A 90-year-old Supreme Court precedent
protecting Fed independence is on its deathbed

Lease a Crook

FTC and Fed are different, don't think that they have the same rules.

It is hard to argue that Cook's termination isn't 'political' when at this point, she hasn't yet been convicted of a crime and Trump has unequivocal policy disagreements with the Fed Board over rate reductions. But I think I'd rather get rid of the entire Fed apparatus when it has created enormous federal financial liabilities through its currency manipulations.

Constitutionally, there are only 3 branches of government. The Executive branch is the only one that is headed by a single person, the President, whom all Americans can express a vote for. The Presidency is a unique position created for a dynamic purpose, the day-to-day running of the Country. Such a position needs to be fast moving and not bogged down by the considered process of the other branches that deal with the framework of law that the Country runs under. That requires the Presidency to be invested with extraordinary authority and that authority to be completely in charge of the Executive Branch and to be free to act, i.e. immune from prosecution for Presidential acts. It is clear that the Constitution DESIGNED the Presidency that way with clear sight and purpose. The only problem is that a previous SCOTUS made a flawed decision and that needs to be cleaned up. This SCOTUS has had to do a LOT of "cleaning" work on previous court decisions (Roe) and the only reason they are hesitating is because Trump is aggressive in using his power, which is ALSO in service of cleaning up past mistakes of the his branch of government. The right thing needs to be done according to the Constitution, NOT based on what the specific action, i.e. firing a FED governor, is. I suspect the SCOTUS would like a less politically loaded issue on which to toss out Humphrey. It also needs to bubble up within the regular docket, rather than emergency session, as to cement the change. The appeals court decision tees the case up for such "normal" consideration. A VERY smart Trump may exercise patience to let this play out in the court for maximum clarity and impact. A well managed resolution of this could clear the path for other future Presidential actions. The FED is also seeing a YUGE Trump tractor on their back bumper. If they continue their intransigence on interest rates and Cook's firing is decided in Trump's favor, other FED leaders could be disposed of in similar fashion. Because of this possibility, Trump may get the desired interest rate cuts even while Cook's fate is being decided.

Lisa Cook is part of an elite group that sets interest rates .One of the fundamental instruments of fiscal policy. She is (credibly) accused of committing mortgage fraud. No president who has sworn to protect the country from all enemies foreign and domestic can allow her to remain.

So the 1933 guy committed mortgage fraud, too? No? Ok, bye Felicia! It's a lawyer's job to say almost any crazy thing in his client's behalf, doesn't mean a court has to accept it.

Cops in America are routinely suspended from duty if enough information is available to charge them with a felony. This is to protect the integrity of the department. Apparently there is no integrity at the Fed as it is clear from the paper trail that this moron left that she falsified a document for her personal gain.

If the Fed is independent of any elected branch of the United States, just who do they serve? Their member banks? Theit London stock holders? What team are they playing for?

FTA: "Legal scholars understand "cause" to mean work-related misconduct, as the Supreme Court understood it for Humphrey 90 years ago." Avoiding the "appearance of impropriety" is work related. Avoiding even the appearance of being a financial crook and liar. She certainly appears to be as such. As far as "cause" requiring a conviction, if so, then she could murder someone on national TV and hang on to her job. And if there were a hung jury, and a mistrial were declared, she could hang on to her job until the end of the second trial. And if because of some obscure evidence rule she was acquitted, then she could remain on the Fed Board, beyond the reach of anything and anyone. The Fed is Independent, not unaccountable. I'm no scholar. I used to respect Jerome Powell. Now I think he is running a Sht Show.

Anybody who objectively reviews periods of inflation and recession in the U.S. prior to 1913 (when the FED was created) and compare it to the same since 1913 would abolish the FED in a minute. Prior to 1913 inflation was consistently low and recessions were very few and very shallow (if you can even call them recessions). BTW the FED wasn't the only factor behind the great depression, but it was a big factor in terms of making it more severe and longer lasting. Those that tout the importance of keeping FED independent are crazy. When a government entity is given the power the FED has, with no accountability to the citizens they are to serve they asking for trouble. Thomas Jefferson is probably spinning in his grave as he witnesses the independence and performance of the FED. I would do away with the FED entirely. Let the market place determine interest rates on a supply and demand basis (free market capitalism works every time it is tried). Turn the rest (money supply, etc) over to the Treasury Dept.

Please do not bother me by repeating over and over about the "independent" Federal Reserve. The repetitions are not convincing. Powell funded every dollar of Biden's deficits by buying the U.S. Treasuries that no one else in their right mind would. Then Powell lowered interest rates before the 2024 election to get Kamala elected, all with inflation rates still far above the 2% target he set, and after revision after revision in U.S. job data --- downward. Powell knew the Biden economy was a fraud, didn't he? Maybe not. Powell is not an economist. We must remember that Powell is a general building contractor by trade, overseeing the construction of the $3.1 billion dollar Federal Reserve Taj Mahal. We have witnessed first hand Powell's qualifications for running the economy, and overseeing building construction.

An analysis of the legislative history of the provision governing removals of Federal Reserve Board members was posted on Lucianne a few weeks ago. According to this analysis, the original provision specified a "for cause" standard, but Congress inadvertently deleted it. When this error was discovered the drafters of the replacement provision purposely deleted the "for cause" requirement to give FDR more flexibility.

I have had trouble understanding the Federal Reserve from the very beginning. The Constitution clearly assigns responsibility to create and manage the currency of the United States of America to Congress. The Federal Reserve is not a part of Congress, nor is it part of the Executive branch operating under Congressional direction and legislation. So, as one astute L-Dotter noted above, what exactly is it? And who exactly is it working for? A previously unpublished book by Robert A. Heinlein called "For Us the Living" is not a good science fiction novel. But it goes into great detail about things that Heinlein perceived were wrong with the United State in 1938. Chief among them was the idea that the Federal Reserve was a necessary or good thing. Bottom line is it both directly and indirectly creates money (the various M's purporting to be transactionally valid). But it is not helped accountable for ensuring the value of that as a medium of exchange.

I don't care about 90-year old precedents protecting the Fed. The Federal Reserve was supposed to *protect* the U.S. economy -- and by extension its citizens -- from more instances of the many "depressions" and "panics" that occurred in the 1800s. What did we get in the 1900s? A depression in 1920 (that cleared by 1921), the "Great Depression" from 1930 until the U.S. entry into WWII, no effective cushioning of the public from the shock of taking the Dollar off the Gold Standard in 1971 which led to a decade-long debauchery of the currency with attendant inflation in the 1970s, a near-savage recession from 1979-83 to finally kill the inflation but which caused 12% unemployement with 20% interest rates (and people complain about today's 5%), market crashes in 1987, 1998, 2000, and 2008, with the 2008 meltdown coming as a result of permissive mortgage underwriting to poorly qualified home buyers. By any objective measure, the Fed has been totally ineffective in its mission as the economic dislocations that occurred after its creation are worse than those that preceded it. I'm not the biggest Rand Paul fan these days, but on the Fed, he's spot on: End the Fed.