convinced the board would win. So, their factual situation was that they were “fired” pending litigation. They won! They were no longer fired and never had been. Yay! Then the DC Circuit STAYED THE JUDGMENT. So, they are back to being fired pending appeal. USIP has basically been dismantled. If…
this case follows the same path, Cook will be out pending the litigation and Trump will have succeeded in getting her off the Fed Board. He will also proven the concept and that will let him “fire” Powell, too. So, the concern is warranted.
Great analysis. I personally think this is what's likely to happen. And of course she should not give up the fight even though the odds are against her. I sincerely don't understand the accusation that it's "doomerism" to be honest in our analysis and predictions even when they're not happy ones.
I agree. Highlighting the bad faith embedded in our current politics, however you might disagree with the way it's done, isn't an inherently bad thing.
That's not what I did, or say, and you all are tiring me and that's why I'm muting you.
Well I'm muted, but for the benefit of anyone even paying attention, I'm not saying that's what Chris did, I'm saying that's what the person Chris is *responding* to did-highlight SCOTUS' bad faith. And agree or disagree, it wasn't mean or insulting, just a flip reaction. Happens all the time here.
He always regularly violated Wheaton's Law. But more and more he's become just an annoying waste of time with his "attitude policing". That's a block for me.
I just don’t think this is free of doomerism. The analysis acknowledges that this is likely just a test run for firing Powell. And yet, the one agency SCOTUS has deigned to defend is the Fed (distinguishing it in Wilcox). Was that distinction bs? Yes. Will SCOTUS stand firm? Who knows
Unless somebody says, "and so I don't think we even bother trying," I don't think it's ever fair to assume a post predicting an unhappy outcome is "doomerism" like a lot of people clearly did. To be frank, I'm starting to read "doomerism" as just "even if you're right, don't make us feel sad".
To me, doomerism is despairing predictions that ignore all possible counter-evidence—especially now that many are subconsciously seeking affirmation from institutional resilience But I hear you! I will say, it’s also probably tiresome for larger news accounts to constantly be seeing “this ends bad”
Agree the tone policing is a bit much. I value Geidner's work, but the beauty of this platform is *you* get to decide what you want to say. Don't have to take orders from anyone. If it's a problem, mute or block are available, but using a high profile platform that way isn't called for.
Who is arguing we shouldn’t be concerned?