k. In other words, SCOTUS is motivated by self interest, not rule of law or justice.

mikece 1y ago

THe FTC is part of the Federal Gov't whereas the Federal Reserve is not.

hackyhacky 1y ago
> THe FTC is part of the Federal Gov't whereas the Federal Reserve is not. I think you know that blanket statements of this type are at best inaccurate and not helpful to the discussion. The Fed is an entity created by federal statute and staffed by presidential appointees, so it's at least a little misleading to say that it's not part of the federal government.
jonny_eh 1y ago
What does that have to do with the law?
- jfengel 1y ago
  What does the law have to do with anything here? The Court will have a bunch of briefs from both sides giving them legal justification for any decision. They will choose which briefs they like.
  - jonny_eh 1y ago
    Well, that's the point of the post at the top of this thread, isn't it?
dragonwriter 1y ago
The Federal Reserve Board of Governors is absolutely part of the federal government, and under statute is the same kind of part of the federal government as the FTC is. The Federal Reserve System is a bit more complicated than the Board of Governors (but is also effectively part of the federal government, but a sui generis, highly corporatist part of the federal government, with direct involvement in an unusual manner by powerful private entities.)

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

dragonwriter 1y ago

The kind of ruling at issue (on what preliminary measures to take to while a case is being adjudicated) are, under the law, based on a wide variety of considerations beyond the merits of the underlying case (though a judegement of likelihood of success on the merits is one of the factors, it is not the only one.) The concrete impact of the act to be allowed or constrained is, very much, a part of that analysis, so situations which are otherwise legally similar in terms of the underlying issues but where the potential impacts in the interim of adjudication are different can very easily have very different outcomes at this level without judicial favoritism or misconduct. Which isn't to say that there aren't problems with recent Supreme Court decisions in this area, just than you need more than “cases with similar underlying legal questions have different outcomes on preliminary orders governing what is allowed before the case is resolved” to make that case.

rayiner 1y ago
> Which isn't to say that there aren't problems with recent Supreme Court decisions in this area The problems aren’t with the recent decisions, but the 1930s ones. I don’t think there’s a decision on the books today that was more clearly wrongly decided than Humphrey’s Executor. I mean: > The commission is to be nonpartisan, and it must, from the very nature of its duties, act with entire impartiality. It is charged with the enforcement of no policy except the policy of the law. Its duties are neither political nor executive, but predominantly quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative. The concession in italics should have made this a slam dunk case in the other direction. Enforcement of the law is the quintessential executive power. An English peasant in the 1600s could have gotten this one right. And where does the constitution say anything about Congress being able to create “quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative” bodies? The founders spilled all this ink to make three branches of government, but they really meant “j/k mix them all up into one unelected body if you want!”
- vlovich123 1y ago
  That may be the case but it’s hard to look at recent rulings by the Supreme Court and direction of things happening within the executive as anything other than “anything for my friends, for everyone else the law”, whether that’s overturning Roe v Wade (and probably Griswald too sooner rather than later) or overturning the meaning of the words “well organized militia” in usurping the legislation’s ability to regulate private firearms. Having different playbooks for players to follow depending on whether one team is for you or against is an interesting approach but one that’s been tried many times before and not one that will leave this country unified or in a better shape than it was found.

georgemcbay 1y ago

The Supreme Court is playing "Calvinball" now, and that's not me saying it but (a member of) the Supreme Court saying it. https://www.dailycartoonist.com/index.php/2025/08/21/calvinball-enshrined-in-jurisprudence-speak/ https://www.dailycartoonist.com/index.php/2025/08/21/calvinb...

apparent 1y ago
This comment doesn't make sense in the context of a decision that went against the administration. Justice Jackson said: > This is Calvinball jurisprudence with a twist. Calvinball has only one rule: There are no fixed rules.6 We seem to have two: that one, and this Administration always wins.
- georgemcbay 1y ago
  > This comment doesn't make sense in the context of a decision that went against the administration. I'm really not sure what you're talking about here because the decision didn't go against the administration. Justice Jackson's comment was part of a dissenting opinion.
  - apparent 1y ago
    Justice Jackson's quip was part of a different dissenting opinion. It doesn't make sense here because the decision regarding Cook, which went against the administration. It's like claiming a game is rigged when your team won.
    - georgemcbay 1y ago
      I was directly replying to this parent reply: > You can see the court just outright ruling based on the preferences and not law. And my reply was: > The Supreme Court is playing "Calvinball" now, and that's not me saying it but (a member of) the Supreme Court saying it. Who the Court decided for in the OP linked article is completely irrelevant to my reply. It was merely reinforcing the idea that the Court appears to many to be making up the rules as they go along to suit their preferences, which is quite analogous to the rules for Calvinball. My reply was not worded as, nor meant to be, an indication that I disagree with their ruling in the OP article. How they ruled on any single specific matter is irrelevant to the case that they've made a lot of rulings lately which are at odds with precedents including some of their own.

hackyhacky 1y ago

The fig lead that they will use to justify this distinction was hinted at in Seila Law, another case when they allowed the firing of members of independent agencies: they will say that the Federal Reserve has a "long tradition of independence" that distinguishes it from newer agencies, even though they are all operated under the same law. If that distinction sounds preposterous to you, then congratulations, you reached the same conclusion that Justice Jackson reached when she complained that the conservative majority is playing "Calvinball" to reach results-based decisions regardless of statute, precedent, and the Constitution. For those who didn't grow up in the 90s, Calvinball is a reference to a fictional sport from the comic strip Calvin and Hobbes, in which the sport's rules are made up and change constantly. [1] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Calvinball https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Calvinball

Workaccount2 1y ago

The FTC is a government agency whereas the Fed is not. Part of the question being adjudicated here is how much control the president has over the Fed, since it's a quasi government body at most, and a 99% independent body at least.

dragonwriter 1y ago
> The FTC is a government agency whereas the Fed is not Someone should tell the Federal Reserve Board of Governors that they aren’t a government agency: https://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/fedexplained/who-we-are.htm https://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/fedexplained/who-... “The Federal Reserve System includes · The Board of Governors, a federal agency located in Washington, D.C."
- Workaccount2 1y ago
  Sure, the board is a board of federally appointed individuals. But the board is a subsection of the federal reserve systems. And even the board is kind of odd in it's structure, because the governors have staggered appointments and serve a term. The whole federal reserve is also privately funded, and doesn't get money from congress. From the outside it may appear like a regular federal agency, but it is very different from the FTC, DEA, FDA, DOE, etc.
  - dragonwriter 1y ago
    > Sure, the board is a board of federally appointed individuals. No, its a federal agency. Explicitly. > But the board is a subsection of the federal reserve systems. Yes, the Federal Reserve System is a different thing from the Board with a sui generis relation to the government, which would maybe be relevant if the personnel action involved some part of the system which was not the Board, but we are talking about a personnel action pertaining to the Board. > And even the board is kind of odd in it's structure, because the governors have staggered appointments and serve a term. That’s not at all special (particularly when comparing to the FTC), but typical of “independent” federal agencies (including the FTC), which tend to have fixed terms that are longer than a Presidential term (7 years for the FTC, 14 for the Fed Board), staggered terms, and an explicit statutory limits on the number of members of the body that can be from one political party.