BREAKING: In a two-sentence, unsigned order on Wednesday, the Supreme Court temporarily blocked Trump's attempt to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, saying she can stay in her job at least until the high court hears oral arguments in the case in January.
— Amee Vanderpool (@girlsreallyrule.bsky.social) October 1, 2025 at 12:59 PM
===
SCOTUS set up arguments on whether Trump can remove Lisa Cook from the Fed for January, and she stay in her post at least until then. www.nytimes.com/2025/10/01/u…
— Taniel (@taniel.bsky.social) October 1, 2025 at 2:05 PM
Much could happen, in that time. I might die, or the king might die — or the horse might talk!
Good for the Supreme Court, but let’s not pretend the Sinister Six considered anything beyond the strong possibility that their personal profits — and their donors’ profits — would take a hit if Trump were allowed to interfere with the Federal Reserve. [Gift link]:
… Top former Fed and Treasury officials and Ms. Cook’s legal team had warned the Supreme Court that permitting Mr. Trump to fire her while litigation over her status was underway would spur economic turmoil and undermine public confidence in the Fed.
While the Supreme Court’s conservative majority has repeatedly cleared the way for the president to fire leaders of other independent agencies, the justices have recently signaled that the central bank is uniquely independent…
The legal battle over Ms. Cook’s firing has major implications for the central bank and its ability to set interest rates free from political interference. Every living former Fed chair — Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke and Janet L. Yellen — joined former Treasury secretaries nominated by presidents of both parties to tell the justices in a court filing that Ms. Cook should be allowed to stay on the job while her case was being reviewed to ensure “stability of the system that governs monetary policy in this country.”
In the months since he returned to the White House, Mr. Trump has put public pressure on the Fed far exceeding that of his predecessors, with repeated demands that it lower borrowing costs. The president has also taken steps to add a political loyalist to the central bank’s Board of Governors…
The court’s decision to allow Ms. Cook to stay on as a governor was welcomed by former officials, economists and investors, who have been very concerned about the president’s efforts to erode the central bank’s longstanding independence from political interference.
That separation is seen as crucial to ensure that the Fed is setting interest rates based on what is best for the economy rather than whoever is in the White House. Past instances in countries where central banks have acted at the behest of a president have typically ended in soaring inflation, lower growth and financial volatility…
Mr. Trump is the first president to try to remove a governor in the Fed’s 111-year history…
Alito: You can't fire Lisa Cook because it might hurt my stonks.
— Denny Carter (@dennycarter.bsky.social) October 1, 2025 at 12:44 PM
===
They're actually gonna do the "the Fed is a super special entity unlike all these other boards" but it's gonna take forever.
— Schnorkles O'Bork (@schnorkles.bsky.social) October 1, 2025 at 10:50 AM
Cases where Trump probably is going to lose: Fed, Birthright Citizenship, Alien Enemies Act.
Cases where SCOTUS is going to punt in a Trump-like fashion: basically everything else.— Schnorkles O'Bork (@schnorkles.bsky.social) October 1, 2025 at 10:51 AM
A lot of the way they're expanding executive power, imho, is going to be punting on procedural grounds and hoping that it ends up moot or something by the time they have to hear it.
I don't think the court actually wants to dramatically expand power in a way that lets Dems do things too.— Schnorkles O'Bork (@schnorkles.bsky.social) October 1, 2025 at 10:58 AM
Baud
No C.R.E.A.M. tag?
Ishiyama
Love the historical reference!
mrmoshpotato
@Baud: Boston cream?
Jackie
Is this “suggestion” enforceable?
bbleh
I don’t think the court actually wants to dramatically expand power in a way that lets Dems do things too.
I don’t think the court wants to set any judicial precedents at all where instead they can rule ad hoc as what amounts to a self-appointed super-legislature.
comrade scotts agenda of rage
@Jackie:
It’s enforceable until a court steps in and says “cease and desist” *and* this (mal)Administration bothers to listen.
I would hope various parties will file suit tomorrow because this is totally in violation of existing laws and regulations.
Best way for employees to not comply is simply not turn on their “away” feature because based on my 27+ years doing that crap for DOT, we don’t have any way of knowing it’s on unless they have people email every employee and see what they get back.
bbleh
deleted. I WAS confused.
prostratedragon
Got too late for last thread, but there’s olenty of Ceausecuing in the background of this one, so …
TONYG
@comrade scotts agenda of rage: I’ve never worked for the government, but I worked at a variety of I.T. departments for almost forty years. A common tactic when a person was told to do something idiotic was to “conveniently forget” to do it. These are people who are NOT GETTING PAID ANYMORE. Their employers don’t have much leverage over people who aren’t getting paid.
Matt McIrvin
They could expand it to the point that Dems will never do anything again. But that would also eliminate their power.
cain
@Matt McIrvin:
They’ll just make sure it is narrow enough that Dems can’t use it. Also, didn’t Clarence Thomas say there is no such thing as legal precedents? So, basically they can just change their minds depending who is before them.
It’s hilarious to think that you can have hold that position – it basically means the supreme court only rules in the hear and now and that whatever decision they make can just be overturned. Including their own by a future SCOTUS.
Ruckus
Right now the federal government is seemingly in about as good shape as shitforbrains is, which is pathetical and extremely crappy. What I mean is he’s far worse than 1or 2 months ago. I deal with parts of the federal government somewhat regularly. I’ve just been on the phone for about 2 hours and have gotten exactly nowhere. Between him being “in charge,” he’s also seemingly having more and more mental issues, which are screwing the federal government and therefore us. But especially anyone that has to work or suffer within the reach of shitforbrains, which is a hell of a lot of citizens. I’d bet that anyone that has anything to do with the federal government is having a slight meltdown about now. I have 2 contact areas for 2 EARNED federal services, which seemingly shitforbrains is completely and utterly FUCKING UP. To say I’m unhappy about it is about a billion levels of understatement. I’d seriously bet there are a few million other people about as unbelievably unhappy and pissed off as I am.
Betty
@Baud: It’s been a while so I had to look it up again. Cash rules everything around me. Yes, it definitely fits the current majority on the Court.
RaflW
I’ll support pretty much any Democrat who campaigns forcefully on major SCOTUS reform. Not just some vague statements or adjustments around the edges.
So far I’m liking the idea of having one judge from each of the 13 Circuits being tapped to sit on SCOTUS for a limited time. The thinking is, politically motivated judges would know that if they wrote the sorts of garbage opinions and esp. the one sentence or one paragraph ‘shadow docket’ shit that Roberts & his 5 accomplices do now, the risk of the next iteration of the Court (maybe as soon as the year following) reversing the sh*t decision would remove a lot of the motivation to grab the brass ring.
I’m certainly open to other ideas. A lifetime sinecure & and an appointment process that can be gamed as much as the current system is rotten to the absolute core.
Matt McIrvin
@RaflW: Modifications that would require a constitutional amendment are probably right out.
Kayla Rudbek
@RaflW: I would worry about the Federal Circuit judge being bad (there’s a whole bunch of drama with the Federal Circuit, specifically that they’re trying to force Judge Pauline Newman out; she’s in her 90s but she still seems to be mentally with it in my opinion, although the source is IP Watchdog which is in the tank for the Republicans and pretty anti-Federal Circuit. She seems a lot better than Feinstein was at a similar age at the very least.)
However, in my opinion, it would be a damned good thing to have a judge sitting on the Supreme Court who is routinely used to throwing out cases where there was fraud upon the Patent and Trademark Office in obtaining the patents or trademarks that are being asserted in the lawsuits. Of course, we do then run the risk that the rest of the Supine Court would undermine that basic principle of IP law (and I would say of law in general; false in one thing, false in all things, as my ancient Roman ancestors said).