yes. Even Rachel Maddow said it is not at all clear that he can legally do this. Wrong. Should have said it is absolutely clear that he CANNOT legally do this.
Replies
I would like that to be true. But then SCOTUS granted Trump immunity for no legitimate reason for one of the worst conceivable crimes a president could commit, and here we are. And who knows what will hold and what will not anymore?
aug 26, 2025, 2:31 am • 59 4 • view
Still no. Law is clear and SC has made no ruling. Don’t even sip that Kool-Aid.
aug 26, 2025, 4:18 pm • 0 0 • view
SCOTUS can illegally let him do it. Like yes he can do it because they'll let him but that's not legal.
aug 26, 2025, 7:09 pm • 1 0 • view
This is John Roberts America. He not a hero, but an American disgrace.
aug 26, 2025, 11:07 am • 1 0 • view
Good point. In this era of whothefuckknowsism, I guess it’s responsible Journalism to hedge every bet.
aug 26, 2025, 2:34 am • 4 1 • view
But today, as it stands, Trump absolutely doesn’t have the power to remove board members—just as he can’t fire Jerome Powell, the Federal Reserve Chair. If someday SCOTUS finds differently, that would be a huge change. Just report what’s true in plain English. Don’t caveat it by what *could* happen!
aug 26, 2025, 2:53 am • 54 3 • view
If you took out all the stories with the words "may", "might" and "could" in their headlines there wouldn't be enough news left to fill a newspaper, much less the Internet.
aug 26, 2025, 4:38 pm • 0 0 • view
'absolutely'?
aug 26, 2025, 3:22 am • 7 0 • view
Yes, absolutely. The Supreme Court recently ruled that while the president has the authority to fire the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) at will, this power does not extend to Federal Reserve governors or the chair.
aug 26, 2025, 4:01 am • 34 1 • view
This is good news...
aug 26, 2025, 4:07 am • 0 0 • view
Batshit good news if such a thing now exists — but indeed, the independence of monetary policy was carved out by the utterly corrupt majority.
aug 26, 2025, 4:14 am • 0 0 • view
The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 provides for the firing of a Governor for cause such as malfeasance - corruption, ethical violation, criminal activity. The question becomes: Does her criminal referral to the Justice Department for mortgage fraud meet that test.
aug 26, 2025, 12:26 pm • 0 0 • view
From the text of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913: "each member shall hold office during good behavior and may be removed for cause by the President." How serious must her crimes become before there is cause?
aug 26, 2025, 12:34 pm • 0 0 • view
The Court explicitly stated that the Federal Reserve is “uniquely situated” and shielded from presidential removal powers, citing its historical independence and quasi-private status—drawing a sharp distinction between the Fed and other regulatory agencies.
aug 26, 2025, 4:01 am • 32 2 • view
Federal Reserve Governors/Chair: The Supreme Court drew “bright red lines” around the Federal Reserve, stating that its governors and chair are protected from presidential dismissal and that the Fed’s independence was not subject to the same ruling as other agencies
aug 26, 2025, 4:02 am • 23 1 • view
Reasoning: The majority opinion emphasized the Fed’s distinct structure and historical tradition. Justice Kagan’s dissent called this a “bespoke Federal Reserve exception” and challenged the logic, noting that independence foundations for the Fed are similar to other agencies that were not protected
aug 26, 2025, 4:03 am • 15 1 • view
Future Implications: The recent SCOTUS decision ensures the Federal Reserve remains off limits from direct presidential firing power, safeguarding its role in monetary policy even as other independent agencies lose statutory protections (even if that makes little sense) www.cnbc.com/2025/05/22/s...
aug 26, 2025, 4:05 am • 14 2 • view
The SCOTUS majority opinion distinguishes the Fed’s status from other agencies, reinforcing that its leaders cannot be fired except under terms set by Congress for cause or expiration of term. This carve-out ensures the Fed’s monetary policy decisions remain insulated from executive interference.
aug 26, 2025, 4:08 am • 11 1 • view
"According Trump, the "sufficient cause" is the allegation that has committed mortgage fraud.
aug 26, 2025, 3:57 pm • 0 0 • view
Until they carve out a carve out for the black woman he’s firing? They’ve also shadow docket procedural ruled that the Executive’s firings stand until the merits are sorted out in court. So, though they did seem to carve out the Fed, I can see that same deferential pattern repeating.
aug 26, 2025, 11:12 am • 3 0 • view
Rachel Maddow works for the oligarchy. Not for the people of the United States.
aug 26, 2025, 3:40 am • 0 0 • view
I think she was being sarcastic…
aug 26, 2025, 3:01 am • 0 0 • view
Trump and his sycophants have already defied subpoenas.. they could care less!
aug 26, 2025, 3:07 am • 0 0 • view
POTUS can fire a Fed Governor for “cause”. The whole mortgage lie is so he can claim “moral turpitude” or something similar, thus having case for “cause”. But she can sue him for falsely claiming “cause”, and he can’t fire her until he’s demonstrated “cause” in a court of law.
aug 26, 2025, 3:01 am • 3 0 • view
The cause has to occur while in the job. She bought the home years before.
aug 26, 2025, 3:32 am • 6 0 • view
Interesting thanks
aug 26, 2025, 11:52 am • 1 0 • view